Slashdot Mirror
Iran Launches Payload into Space
An anonymous reader writes "BBC is reporting that Iran has launched its first space rocket carrying a payload. Britain's former ambassador to Iran, Sir Richard Dalton, told the BBC that, if confirmed, such a move could destabilise the Middle East:
"It is a matter of concern. Iran's potential nuclear military programme, combined with an advanced missile capability, would destabilise the region, and of course if there were a bomb that could be placed on the end of this missile, it would in breach of Iran's obligations under the non-proliferation treaty."
From the article:
Iranian TV broke the news of the reported test saying :"The first space rocket has been successfully launched into space.
It quoted the head of Iran's aerospace research centre, Mohsen Bahrami, as saying that "the rocket was carrying material intended for research created by the ministries of science and defence".
In 2005, Iran's Russian-made satellite was put into orbit by a Russian rocket.
But shortly afterwards Iranian military officials said they were preparing a satellite launch vehicle of their own and last month, they announced they were ready to test it soon."
"Iranian media" said this?
No pictures of the reported launch have been shown on Iranian state TV, and no Western countries have confirmed tracking any such test-firing.
While they're at it, where's that cure for AIDS?
Excuse me if I'm not impressed by this posturing.
Iran's potential nuclear military programme, combined with an advanced missile capability, would destabilise the region
The US has already done a good job at destabilizing the region. I doubt it could get much worse.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Can we send Microsoft over there to "help" them with their program?
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
Reuters, amoungst others, is reporting this is a sub-orbital Research rocket, not a space missile.
Get this.....into SPACE. Pay no attention to that man behind the mirror.
Iran cured AIDS, but the evil US is preventing the world from getting the cure.
Iran also cured cancer, saved the world's starving population, and their nuclear agenda is for peace.
It takes more than Iranian media for me to believe anything they say.
--- We need more Ron Paul!
In Nuclear Iran, continent destabilise you! and sorry for my lack of self control ;)
A bit misleading. Yes, technically (if correct), it entered space for a brief period because it went higher than 60 miles. But it is essentially a missile shot. And my guess is that Russia supplied most of the brains to get this done.
I realize Russia may think they're being tricky by challenging the United States in this way, but it's a fool's game. Russia is actually within range of Iran. We're on the other side of the world. Putin really is an asshat.
Why the hell would they bother putting it into space, I just wipe my payload with an old sock.
The Iranians haven't released any photos. I have a nagging suspicion this is the North Korea nuke test all over again. There are a lot of knowledgeable people who think that was a fake (yielded under 1 megaton). And this fits the pattern: desperate, weird country claims major technological achievement but refuses to provide visual evidence.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
Incoming!
Neocon trollbait articles in the morning. Tastyeee. Oh yeah. WHAT ABOUT ISRAEL'S NUCLEAR WEAPONS? So much for a nuclear free region. Iran needs nuclear weapons because it's the only deterrent that US/Israeli imperialistic fascists respect. Just ask North Korea.
"but tigers do what tigers do"
I get your point, but Iran as a tiger? I was thinking more like a Raven that picks over the bones of a dead animal.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Because the Middle East is so stable right now. And who is mostly responsible for this wild stability? Iran?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
I do this every night...
They did claim recently to have a cure for aids..
TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- After 7 long years of arduous work, Iranian scientists here on Saturday introduced a herbal medicine which cures Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=851114 0239
Probably because Iran has supported coups in other nations...no...US does that too..
Probably because Iran ignores the Geneva Conventions with regard to prisoners...no..US does that too...
Probably because Iran makes veiled threats to use Nuclear weapons if diplomatic demands are not met...no...US does that too...
I guess you're right!
Blar.
Britain's former ambassador to Iran, Sir Richard Dalton, told the BBC that, if confirmed, such a move could destabilise the Middle East.
Aw, shit. And the region was so calm and quiet before. Damn you Iran!
Iranians open falafel shop on moon.
I doubt it could get much worse.
It's the middle east - it always gets worse.
It was more a comment about hegemony than specific to Iran.. Yeah, I think raven or crow or vulture would be a more specific description.
meh
Serious question. Is there an international treaty that says they don't have the right to attempt to get a satellite up into space?
Mind you I think we need to wait for independent confirmation, could just be political bluffing. The Iranian government knows that if they can get something into orbit and a successful nuclear weapons test done then the USA will back away from hawkish talk of using 'whatever means necessary' and suddenly become all friendly and overlook any issues to get round a table and trade for future oil supplies.
We all know the number one reason any nation tries to get a satellite into orbit is so the rest of the world knows that they can drop a bomb onto anybody else's doorstep / president's country retreat if they feel they need to.
Sir Richard Dalton, how come launching a rocket destabilise the region?
Is it like, placing military everywhere on every part of the planet?
Between Iran and America, America is the "real" theocracy, right ? ... or at least that what many idiots here want you to believe.
It is America and what they have in orbit that scares me. That and Israeli Zionists and MOSSAD's manipulation, they are probably the worlds most powerful and influencal intelligence organisation (more so than the CIA).
Why is Iran's technological advancements systematically tagged as a danger to the rest of the world?
> if there were a bomb that could be placed on the end of this missile, it would in breach of Iran's obligations under the non-proliferation treaty
Sir Richard Dalton's declaration is nothing more than propaganda. Basically he is saying that IF those rockets were armed with nuclear heads, then it would be a breach of the non-proliferation treaty. So Iran's space program is in nothing a breach to any treaty. Then why would it be tagged as dangerous to us western countries?
See Muslims in space!
We're Muslims out in space
We're zooming along, protecting the Iranian race
We're Muslims out in space
If trouble appears, we'll put it right back in its place
When infidels attack us
We'll give 'em a smack, we'll slap 'em right back in the the face
We're Muslims out in space
We're zooming along, protecting the Iranian race!
Have you read my journal today?
This isn't just about the "US". No one wants Iran to have this capability (except, of course, Iran). Of course, if anyone ever actually has to do anything about Iran, I'm sure everyone will conveniently forget. I'd say you'd be first in line to forget, but you can't forget something you never knew.
You might want to read this. It's something that will be coming up again. The thing about UN resolutions is that there's only one kind that has teeth, and allows UN members to respond with force in the event of noncompliance. They're called Chapter VII UN Security Council resolutions. This is one of those resolutions. Everyone agreed.
International Official Reaction to IAEA Report on Iran
FEA20070223094786 - OSC Feature - International -- OSC Summary 23 Feb 07
IAEA Board of Governors in Vienna (IAEA.org)
On 22 February the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] issued a report to the organization's 35-nation board of governors declaring Iran has failed to suspend its enrichment related activities. Full report
This product compiles official global reaction to the IAEA's report monitored by OSC as of 1630 GMT on 23 February.
IRAN
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad:
"If we show weakness in front of the enemies, their expectations will increase, but if we stand against them, because of our resistance, they will retreat." Full report
"Fairness requires that those who want to conduct talks with us also close their fuel cycle programs" so "we can conduct a dialogue in a fair atmosphere." Full report
Iranian Expediency Council chief Hashemi Rafsanjani:
"They will not reach anywhere through this path . . . the only way is to stop this bullying and stop this preconditioning so that we can all sit at the negotiation table." Full report
MIDDLE EAST
Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal:
It is "too soon to adopt drastic measures. We continue to aspire to a peaceful solution." Full report
RUSSIA
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov:
Lavrov "intends to carefully study the report by the head of the IAEA Muhammad al-Baradi'i on Iran's nuclear dossier." Full report
Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Vitaliy Churkin:
The UNSC's goal should not be "to adopt a new resolution on Iran or introduce sanctions against Tehran, but a political regulation of the Iranian nuclear problem." Full report
EUROPE
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy:
"We think that is now necessary to draft a new resolution, as quickly as possible, the six of us, the three Europeans, in particular, but also the Russians, the Chinese, and the Americans. It is necessary that this resolution go a little further than the one we already voted for unanimously on 23 December. It is only with unity and firmness on the part of the international community that we will create what is just beginning to stir in Iran today, namely a debate about the validity of President Ahmadinezhad's policy." Full report
German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier:
"What was confirmed today was to be expected, that Iran has failed to meet the expectations of the international community." Referring Iran to the UNSC is "one of the options" for handling the situation. Full report
UK Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett:
"Iran has so far failed to take this positive path and comply with Security Council requirements . . . we will therefore work for the adoption of further Security Council measures, which will lead to the further isolation of Iran internationally . . . we remain determined to prevent Iran acquiring the means to develop nuclear weapons." Full report
Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel:
Iran must understand that "the international community is united and firm" on the nuclear issue and that "dialogue must continue . . . diplomacy is never finished." Full report
ASIA
Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxi
Not to play devils' advocate here, but why is he throwing a hissyfit over Iran launching payload into space (if that's even true... the details are scarse, to say the least). Have they even broke a treaty here? Oh, but "if a bomb were on the end of this missile, it would in breach of Iran's obligations". Meh.
It's the same crap with their nuclear program, all over again. Let it be. It's not like the first world has a monopoly on technology that might be put to military use. Frankly, nowadays i worry more about North Korea.
Is it really that hard to understand the difference between a democratic, sane, country such as Israel holding nuclear weapons (and claiming they will never be the first to use them) and a crazed, totalitarian-run state such as Iran, constantly claiming they want to wipe out their neighbors as soon as they can, holding nuclear weapons?
Are people like you simply saying these things to 1. annoy, just for the heck of it (read: "I need some attention and this is the easiest way I know how to get it", 2. out of some pathological need to always side against the mainstream (read: "I desperately need to feel different and special, no matter what"), or 3. because your IQ is low and your analytical reasoning and logic centers are FUBARed?
"Iranian TV broke the news of the reported test saying: 'The first space rocket has been successfully launched into space.'"
This report brought to you by the Iranian TV department of redundancy department in Iran, via TV reporting.
Perhaps. They aren't all that satisfied with the bogus "intelligence" the US has been feeding them, that's for sure.
If I had to guess, the Iranian's claim to have a viable space program and the US claim that the Iranians have a viable weapons program are both about as reliable as the previous claims about Iraq and the smoking guns that were going to be mushroom clouds. I suppose I'm slightly more skeptical of the weapons programs claims, if only because Dick "never right about anything" Cheney has weighed in in support of the story.
--MarkusQ
If you read your own article it claims that DPRK has been successful in containing AIDS, not a very impressive feat considering the police state that they all like under.
That over the past 300 years Iran has made no attempt to expand its borders in a forcefull way? It didn't start any massive wars with neighbors nor has it been positioning itself as an agressor.
Iran + Nuclujar power = bad Because: they got oil
And ofcourse, being an Islamistic country automaticly means that they don't have the intelligence to understand that while they do have oil supplies now those won't actually last forever. So its best to start looking for alternatives while the choise is still yours to make.
This is also why, unknown to many people, many Iranian researchers have investigated several other means of energy generating. From the windmills in Holland right to a experimental farm in Germany where a whole village basicly lives on the cow doo-doo which is recycled and used in a collective heating.
And IMO the same applies to this new research. Yes, its probably best to keep our eyes on them but lets not overdo things. And I certainly do hope that the number one moron in the US doesn't "liberate" the Iranian people as he did the Iraqi people. I don't think those people really need the kind of "freedom" which the US has to offer.
...that it seems most people in almost all countries in the world really just want peace and to go about their daily lives, while the leadership and a very vocal minority seem dead set on imposing their will (belief system, morals, economic policies) on everyone else.
If tommorow, the occupant at 1600 Penn. Ave walked out to get his morning paper, and decided "screw this, I'm going to recall every last US soldier to the US, formally apologize to to world for my mistake, and ask everyone to for give us" I suspect you'd probably get better than 80% support, and actual forgiveness, from even those populations which have suffered the most. And then their leaders would whip up a frenzy. You know it's true - Bush did it over 9/11, and managed to fan the flames enough that many americans believe that we went into Iraq because of 9/11. Sad, but true.
I think Rodney King was on to something.
Could someone explain a few things to me please? For the past year or so I have been rather confused on what the harm is in Iran having weapons. Why is it so bad or "illegal" for Iran (or North Korea even) to have a nuclear arms program? Why is it bad for these countries to also develop their own weapons? Why is it that the United States and its allies are the only countries in the world that can develop weapons of mass destruction without having everyone else step in and say "hey, don't do that?" I'm just curious. Thanks.
Less-geeky computer repair alternative for Lansing, MI
I say lets truck one in to every middle eastern capital, embed it in a huge block of concrete in the center of town, put the triggers in the hands on the leaders in the region with a half hour delay to STOP the bombs from going off.
As long as everybody there to stop the trigger, everything's fine.
The moment some country stops reporting in, boom, they ALL go off.
Case closed. M.A.D. on a small scale.
We stop worrying about any one leader suddenly deciding to blow up his neighbor.
It also makes space based weapons unnecessary.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
> *SOMEONE* always fills a power vacuum.
Yep. And now the Neocons are whining because Iran is filling the power vacuum that we created by knocking off Iraq's government.
For some reason they think the cure is to knock off Iraq's government too.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
If you look at the news source for that claim that Iran is supposed to have made, its quite clear its a political game of chess. ynetnews is a a political newspaper for Israel, its in their best interest to portray Iran as some dumb country under the rule of Ahmedenijad.
However this current news in sync with recent events happening in Iran. And yes the region will be destabalized, the question is will it be for the good or for the ad. IRaq war destabalized the region, was it for the good or for the bad. Further, whats more important is will this destabalization be for the good of the Iranian people or not.
I think the answer is that destabalization will benefit Iran in the long but is a blow to percevied control of west and its allies in that region. Technological breakthroughs are always bebeficial to a country in the long run as they do not have to rely on bread crums thrown at them by those on power. India proved that by going nuclear in the 70s itself. I was tough to live in India during the 80s because of those sanctions, BUT because of those sanctions India learned to be self sufficient, damn US turned back a cargo ship full of rice when India did its first tests in the 70s, people went hungry, today India is oneof the largest exporter of rice. We wouldnt have Basmati rice if it wasnt fo rthose nuclear tests.
So I say go Iran, just dont make those damn nukes.
The troubling aspect of Iran and nukes is not that they will use them, but that they will disseminate weapons materials and the weapons themselves to the many many many radical terrorist bands of wing-nuts that they support. Iran is the primary support of Sunni radical armies all over the Middle East. The Iranians aren't just interested in exterminating Israel, which they openly admit to. They're not just interested in putting the 800 pound American guerrilla in it's place. But also, they are perfectly happy exterminating fellow Muslims that don't belong to their Sunni tribe.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
I think the Iranians are just using the British rocket as an easy means to do launch testing of their own equipment. If thie "scientific" equipment does well under launch conditions, reports the proper inertial guidance, then it's an easy way to to do testing.
..........FULL STOP.
(mistakenly attached this to a thread instead of general topic on first post)
I respect Iran's desire to attempt to pursue nuclear weapons to secure their sovereignty and national security from larger powers and increase their power and influence in their region. For the same reasons, I respect other countries' desires to stop them to preserve their own national security and strategic interests in the region. Iran does not have in common with Iraq that the leadership allowed, even if grudgingly, international inspectors and claimed they did not have or intend to have nuclear weapons. Iran does claim that intent. Those countries, principally the U.S., who avow a policy of nuclear non-proliferation must, if they want other countries that would follow the path of Iran to take them seriously, soon crush Iran totally and decisively and install a new caretaker government that disavows all nuclear ambitions.
(Why was this in science and not politics?)
Ok, then here it is from the Fars News Agency, Iran's supposedly "independent" news agency:
Iran Introduces AIDS Cure
And here's one from the Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran's state news agency:
Iran discovers formula to cure AIDS
That good enough for you, or do you want to keep thinking it's a propaganda game against innocent little Iran?
..they are going after the X-Prize, and space tourism. Hell, if they were not throwing around all this nuke-business, Iran would appear as a sophisticated nation without military objectives. We geeks would be impressed by their drive for space and medicine et al. All this nuke/missile (my dick bigger than your dick) is a waste of human effort. We are such a !@#$ing pathetic species (still).
Face it, you can't trust any media, not even Slashdot.
Shouldn't try to stop 'em - it's their sovereign right to do whatever research they see fit. If they haven't built their own nukes yet or their own ICBM's to carry 'em, they will. We can't punish them for what we fear they will do with these technologies, only hold them fully accountable for what they actually do once they have them.
I wish it were otherwise - I'd love to see what our military could do to yet another smaller, less technically equipped and supported force. I really would. Unfortunately, our much publicized goal of "spreading freedom" runs right into a brick wall when we deal with entire societies which don't see it our way - so . . . do we obey our moral and ethical obligation to permit the sovereign nation of Iran to do whatever research they like and publish whatever news they like (regardless of the facts; the facts have nothing to do with this), OR do we start with the political/economic/military pressure which seems to be in our best interests but conflicts with our basic assertions regarding national sovereignity?
If the current social/economic/political situation in the Middle East is "stable" then destabilising the region would be a huge boon to the entire world.
Are there a lot of Sun Ra fans in Iran?
I hate to be a spelling Nazi, but s/Nuclujar/Nukyoulur.
What you do with a computer does not constitute the whole of computing.
So Iran, a country with no nuclear weapons at all, is the threat? There is no evidence of a weapons program, only vague allegations. Why are we so focused on Iran when it is the existing nuclear powers that present the real nuclear threat. None of the nuclear powers have any intention of disarming, which they are required to due under article VI of the NPT. And I mean fully disarm, not get rid of a few missiles as a token gesture.
The US withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 based on the flimsy excuse that the Soviet Union non longer existed, when we all knew Russia was effectively taking over in that role. Now the US is actively pursuing an ABM system and the Russians are getting quite twitchy about it. This presents much more of a nuclear threat than Iran's civilian nuclear program. Why are the media not continually harassing the US over the issue and accusing them of threatening world peace?
Clearly the US sets the news agenda, so perhaps the relative silence over the ABM threat is not surprising (even if it should be). If it is taboo to talk about the existing nuclear powers as the real threat, what about Saudi Arabia? There have been a number of independent reports over several years which claim Saudi Arabia is pursuing a secret nuclear program with Pakistan. Why is this being ignored. Could it possibly be because they are an ally?
Or so it would like to think.
The US miltary always reserves the right to shoot down any satellites it thinks would threaten its security. Plus when the EU wanted to setup Galileo their alternative to GPS, the US wanted a code to be able to shut it down etc..
Hi America, it's Europe here. Wanted just to mention that, while Americans have been whining about skyrocketing gas price, the effects have been noticeable but much lesser over here.
The reason is that in most European countries gas price used to be 80% tax and 20% actual product, and the overall price was about 6 dollars a gallon (one euro per litre; basically we paid a litre what you paid a gallon). That was the level for years, meaning that people, corporations and governments all accounted for this sort of gas price in decision making. When the gas price doubled, the price we pay increased only by 20%: not nice, but no tragedy either.
A large chunk of America has been built on the assumption of cheap oil. People commute over larger distances, cities are way more horizontal and less packed, there is much less public transport, the car park is much less efficient since people did not use to care about efficiency. This is especially critical because transport is almost half the energy consumption in a society: if the cost of something like that doubles, the least that can happen is a big bump in the economy.
The point is, be it Iran or Iraq or Saudi Arabia, cheap oil is no more anyway. The cheap fields are all used up, production is going down, but demand is going as usual exponentially up: that means only that oil price is bound to skyrocket even more. Maybe someone in the oil lobby will blame Ahmadinejad or the Iraqi insurrection for it, or Bin Laden or whatever other scarecrow: the truth is, there is simply less oil. Of course it will not finish over a few days, like some early doomsday prophecies that the oil lobbyists take out from their pocket to demonstrate that, well, it has never happened when the "environuts" predicted, so it will never do: in the worst case, the industry may well shift to Fischer-Tropsch and produce oil from coal. Only problem, price is way higher than what the current energy system in America (and most industrialized countries) can possibly sustain.
The bottom line is, governments all over the world (and especially America) should patch this giant hole quickly, and pass measures to reduce consumption ASAP and start the transition to other sources. Having the oil lobby in the White House, though, is hardly helping. The oil lobby wants everybody to keep using oil, a ware that everybody needs (it takes decades to move to a different energy source), that will have increasingly high prices (and they know it), and on which they consequentially plan to make ever higher profits (anybody noticed that Exxon has made a few pennies more than usual after the war in Iraq?).
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
It would not remain in orbit but could rise to about 150km (94 miles) before a parachute-assisted descent to Earth. That's just above the Karman Line. And it's important to note that bragging in the Middle East is often like the threat-display behavior of elephants -- lots of posturing. Recent memory should provide some guidance and experience here!!
Because they are not a free society and dangerous. Having this technology only makes them more dangerous to the rest of the world.
The are also unstable weirdoes.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
No, that's pretty much "certain".
Also, the semantics of saying "viable weapons program" is subtle, but a great move on your part. Having a "viable weapons program" doesn't imply you have current production capacity for nuclear weapons. It means you have a weapons program. They're still refining uranium at below 5%, which is a far cry from the over 90% they'd need for weapons production. But not being there now doesn't mean they won't get there, and the key is to prevent that from happening.
Thus, the recent unanimously approved Chapter VII UNSEC resolution with regard to Iran.
It's not just the US.
AIDS in Iran is mainly caused by injecting drug use of heroin. Most of the heroin driving this injecting drug use comes from Afghanistan. The amount of heroin has been increasing dramatically since the US led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. According to the UNODC, opiate production there increased by 60% in 2005-6 alone.
A IDS/Resources/LancetHarmReductionIran.pdf
Iran actually does have a far more liberal and effective system of HIV prevention that the US. Known Islamist sympathisers like the World Bank and Lancet recently wrote:
"Several factors helped catalyze change and explain Iran's current progressive (HIV prevention) policies: (i) the important role NGOs and civil society played in advocacy and implementation of successful programs that reached vulnerable groups; (ii) the close cooperation and common understanding between the Ministry of Health, the prison department health authorities, and the judiciary authorities and other stakeholders, on drug treatment and HIV/AIDS, leading to increased government support for implementation of evidence-based harm reduction policies; and, (iii) informed advocacy among senior policy-makers paving the way for adoption of harm reduction measures in early 2000. A national harm reduction committee has been established with representatives from various ministries, academic centers and NGOs.
Harm reduction programs are now implemented by both government and non-governmental facilities. A program recognized as a best practice, is the triangular clinic which integrates services for treatment and prevention of STIs, injecting drug use and HIV/AIDS.17 These clinics are set up in prisons and by NGOs to effectively reach IDU communities. A unique model for comprehensive harm reduction is being implemented by the Persepolis NGO. It provides needle exchange, methadone maintenance treatment, general medical care, and referral for voluntary counseling and testing. It runs drop in centers for street-based IDUs as part of a continuum of care, and services extend to the provision of food, clothes and other basic needs."
(HIV/AIDS Prevention among Injecting Drug Users: Learning from Harm Reduction in Iran, World Bank 2006) http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTSAREGTOPHIV
Google for harm reduction and HIV in the US. Judge for yourself where HIV prevention is more effective.
I guess the lesson is this: there is active propaganda campaign being waged by the US and its allies against Iran at the moment. As in the case of the USSR, everything is being painted black. Laughing at "cures for AIDS" is part of this propaganda campaign.
Judging by HIV prevention evidence at least, it is pretty clear where religious fundamentalist nutsos are doing the damage.
There is one reason above all others than Iran should not have nuclear weapons: The combined lack of: democratic principals, human rights, open government (such as access to information laws), and toleration of dissent without prosecution. Only countries that pass a certain basic but critical threshold of certain values should be allowed by us (those who share and implement those values) to have certain types of weapons.
This is not just an abstract ideal, but rather a desire to make sure that the usage of such weapons is done with as much responsibility throughout the country as possible. Now there will be those who fiddle with the definitions of those values, eg what is a democracy? etc. But, I'm talking within very broad strokes here.
In fact, I argue that we should take this idea one step further and implement values-based trading relationships. As opposed to just one or two levels of trade (such as Most Favored Nation), I propsoe many idfferent levels of trade, all split based on certain core values and/or security concerns.
This would be difficult for us to achieve, and would no doubt require a re-alignment of our economy, but in the end we should not divorce our economic, security and moral interests, but rather unite them under one cause.
From the BBC Article "US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said what Iran needed was not a reverse gear, but a stop button.
She also said she was prepared to meet Iranian officials if Iran stopped nuclear enrichment.
Earlier US Vice-President Dick Cheney renewed a warning that the use of force could be an option if Iran continues to defy the West."
"The US probably the most silent on Iran right now".....
Dumbass, too dumb to read the fucking papers or even listen to the news.
The focus will not be on the US, but on Israel. The elected and religious leaders of Iran have sworn to destroy Israel. But Israel is the only state in the Middle East theater with a Nuclear Arsenal. So long as they have a nuke, and now one else does, Iran will not make a move, because no matter how many troops they poor over the border, Israel could nuke them in an instant. But.... If Iran develops a nuclear weapon, then you reach a state of mutually assured destruction. If Israel launches a nuke at Iran, Iran will nuke back, so neither will nuke each other. Instead of stabilizing the theater though, it opens the door for open ground troop warfare. Now, the Israelis have an amazingly well trained, organized, and efficient army, but Iran has more people, and would get religious and political extremists, terrorist backing, and financial support from other states in the theater.
If Iraq has stabilized somewhat at this point, it would become the forward launching point for a multinational ('Westernized' nations) attack force that would decimate Iran. If Iraq is not stabilized, it means higher troop concentrations in Israel, and other quasi-supportive nations (like Turkey) from which to launch the campaign from.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
I do not see anything in that article mentioning the word orbit, and frankly a ballistic shot into space is just not that impressive, even the top end of the amateur rocketry types manage that these days, see some of the stuff the Reaction Research Society are flying for examples.
Sure having a reasonably heavy sub orbital payload delivery capacity is militarily useful (If the accuracy is reasonable), and this is an entirely believable thing to achieve with almost off the shelf components, it might even be possible to obtain large subsystems as surplus, you would be amazed by what is available, see http://www.nortonsalesinc.com/ for some wild stuff (Those old X-15 engines look interesting for this).
Now putting a reasonable payload into orbit (while it adds little militarily, except the ability to hit targets worldwide) is a far more impressive feat as it requires a very substantial tangential velocity at sufficient altitude, much harder then just getting to 100km alt.
Regards, dan.
The fucking load of murderous bullshit that Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld and the assorted American far right lunatics known as conservatives spewed forth before reducing Iraq to the orgy of blood and violence that it is now means that no one will believe anything that anyone in power in the US says for a long long time, and so, even if Iran were to blow the fuck out of Moses and Chaim in Tel Aviv with a nuclear blast, no one would believe what the US government was saying.
Next time, think before you act.
There's no way this could have surprised anyone if it were true. Launching a payload into orbit would have been detected easily by Western intelligence, either by sigint before the launch or via early-warning systems.
Sorry to prove you wrong
Sadam was an atheist, that later used the Islam for his own motives.
There are no stupid questions, Just a lot of inquisitive idiots. (from a good friend)
No, you're just wrong, and made that up to justify your moral equivalency. The US nuclear doctrine is quite clear. It will only use them in response to a nuclear attack or to preempt one.
The idea of the US threating nukes to diplomatic demands is ridiculous, and you just made that up. Unless you have credible sources on that, I call bullshit, and I just completely obliterated you.
Go back to school, boy.
are you an american (=us) parrot???
This has nothing to do with Nuclear weapons, Bush wanted to invade Iran before the current excuse. Remember 'Axis of Evil' from 2003? We know they need nuclear power with the oil running out.
So we've gone from.
Bush: "They're an axis of evil, lets invade them"
Bush: "They're trying to get nuclear weapons, lets invade them"
Bush: "They're behind the Hisbollah in Lebanon, look our poor colleagues in Israel are valiantly cluster bombing those terrorists apartment blocks full of terrorist sympathizing children, quick lets invade them"
Bush: "They're behind all sides of the insurgency, look we found a secret plan that spells it out" (I'm not making this up, they've made this claim). "lets invade them"
Bush: "They're behind the Shiite site of the insurgency, lets invade them".
At this point we're faced with nothing but lies and fake info. The same lot, the Neocons and Israeli hawks want a war.
Until the rules apply equally to everyone, no one will take the treaty seriously. They'll give it lip service, and if they want, develop nuclear weapons with varying degrees of sublety. The US has made it clear that they will not invade countries that have nukes, so it's very much in the best interests of peace for countries in the "Axis of Eeeeevil" to develop them.
The USA does all the things that Iran is doing...but we still use Iran's actions as a reason for invasion. Gotcha.
Blar.
All politics aside, if this is true, then another country has the scientific capability to get stuff into space. I consider that good news, regardless of the country. Well done, Iran!
P.P.S. I'm doing Science and I'm still alive.
However, it is clearly apparent that my government (we) loves sending my tax money there. I realize that they aren't going to change their minds, so I advocate restraint.
Pre-emptive strikes are for the morally bankrupt.
It's called compromise, look into it.
Blar.
Because you've already spent all your international credibility on the last crusade. You won't be getting anything more than token support from countries who will expect something of equal or greater value in return.
BURN!!
He was being sarcastic. He's trying to say that the dangerous religous fundimentalists are in the US. And of course, he's right.
I think this is good. I think having nukes in Iran would do great things for peace in the middle east.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
1. If ... ... ...
2. If
3. If
4. ???
5. This could destabilize the Middle-East.
Wasn't the Middle-East already destabilized by the Brits themselves since the early twenties of last century?
Iran is a sovereign nation, and they have equal rights to develop whatever technology they like. If they say it is all for peaceful use, I believe them until the contrary appears. The world certainly doesn't need lessons from history's greatest aggressors: the US and the UK.
So what did Ahmadinejad actually say?
"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."
"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time"
Source
So how in hell did your post get modded "insightful"? Slashdot isn't turning into Free Republic, is it?
You're using her as bait, Master!
"such a move could destabilise the Middle East."
Well, that's a shame. It was so stable up till now.
No sig.
For all the anti-US trolling on slashdot you seem to be very ignorant of one very obvious question: why does Iran, which holds the second largest oil supply in the world, need nuclear energy?
A rea=iran&ID=SP135706
On the one hand they have repeatedly declared they'd like to wipe "big satan" (USA) and "little satan" (Israel) off the map. On the other hand they have absolutely no need for nuclear energy anytime in the forseeable future. How can any sane human being not put one and one together?!
The US did not manufacture any of these statements; they don't need to. Iran's own president has repeatedly made declarations to this effect on their national TV station. If you insist on ignoring anything the US says, how do you explain the fact that Iran's own news agency has published this?
Here are a few sources of further reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#Iran
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&
"Iran's potential nuclear military programme". There is no evidence to prove that Iran is enriching uranium for anything other than nuclear power, which according to the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty is a perfectly legal thing to do. "Third pillar: the right to peacefully use nuclear technology". For more information see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Prolifera tion_Treaty
You might also want to look at those countries that signed it and those that did not. Then look at the current state of the planet.
Go on, mark me as a troll or flamebait. But just look at the document first.
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
Ah, thank you for pointing out what should have been obvious. That'll teach me to post anything before my daily dose of caffeine has kicked in!
With respect to your point, I'm torn with respect to Iran's nuclear ambitions. There has been a lot of jumping up and down about Iran's nuclear program *might* lead to weapons and *might* destabilise the Middle East even more. That said, as far as I understand Iran is within its rights to develop nuclear power options for civilian use. The crux of the issue seems to be Iran's assertion that it's simply trying build a power source versus the U.S. position that Iran is clearly planning to turn Israel into a glass parking lot.
The U.S. does seem to be intent on spreading a lot of FUD lately, in so very many areas of its policies. Although I of course acknowledge that fear-based policies existed long before the U.S. troubles with Middle Eastern societies, I really believe that the most terrible and far-reaching consequence of the September 11th attack was the conversion of the U.S. into an almost entirely fear-driven nation. Rationality in policy really seems to have been set aside and I fear that the situation in Iran will be the latest evidence of that.
P.P.S. I'm doing Science and I'm still alive.
always mosh clockwise
You believe that Iran has grievences that can be satisfied on conditions acceptable to us, and that the rulers of Iran are interested in settling things calmly if only given the chance. This is a very western view and not a universal human attitude. There are utterly different mindsets out there that you don't seem to understand.
Western societies become great by this basic tenant: mutually agreeable transactions (of any sort- economic, political, etc) make all participants better off. That's my mindset, that's your mindset, that's what makes the west so great. In the middle east we're most often dealing with the "Thar" mentality. I suggest you read up on it and realize there are non-western schools of thought out there.
Anywhich way, I'm sick of the attitude that the US is always wrong, so the US must capitulate or accomodate belligerents. There are well over 100 countries on this planet today, and in any given year, 99.8% of them aren't on the list of "Who might the US blow up next?." Staying off this list doesn't require much.
Maybe Iran should start asking itself "What are all the other countries in the world doing differently to stay out of America's cross hairs? What can we do to change?"
Of course, only the USA/westerners do evil, right? So only we should ever have to change our position- is that what you're getting at?
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
What's even more terrifying, is if my office ac breaks, which causes the temperature to rise and then my chocolate bar melts; thereby, creating a mess, which i have to clean up, causing me to be late for my dentist appointment across town. Being late I would have no naturally have no recourse but to speed, which would likely result in a car accident, and if the person in the other car happened to be a life long friend of Lucifer second cousin, then Lucifer might seek revenge by granting super evil powers to my sworn enemies, resulting in... well expanding this scenario is left as an exercise to the reader.
There is only one historic fact on the use of nuclear weapons. One nation actually used them against another nation and that nation is the United States. Not once, twice against a country that was allready defeated and on its knees. So who are the dangerous bastards here ?
Deleted
Misread the . in the following as a , and caused quite a doubletake.
"BBC is reporting that Iran has launched its first space rocket carrying a payload. Britain's former ambassador to Iran..."
I feel like death on a soda cracker.
>But officials later said it was for research and would not go into orbit.
>It would not remain in orbit but could rise to about 150km (94 miles) before a parachute-assisted descent to Earth.
It's a real and important difference, not a pedantic fine point. It takes *way* more energy to get into orbit, and the strategic implications are radically different.
If you can put a payload in orbit, then as soon as you develop reentry vehicle technology you have an ICBM with global range. Going into space simply means you have a ballistic missile, and the already existing Shahab 3 has a 2,000 km range. Missiles with twice that range were already believed to be under development.
There is nothing new in this article. The summary is in grave error.
But if someone on slashdot (an AC, no less) tells us we can't trust slashdot, do we trust them?
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Hmm. Then again, if Israel, Iran, and their immediate neighbors all got nuked, I suppose that would definetely advance a certain kind of peace in the Middle East. But somehow I don't think you meant the peace of the grave...
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Remember the history between Iran and the United States. About 50 years ago, the US went out and knocked out a 'too left' democratic government. About 25 years ago, the US gave weapons to Iraq to attack Iran, supporting a decade-long war. Today, Iran is supposedly next on the hitlist in the 'war on terror'.
If I were Iranian, I'd be pissed off at the Americans too! I'd be sitting there going "They're out to get us! They're terrorists and fascists!" too! I'd be working on getting the only weapon in the world powerful enough to get the US to stay it's hand too!
History: It doesn't repeat, but it does rhyme. If you refuse to learn about history, then you've got no foundation to build solid beliefs upon.
It's been a long time.
Uh huh. And what *cough*American*cough* biased news service did you learn this from?
The Palestinians are NOT the only ones causing the problem. In fact, I would say that it's the other way around.
Israel is run by psychopathic lunatics. Have you ever talked with a fundamentalist Jew before? I went to high school with a lot of Jews and several of them were close friends. But a significant portion of the Jews I grew up with were, in my view, functionally insane. --The ones who were salivating about going to Israel to serve in the IDF were intensely fucked up, propagandized Jews who had zero rationality with regard to the facts and history in the Middle East, were filled with race hatred and I would be utterly terrified to be Palestinian around them if they were armed. And on drugs. --Did I mention they were also drugged-up assholes most of the time?
There are some very screwed up people out there, and they live on both sides of any given border.
The only difference is that the Jews happen to be armed to the teeth by the West, propagandized up the wazoo, and are being driven by the Christian Right to trigger Armageddon so that Christ will be forced to show up. The Palestinians are largely hapless bystanders in this insanity.
-FL
Despite similar overblown rhetoric during the Iran-Iraq War, the much more radical early regime of the Islamic Republic came to peace terms with their Iraqi invaders. The much more moderate government of modern Iran isn't going to do anything that will invoke nuclear retaliation from one of the world's largest nuclear arsenals (Israel's.) It's also worth remembering that the Presidency of Iran isn't a position with anywhere near the power of the Presidency of the U.S. He doesn't have the same power to commit his country to war than Bush has or that a dictator like Saddam had. However, when a bit of rhetoric in the media can increase oil prices and dump millions of dollars into Iran's economy, you're going to hear a lot of rhetoric.
I hate to say it, but he may be right: One of the two factions is going to have to be destroyed for the fighting to stop. If there was a third path, it would have been discovered some time in the past 25 years.
It's unfortunate that the Jews want Israel for religious reasons. I'm sure there are plenty of places on earth that would happily give up a few dozen square kilomteres so the Jews could have a homeland in a place that wasn't filled with people who want to blow them up.
It's been a long time.
Indeed Iran's position is clear, but Americans and Israelis have done their best to muddy the waters. Ahmadinejad has stated quite correctly that the Zionist regime should end, and this is reported in the West as saying that Israel and all Jews should be exterminated with nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, has repeatedly confirmed Iran's support for the Arab League's position on Israel-Palestine, that calls for peace and normalisation of relations with Israel. This is not generally reported.
Given the current drum beat to war (nearly identical to the one for Iraq -deja-vu!), a development like this that appears to threaten everyones interests, if it pans out as real, could not only increase the likelihood of going to war in the first place, but that it might concievably be done as part of a coalition of nations this time instead of unilaterally. If this were to happen to the degree of coalition response seen in GulfWar I it might actually be successful. Of course, the US (dunno about Britain) is already stretched so thin financially and militarily that they couldn't pull it off without a draft and switch to full war economy, so maybe not.
~!J!
Secular jews are some of the smartest, funniest and most loyal friends I've got, and anyone who judges their people by their race should be condemned for it.
Nevertheless, Zionists are one of the most evil organizations on earth, made up of people whose common tie is that they hold to an evil, selfish, ruthless and elitist view of the world.
They're no less deserving of being overthrown than the Mullahs in Afghanistan.
The Prince of Persia is right.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
These organizations are not the same as Al Quaeda.
They don't go around bombing countries that have not done anything against them, unlike Al Quaeda that has bombed places as dissimilar as Indonesia (Bali), Istanbul, Spain, and the US for all kind of completely disjointed reasons.
You may agree or dissagree with the plight of the Arab peoples in Lebanon or Palestine, but they keep their attacks focussed in an enemy state that has no qualms in doing extrajudiciary executions, punishments by association, and contravenes the most basic rules of war engagement whne it suits their needs.
That Iran supports these organizations is not surprising, the US has its own puppets in the area and both countries play this macabre dance with gusto.
Those real guys you are mentioning have not attaked anybody that has not attacked them as far as I know. Al Quaeda has, any serious government should concentrate on that while keep an eye on Iran without make the mess worst than it is.
WHat Bush seems to want is to somehow fix the monumental idiocity that Iraq was by commiting the US to something even worst: the complete destruction of the Middle East, Israel included, as the only means to solve the crisis there.
No country in the region would be a functioning society anymore if the US decides to attack Iran. WHat the US should do is what many US presidents did with the USSR: contain the threat and wait the the idiocity that an Islamic Republic is collapses under its own weigth.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Ha! Thanks for the chuckle! I've heard about a mental condition in which people are entirely unable to recognize sarcasm. It seems you and three mods all suffer from this terrible disease.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
It's not so clear cut. Endless repitition does not make something true; Ahmadinejad never said he wanted to physically destroy Israel, only that he wanted an end to the Israeli regime.
You needn't be "torn" with regard to Iran's nuclear program.
As Scott Ritter pointed out recently in an interview, whose statements are more likely to be true?
That of George Bush and Dick Cheney, who demonstratively LIED about EVERYTHING connected to Irag and are continuing to do so with respect to Iran.
Or that of Ayatollah Khamenei who has issued a direct Islamic fatwa proclaiming that nuclear weapons are not consistent with the Muslim religion.
As Ritter pointed out, Khamenei is not a "mad mullah" nmeaning that Khamenei does take his religion seriously. For him to issue a fatwa like that while knowingly pursuing a nuclear weapons program would be LESS likely than the opposite situation.
This is not to say, of course, that religious leaders don't delude themselves or others. I don't trust anything a religious leader - or ANY religious person - says. However, Ritter does have a point.
More importantly, we don't HAVE to rely on Khamenei. The IAEA has repeatedly stated that there is absolutely NO evidence that Iran has ANY nuclear weapons program. The ONLY thing the IAEA is concerned about are some questions about what was done in Iran in the PAST - certain documents that apparently were received by Iran from the A Q Khan network in Pakistan, and certain projects that might have been conducted by the Iranian military - all in the PAST.
I repeat - there is NO evidence WHATSOEVER that Iran HAS or HAD a nuclear weapons program.
None.
Nada.
EVERYTHING the IAEA has actually seen in Iran is legal and permitted under the NPT.
EVERYTHING that Iran IS doing with their civilian nuclear program is under the eyes of the IAEA inspectors.
Furthermore, the notion that even IF Iran HAD a nuclear weapons program - which by the way if they started TODAY, would not be for another ten years - since, as Ritter points out, that's about how long it takes to GET a nuclear weapon - that they could threaten Israel, whhich has an estimated 100-400 nuclear weapons, including nuclear-tipped cruise missiles on submarines - let alone anyone else - is laughable.
No, there is absolutely no doubt in this situation as to what is going on. The US government intends to widen the war in the Middle East by starting one with Iran - as a result of neocon ideology and war profiteering goals.
There are TWO aircraft carrier battle groups and two other Naval strike groups in or near the Gulf now. The USS Reagan is reportedly on its way to join them. The Enterprise could be returned there in a matter of weeks. That makes FOUR aircraft carrier battle groups and two strike groups - plus mine-clearing ships plus thousands of Marines plus newly distributed strike aircraft in the region. An additional "surge" of three additional aircraft carrier battle groups could be performed within a month or so if ordered.
Bush intends to start a war with Iran, most likely in the next ninety days, although of course one can't be sure of the timing. What is nearly certain is that he will start one before he leaves office - and that means probably before the election campaign actually begins in 2008 - which means he will do it this year. And if HE doesn't, the Israelis have basically said they WILL in 2007.
The result will be thousands or even tens of thousands of US soldiers killed, hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of Iraqi and Iranian civilians killed, a ballooning war cost into the trillions, the destruction of the US economy via $150-250/barrel oil and possibly the dumping of the dollar by the Chinese (who will be seriously pissed if they can't get oil from Iran due to the war), massive terrorism against the US and Israel throughout the world - including inside the US (which is MADE for car bombs and suicide bombs) - the complete destabilization of the Middle East, and conceivably the destruction of a major Israeli city by one of ITS OWN nuclear weapons (obviously the best tactic any terrorist could use.)
And your Congress is not prepared to stop it. Without the immediate impeachment of Bush and Cheney - which simply is not possible given a reasonable time frame - it can't be stopped.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Wake up people. You are been giving propaganda Kool Aid and you are having it with relish.
The real terrorists the West should be worried about, as the attacks in NY, Madrid, London, Bali and Istanbul show, most likely are already living on their targets of choice, in many occassions they may even be citizens of the country they intend to attack.
Your comment about Hezbollah is uninofrmed and inane and only clouds the real issues.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
If by 'ally' you mean 'pusher', then yes. The western world is still dependent upon oil, and will be for the forseeable future _even if_ massive alt energy efforts are successfully and immediately undertaken, as such things take time to propagate through the economy and culture. Til then industrialized nations are, to varying degrees, oil junkies, with all the disadvantages that entails and the same pusher/addict dynamic between themselves and Saudi Arabia, Russia, etc.
~!J!
.... that are in conflict with the US.
Clarification: hating the US for being a full supporter of Israel is not to be in conflict with the might country in question.
Futher hint: Iran did not like the Taleban.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
OK, let me redress the balance:
The recent actions of the US have brought peace and prosperity to the peoples of the middle east, they live happy and content in their now improved standards of life.
There, don't say there are no people just and sensitive to the realities of the Middle East.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Iraq was stable by most serious measures after the UN impossed sanctions.
They were no longer a threat to the Kurds in the north, forget about their own neighbours (every time they did anything unbecomming the coalition forces punished them as required, normally for violating the exclusion zones).
And Saddam Hussein lead a secularist regime, in which women studied and worked and went to universities. If you think he was a religious fanatic it just shows how badly misinformed you are, for which you should feel trully ashamed at this stage of this macabre game.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
It is impossible to please and schizoprenic maniac with persecution delirium, a big ego and the weapons to defend those sentiments...
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I talked to a geophysicist with lots of experience in the field, he confirmed that the data collected could only be generated by a primitive nuclear device.
As I understoo things, a nuclear device has an specific "fingerprint" when exploded underground. People with familirarity of this field of expertise have confirmed the nature of NK explosion as nuclear in nature.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And stop your reluctance to accept what is by now glaringly obvious: NK has the capability to produce a crappy nuclear device and the capability to launch rockets far enough to make things very uncomfortable in the region.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
If you implying that the US supported Bin Laden in the '80's? The I would have to imply that you are wrong. [...]The people we supported were the same groups that helped us overthrow the Taliban
We have always been allied with the Northern Alliance. We have always been at war with Al Qaeda.
I think it boils down to accuracy. A lot of us computer geeks try to be extremely accurate in everything we say. When someone says something different from what they really mean, it often throws us for a loop. I often don't get jokes where the punchline simply involves saying something that is not true. Which is all this type of "sarcasm" really is, when you think about it: saying something not true or that you do not believe. (The other kind is exaggeration which is a lot easier to notice) :)
In a perfect computer geek world, much like programming languages, you would have to say precisely what you mean and not obfuscate issues with "clever" debating tactics.
That said, as far as I understand Iran is within its rights to develop nuclear power options for civilian use.
Iran, unlike Iraq, is not the loser in any recent war and has no requirement not to develop whatever the hell nuclear weapons it wants. ;)
Yes, it's signed the non-proliferation treaty, under which it's limited to civilian uses, but it can exit that at any time with a three month window, and it's not in violation until it actually start building nukes. Here, I'll quote 'Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.'
And even then there's no actual penalty for breaking the treaty except that you get kicked out. Which means...well, the only advantage of being in the club is that nuclear powers are legally required to sell you cheap nuclear devices for no-weapon use, such as blasting mountains and stuff.
Anyway, Iran's not like Iraq, which had signed a surrender agreement that included not building WMDs. Even if Iran came flat out and said 'We're making nuclear weapons, bitch, what are you going to do about it?', it's not actually engaged in any illegal behavior.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Those are both Iranian positions. Ahmadinejad has vowed to "wipe Israel off the map" - a "glass parking lot" is an obvious way to do so. I am amazed by how so many people pretend to "respect" Jihadists, but refuse to believe what they say.
Ahmadinejad doesn't run Iran, you lunatic. The Ayatollah Ali Khamenei(1) runs Iran, and he's repeatedly said relations with Israel should be normalized and has supported the Arab League's quite sane position on Israel and Palestine. He's also said that any use of nuclear weapons is inconsistent with Islam.
But keep drinking the Kool-Aide, buddy.
1) It's not damn rocket science, his title is 'Supreme Leader'.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
The idea that the land was empty, and the Arabs migrated because the Jews came in and developed it is propaganda at its fullest.
Read some history. Don't spread made up facts because they're convenient with your views.
I wonder which sympathetic nation could really use a good rocket? Perhaps there is one out there with a fledgling nuclear weapons program with money burning a hole in their pocket. I dunno, some place in Asia.
I always get a kick out of people that say progress for a nation 'destabilizes' the region. What else are they supposed to do? Live in huts the rest of their lives? I think 'they' are trying to argue that unless Iran is moving toward democracy they are 'destabilizing' if moving forward at all.
If I lived in the middle of the desert and could get raw uranium on the cheap, say, from Russia, why wouldn't I build nuclear power? I have an entire desert to bury the waste in. If I were a state in which energy (oil) was my number one export, why wouldn't I do everything I could to sell as much oil as possible while searching for alternative sources of power for my own people. Then I could jack up the price of oil with my cartel (OPEC) connections. It is kind of like being a crack dealer: If you want to be successful, don't use your own product. Iran is dependent on others to process it's oil. Using nuclear power mostly eliminates this need and allows them to play hardball in the market.
Of course, in the pursuit of nuclear power if such nation produces a few nuclear weapons on the side for either profit or defensive use, big deal.
I'm just waiting for one of these rogue nations to go 'ballistic' and blow something up. I wonder if they realize the reaction would be a small scale nuclear conflict that would likely render their nation totally useless for about 10,000 years. No, there is no way they are that stupid, right? Welcome to the new cold war.
Perhaps we will all have lead-shielded gas tanks in the future to protect us from radioactive oil.
I for one welcome our new Iranian overlords.
Yes! and here is the proof: http://www.radioislam.org/protocols/
First and foremost, I am categorically not a fan of US foreign policy, as it is myopic, petty and/or inhumane more often than not.
That said, the iranian government has, in succession:
1. Threatened to destroy a nation.
2. Turned itself into a global focus point for nuclear rethoric and chest-thumping.
3. Declared the triumphant launch of an ICBM equivalent.
WTF are they thinking? It's almost as if they're screaming at Cheney-Bush Inc: "Lookee here, fuck us up! We'll give you excuses to do it!"
Can't they keep their zipper closed until there's hope for dialogue in 2009, once the jug-eared goon squatting in the White House moseys on back to his ranch in Texas or Paraguay or wherever?
Are they itching to have their country and population brutally victimized? Then again, remember how they used children as suicide soldiers during their war with Iraq back in the eighties.
Are they itching for an excuse to turn off their oil spigot, generating a global economic crisis, enriching the texan oil robber barons in the process? Remember that whenever there's a crisis of this sort, Chevron, Texaco and Shell invariably end up reporting their highest quarterly earnings in history.
As the cherry on the putrid cake, both sides in this fiasco play the religious card, the impending fulfillment of prophecy as some sort of implicit fact and key policy element.
All the world is threatened to get caught in the crossfire. Just another in-your-face scenario that reiterates the urgent need for alternative energy sources, as decentralized as humanly possible.
Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
Our (United States) government does nothing for us (the people). Any other country that gains the (not our) government's majority attention is welcomed as I and we should all fear what will happen when there are no more "rogue" countries for our anti-American government to focus it's attention on. Those midnight congress meetings will matter when the armed forces will be marching through our neighborhoods "protecting Americans against Americans".
- John
http://www.jabcreations.com/
I think you wanted to say Saudi Arabia but somehow got things muddled.
Oh wait, they are US allies.
Er, never mind.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The US is a world power, Iran is a regional power. The national interests of the US and Iran usually have not, do not, and will not coincide. The controlling elite within the Irani government has traditionally made a point of publically working at cross-purposes with the US. The US has made a point of attempting to isolate Iran. In culture and religon, the US and Irani ruling elites have virtually nothing in common. Their beliefs and customs are frequently offensive to each other.
As a result, it's natural for the Iranis to attempt to extend abilities with a direct military application, and for the US (and more quietly, the EU) to object.
Luke, help me take this mask off
They could probably launch something geosynchronous, but right now they're busy figuring out how to make the satellite face Mecca five times in the same day, and whether that 'day' should be sidereal or solar.
sic
It is political rhetoric - it is a very long way between the two countries and Syria which will never co-operate despite very superfical similarities is in the way. Giving Hizbolla rockets a few superceded rockets is a little different to wiping Israel off the map - it's easy to talk about it but when it comes down to it it will never happen and thankfully only a few extreme crazies actaully want to do it. A lot of people in the middle east talk about getting rid of Israel to get popular but when it comes down to it they don't care enough to give Palestine enough money for food. When a few people get old and die (or just end up in jail) on both sides things will get better despite all the sabre rattling that is going on now.
You know, Iran should change it's name back to Persia.
Because the addition of Islam to the area has put back Persia about 2000 years. And your defending it here is pathetic. I'll bet you think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is really a great, sensitive guy.
Just cut it out.
The prophet is rolling over in his grave every time Ahmadinejad's name is mentioned. I'm surprised you can't feel the earthquakes.
Or, you have brain damage to your prefrontal cortex
http://www.apa.org/releases/sarcasm.html
Honestly, the statement "fundamentalist shills like the world bank" was so obviously sarcastic to me I assumed you and everyone who modded you up were not native English speakers. I enjoy a clear debate, but that one WAS clear to me. If he had said "according to the world bank, which, by the way, is actually quite the opposite of a fundamentalist mouthpiece" he would have lost readers because he is stating the obvious in a boring way...
But, whatever, at least you got some well-deserved karma. That wasn't sarcasm. Neither was that. Nor this one and the next one. This is the last one. Wait--
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Seei cleID=D7A6170FCD40C9D43BE7EB83295B0324
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&art
Actually, it wouldn't. Iran doesn't have enough nukes to totally destroy Israel on a first strike. What's more likely is that they'd make a lot of noise about lauching without actually doing it, and trigger an Israeli strike. But the Israelis are unlikely to wipe out Israel, because that would be genocide which they being founded by genocide survivors won't do. So it's more likely that Iran would use the limited arsenal they have and Israel would make a limited response, or possibly preempt them. Probably at some point it would turn back into a conventional war.
Lots of people would die, but it wouldn't make the region more peaceful. More likely, it would cause the current cold war between Israel and Iran to heat up.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Well if Ahmadinejad isn't speaking for Iran, why does the Supreme Leader not just point this out publically. It's quite possible that what you say is true, and Ahmadinejad is just playing to his home base. But if you were Israel, how would you know? Maybe the whole thing is complicated triple bluff and Iran really will nuke you once they can. In which case you should get them first.
In any case, the fact that the Iranian establishment let Ahmadinejad say the things he keeps saying is incredibly irresponsible, given that they don't have diplomatic relations or any back channel to reassure Israel that he's not speaking for Iran. It seems like they have got so used to being impotent militarily that they don't understand the implications that having nuclear weapons has on what you can let people say publically.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Boy, that Bojangles sure is a helluva dancer!
It's quite possible that what you say is true, and Ahmadinejad is just playing to his home base. But if you were Israel, how would you know?
Iran is not the United States, their President does not have war powers. The Israeli right and their American counterparts just choose to publicly focus on Ahmadinejad's inflammatory rhetoric because it allows them to push a hard line position.
What immediately comes to mind is that if Iran were to blow up a pellet bomb in orbit, that would eliminate space research and satellites for a long time. And it will likely be the first defensive action they take when USA attacks them. As for the general bullshit that many believe about Iran, please check your facts from multiple sources. For example, Iran has no nukes or nuclear weapons program. USA has a long history of demonizing countries and people they want to destroy and spreading false facts and paranoia about them:
l
Answering the Charges against Iran: Dispelling the Demonising Myths
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/01/360674.htm
The saddest poem
If the U.S. is "made" for car and suicide pussy bombings, why hasn't it started yet, huh smart guy? You are trying to say they are they waiting for us to invade Iran? That's just happens to be the tipping point huh? Wow.
You are delusional. I want an apology when the U.S. doesn't invade Iran since you claim it's iminent. How could Bush do that without the vote of "our" Congress?
Learn the rules, and get a clue.
Since we're picking the nits, CIA was still the one financing Osama and others in the war, though they did so through middle men to get deniability: http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24- 318760.html
e wArticle&code=20070225&articleId=4931
And it seems USA is now in the process of financing more Bin Ladins into this world:
"US funds terror groups to sow chaos in Iran": http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=vi
It's not that Ahmadinejad doesn't speak for Iran; he is the democratically elected president after all. It's just that he tends to articulate more criticism of Israel, whilst the Ayatollah tends to articulate more support for peace. The two positions are not really contradictory. I, for example, am highly critical of Israel and yet I want Muslims and Jews to live in harmony.
You have to remember that you do not hear the whole story. None of us do. In the West, we get snippets and soundbites that the media think are good journalism, but are actually just sensationalism. Your view that the Iranian establishment should muzzle the president is not reasonable. He is perfectly entitled to express his perfectly legitimate views on the Zionist state. He is even entitled to express his stupid view that the Holocaust may or may not have happened. If the people of Iran don't like it, they can vote him out next election time (and they may do so). It is none of anyone else's concern.
You mention the idea that having nukes confers a special duty not to use language that could appear threatening. Interestingly, I can see no recognition (neither from you nor anyone else) that such an idea might apply to the sole world superpower; the only country to have nuked cities; the country with military spending equal to the rest of the power combined; the country that recently devastated a country neighbouring Iran, killing over half a million of its citizens; the country which is currently amassing forces around Iran; the country whose military is known to have drawn up detailed air-strike plans again Iran; and the country which is currently openly threatening Iran with attack, and specifically not ruling out the use of weapons of mass destruction. (Hint: all of that refers to the USA.)
Not to mention the fact that your statement implies (inadvertently, no doubt) that Iran has nuclear weapons. Not even the craziest neo-cons are suggesting that. Even the nuttiest of the nutty are only suggesting that Iran is intending to develop such weapons in several years' time , after it has completed it's current research into nuclear power stations. And even that is paranoid, unproven speculation.
So a souvereign country joining the space age destabilises the region, why several hundred thousand foreign soldiers including carrier groups and airstrike capabilities covering pretty much all of the region doesn't ?
...or looking for an excuse for the next war. But we know that, it's been going on for months now. All they're waiting for is a Tonkin Gulf incident, isn't it?
Sorry to break this to you, but invading that other country destabilised the region. There's no superlative of "unstable". The region is unstable thanks to Bush and his oil buddies and claiming that anything else anyone else is doing would "destabilise" it is just a weak attempt at shifting the blame elsewhere.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
so you're saying that your "good" jews are ok, but only as long as they are not "real" jews. there is no such thing as a jew without judaism and no such thing as judaism without zionism. i wonder what you think about the blacks: "as long as they have proper pronounciation, they're my best friends" you sir are a racist asshat whether you want to admit it to yourself or not.
>>Nevertheless, Zionists are one of the
>>most evil organizations on earth,
>>made up of people whose common tie is
>>that they hold to an evil, selfish, ruthless
>>and elitist view of the world.
You should be ashamed of yourself, mr asshat. zionists want NOTHING to do with you, they want their own homeland and to live their own lives. if you consider zionists your biggest problem then you need to reevaluate your priorities. with islamic attrocities happening in the UK, darfur, canada, iraq, indonesia, moscow, new york, tel aviv, and anywhere else in the world where something explodes, you DARE say that zionists are among the most evil organizations? you are an asshat to an unsurpassed level.
Uhm i'm confused, ...i thought we were talking about Iran here not Bush...
"...Let's see:
intolerant idealism -check
racist -check
willing to sacrifice entire nation for megalomaniac goals -check"
The real danger lies, I think, in Bushco staging an elaborate Gleiwitz incident type of operation that makes Iran look like an immediate, credible threat, in which case, they could, with only minor political backlash, re-institute the draft, and get the 300,000 men in Iraq that they needed to begin with, plus the addition 200,000 to 400,000 (minimum) that they would need to successfully invade Iran. Unfortunately, with the rhetoric coming out of the Bushco Corporate HQ, it seems like that might be exactly what they're planning.
my pet machine
Reading some of these comments I am shocked at the arrogance and ignorance of Americans. It's no wonder the world hates you. You are a spoiled, frightened little nation of snotty nosed cocks and no doubt your hubris and xenophobia is a prelude to your decine back to isolationism and irrelevance in the new world.
Hi!
... "
I am translating this directly from this morning's newspaper headlines:
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:
@Iran had already got access to technology for production of nuclear energy and Iran's position on this matter can be compared to a train which travels on a one way rail and breaks and reverse gear does not have any meaning in such a train.
With god's blessing from a while ago we have been able to put Breaks and Reverse Gear of this train to tha trash and also announced this to them, enemy takes out its weapon whenever they are out of words and
"The real danger lies, I think, in Bushco staging an elaborate Gleiwitz incident type of operation that makes Iran look like an immediate, credible threat, in which case, they could, with only minor political backlash, re-institute the draft, and get the 300,000 men in Iraq that they needed to begin with, plus the addition 200,000 to 400,000 (minimum) that they would need to successfully invade Iran. Unfortunately, with the rhetoric coming out of the Bushco Corporate HQ, it seems like that might be exactly what they're planning."
e nt
Other examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_Mainila
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incid
Believe it or not, the world, and people do change. If you are one of the idiots whom believe sticking your head in the sand is a solution, you need a severe reality check. Apparently 9/11/2001 was not adequate for you. Iran's government, Hamas, Al-Quieda are all the same bird of a feather; they want to kill you and everyone else that does not believe the way they believe. No, they don't care about diplomacy. They don't want to sit at a table and run their mouths... They want to kill you. Bottom line, end of story. These extremists (<- keyword) all believe one thing; you are an "infidel" and therefore must be destroyed. No they cannot be changed, this is what they are. Therefore, they must be removed.
How is this different than modern US/EU society? If a criminal has the same attitude, they are removed from society.
Yes, righting the world's wrongs seems fruitless, but if you've ever played a game of chess, you would understand. To be on the offensive and control the game, often wins the game. Understand that every ounce of momentum these people gain, every test missile they launch or test they perform brings them a step closer to another 9/11 where they bring they violence to us. Believe it or not, the US and British armed forces are protecting you and your families, by keeping the violence off our home soil. The same reason the US still maintains the Korean border every day, for decades. If war breaks out, it will happen there, not here.
Step away and see the forest from the trees. This launch is part of a much larger problem. Not only have they proven again and again they are hellbent on attacking anything not of their believe system, but that they know the now "you're-not-unaccountable/stall-with-your-jaws" liberal world in the EU and US won't do anything about it.
That said, Iran is in trouble. Take a look at a world map someday, and think how does Iraq play into all this?
I think you both missed something *and* misunderstood the sentence. Frankly, an organization can have sympathy for the plight of a demographic group without necessarily becoming a pawn of its fundamentalist movement. "Islamist sympathizer" and "pawn of Islamic fundamentalism" are, you see, two completely different concepts.
The popular definitions for a sympathizer in both Merriam-Webster's on-line dictionary and my Longman's dictionary of Contemporary English are:
1 : to be in keeping, accord, or harmony
2 : to react or respond in sympathy
3 : to share in suffering or grief : COMMISERATE ; also : to express such sympathy
4 : to be in sympathy intellectually
"The U.S. does seem to be intent on spreading a lot of FUD lately, in so very many areas of its policies."
A lot? You mean, like, "nothing else but"? I haven't seen anything substantive in so long that I've given up looking for it.
It's getting more and more bizarre to live here; the facts seem to live exclusively in satire. Fortunately, we have several excellent court jesters to go with our King.
"Press to test."
(click)
"Release to detonate."
I think this is the most informed comment in this thread. This is exactly how it could pan out. As a matter of fact, this was how the Iraq war was made palatable by the US administration as well. At the moment, I live in Israel. During the last Lebanon crisis, I have spoken to many people, civilian and military alike, who doubt that Israel would ever be the first to engage Iran. Israel does indeed however have a large nuclear strike force, so there is no immediate need either. The thought that the Middle East would be seriously threatening to Israel in the coming ten years is, indeed, laughable.
Frankly, in spite of the fact that I live in Israel and am engaged to a Jewish woman, I would applaud it if Iran did indeed get a nuclear arms program, nuclear power and a space-faring capability. It's the principal that matters to me.
Who in the world died and made the US king of us all? Frankly the arrogance of the US administrations boggles me, it hearkens to the Colonial days of Europe. I think the US, and any other nuclear power, ought to shut up about "non-proliferation treaties" as long as they don't get rid of their own stockpiles, and the same applies to the space-race. It is *not* the US or Europe's "God-Given Right" to be technologically and economically superior to the rest of the world.
At the same time Bush is spiking this hubbub about Iran, programs are in place in the US to make more "efficient" delivery of nuclear strikes possible, and the US is sitting on the means to destroy the world three times over. To me, there is no inherent justice in this situation. I say it's no more than fair that Iran gets the opportunity to play in the same league as a matter of principle.
Then some US denizens might argue "we are benign and fight evil" and all that rot, but then I should remind you that when the former Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Wim Kok, issued a statement after 9-11 that urged the US to excercise a degree of caution in the invasion of Afghanistan due to the lack of proof that there was a causal link between 9-11 and the regime in Afghanistan at the time, the US retorted in a frosty "if you're not with us, you're against us" manner.
Threatening one of the oldest and most progressive consensus-democracies on the planet is not benign in my book, so as a citizen of the sovereign nation of the Netherlands, I find the US' foreign policies objectionable at best.
I just don't understand it. For months, every media outlet I see or hear has been telling me, over and over, how dangerous Iran is, how it is working to acquire nuclear weapons, and how its having rocket capability makes everything still worse.
Yet I can't, for the life of me, see any facts to back up these assertions. It's beginning to feel as if Chicken Little has taken over the US and UK governments. Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has scrupulously observed its provisions. (Relatively easy, when you don't have any nuclear weapons). It says that it wants to acquire nuclear power for peaceful purposes, and that it does not intend to build any nuclear weapons.
So our governments declare (with no evidence whatsoever that I can see) that the Iranians are lying, and that they are working on a nuclear weapons program. Therefore the UN must pass resolutions telling them to stop enrichment, and if they don't the USA will do what it usually does to countries that don't knuckle under and obey its instructions.
How does this stack up with Pakistan, which acquired nuclear weapons and has a stack of them ready to use? Or Israel, which AFAIK has not signed the NNP Treaty and has ignored more UN resolutions than I've had pizzas, and yet is assumed to have a stock of nuclear weapons ready to use? Or, come to that, with the USA and UK which plan to continue enhancing their nuclear weapons capability, in spite of their obligation under the NNP Treaty to work towards getting rid of it?
As the Iranians point out, their country has not attacked any other nation for at least 300 years - at which time it was under the control of foreign rulers anyway. How can it profit them laboriously to construct a paltry few crude, low-yield nuclear weapons, when the USA is ready to hit them with the full thermonuclear force it prepared for a war with the USSR?
I know which scares me more - the medium-sized nation with a track record of peaceful behaviour and no WMDs, or the big nation with tens of thousands of nuclear and thermonuclear weapons, massive stocks of biological and chemical weapons, a defence budget about the size of the rest of the world's combined, and a record of attacking close to 2 dozen other nations since 1945, at the cost of 4 million or more lives.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Just three weeks ago I was talking to my professor. He is a Croatian working in Germany for 30 years. He was concerned that US is now going to bomb Iran out.
Since I don't read much, I didn't know exactly the situation he was talking about. He told me that US has always benefited from war. They have all the incentives to go on a new war:
1) The economy is down
2) Old weapons need to be dumped
3) Current government has already been to 2 wars (Afganistan and Iraq) with no positive result. They can successfully bet on a third war now
4) Popularity of US is going down
I argued that since their (US's) economy is down, they will not prefer to go on yet-another-war.
That was 3 weeks ago. Is it surprising that suddenly there is jump in 'How Iran is a threat/What Iran is doing' news?
God save people from anything evil.
I'm getting sick of this crap:
"Iran did __________. It will destabilize the middle east"
"Iran did __________. It will destabilize the middle east"
"Iran did __________. It will destabilize the middle east"
"Iran did __________. It will destabilize the middle east"
I know you shouldn't feed the trolls, but Mr AC - you are an imbecile if you cannot see that we are going through a repeat of what happened a few years ago.
* GWB is talking up how Iran might soon have nuclear weapons. c.f. Saddam's fabled WMDs.
* Dodgy evidence is appearing (this laptop which contains plans for a nuclear device ENTIRELY IN ENGLISH with no notes in farsi!) c.f. dodgy stories about Saddam trying to obtain yellowcake from Niger which subsequently turned out to be BS.
* He is drawing different conclusions from intelligence than his own intelligence agencies (for example saying that the Iranian government is providing weapons to "insurgents" in Iraq)
* Troops are moving to the gulf despite no war having (yet) been declared. c.f. Iraq buildup.
SURELY NOT!!!!!
- Even if they did try, there are enough Americans pissed off about the current war that there would be massive protests; bigger than the anti-Vietnam protests of the 60s; the kind that could "hurry-up" an impeachment proceeding. When you have most republicans running fast from the Iraq war and the President, a move to spread that war to Iran would make the prospect of President Pelosi seem like a blessing.
Wow. I'm a liberal and that scares the piss out of me!http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid =1167467762531&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFu ll
funny how the BBC managed to acquire images, then. We saw the launch right here in the UK. I guess you yanks don't have us free a media as we do.
You totally missed the point. Too easy: it was once legal to own black people. In 20 years we will say "it was once legal to kill someone just because you *thought* he was going to harm you.".
In the moment you might have a point, but in the long-term pre-emptive strikes work against you. Now the rest of the world/society/town knows that you might just attack them because you *think* they are up to something. This will affect how they discuss issues with you, and you might well become MORE exposed to a pre-emptive strike from one of many other people!
Blar.
"100 km (62 miles) is the international boundary of space [wikipedia.org], whether you like it or not."
...that has no capability of achieving orbit.
I suppose that's true.
But let's put the pieces together.
1) Iran is working on a nuclear device
2) Iran has stated they want to see the destruction of Israel
3) Iran tests a ballistic missile...
4)
5) They haven't the infrastructure to support an orbiting vessel.
6) But allows them to put a nuclear weapon within Israel's borders.
So your conclusion based on events is that Iran is "exploring space"?
I mean, I realize middle eastern cultures seem to be based on the hormones of 18 year old boys ("Let me show you how long and powerful my rocket is! Now bow to my will, infidel, bow to the will of Allah!!!! Dirka dikra muhammed Jihad!"), but let's be serious for moment. This isn't the UN where you can make outrageous claims and not expected to be challenged. You are challenged as liar. The prophet is disappointed with you.
Yes, learn from history. US is to McCarthyism as Iran is to Anti-Americanism.
... *sigh*
Remember the history between Iran and the United States. About 50 years ago, the US went out and knocked out a 'too left' democratic government.
Iran nationalized the oil industry, which brought down foreign investment, trashed the economy, and made the government unpopular. The "coup" was backed by Iranians.
About 25 years ago, the US gave weapons to Iraq to attack Iran, supporting a decade-long war..
The Shah bought F-14s from the US. After the revolution they took our embassy hostage. After Iraq attacked Iran (they were weak because of their revolution), they begged the US to supply them with weapons and return their frozen money.
Learn more than one or two facts about history before lecturing other people.
Thus, while you immediately took his statement to be sarcasm, I wasn't certain whether the statement was said in an ironic manner or not. I've frequently heard anti-globalisation groups accuse the World Bank of being a shill or pawn of imperialistic powers. Similarly, I've heard the Lancet accused of being a pawn of the blind traditionalist allopaths who inexplicably refuse to publish articles on crystal healing. Neither of the preceding viewpoints have any basis in reality, in my opinion, but many times I'm damned if I can tell the difference between one of these nutters and a person being facetious in plain text.
However, the remainder of the seed post should have been sufficient to clue me in, so Mea Culpa. I, and my pre-frontal cortex, thank you.
P.P.S. I'm doing Science and I'm still alive.
* GWB is talking up how Iran might soon have nuclear weapons. c.f. Saddam's fabled WMDs.
* Dodgy evidence is appearing (this laptop which contains plans for a nuclear device ENTIRELY IN ENGLISH with no notes in farsi!) c.f. dodgy stories about Saddam trying to obtain yellowcake from Niger which subsequently turned out to be BS.
* He is drawing different conclusions from intelligence than his own intelligence agencies (for example saying that the Iranian government is providing weapons to "insurgents" in Iraq)
* Troops are moving to the gulf despite no war having (yet) been declared. c.f. Iraq buildup. And let's not forget --
*???
*PROFIT!
Sadly, I'm not joking.
Best "String" Ever!
I merely replied to the generalization about how often people seem to miss when someone is intentionally not telling the truth. I am not the GP poster. Please pay attention to who said what.
The revolution was backed by those who felt the mandate of the local oil industry should be to benefit the society.
The coup was backed by the Iranians who felt the mandate of the local oil industry should be to benefit them, like it used to.
And of course, by America, who would much rather have Iranians subjugating Iranians than pay American soldiers to do it, if they could get away with it.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
" or some such to denote sarcasm in my region (pre-html days). You are right that sarcasm can sometimes be missed, but that doesn't mean I can't give you shit for missing it!
2) You gave me a great idea. I'm going to publish a paper on using magical crystals to heal pre-frontal cortex damage.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
ah. "<p>" is what went in that quoted newline...
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
There was an Israeli comment made recently to the effect that the "Iran problem" HAD to be "solved" this year because otherwise in their view Iran would be past the Israeli "red line" as to nuclear technology.
By the way, current reports are that Israel has asked several Gulf states for IAF overflight permissions in preparation for an attack on Iran. And because the Gulf states are beholden to the US, apparently they agreed, despite being very likely targets for Iranian missiles if the US attacks since they host US forces in their countries that will be taking part in any attack on Iran.
There are also rumors - and I emphasize that these are RUMORS - that Israeli fighter bombers have ALREADY been turned back once by the US Air Force which refused to give them permission to cross into Iran. I doubt these rumors are true.
As for securing oil for its own use, Bush has increased the National Strategic Stockpile - that is one of the red flags people mention when they assess the likelihood of war with Iran.
The main thing is that the US is definitely deploying forces to the Gulf which would be the most useful for an initial attack on Iran - aircraft carrier battle groups, strike groups, Marines, and fighter jets at bases within range. ALL the signs are an impending attack - just as before the Iraq war, Bush claimed the decision hadn't been made to attack Iraq, when in fact it HAD been made and Bush was merely seeking to go through the diplomatic "motions" before attacking to mollify the UN and European community.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
What kind of moron do you have to be to moderate thinly-veiled anti-semetic bull**** as insightful?
The problem with your point one is that while it may be true that the neocons believe Iraq is unwinnable, most people assessing them believe that the neocons believe that actually EXPANDING the war would enable them to RECOVER from the disaster in Iraq.
In other words, the neocons want to "double down" their bet. And since they believe that Iran was the primary target all along, significantly more important than Iraq was, I'd say this assessment makes sense.
The neocons are ideologists first and war profiteers second. They don't care how much damage occurs to the US economically, geopolitically or militarily as long as they don't have to acknowledge that their ideology is wrong. Look at how they've reacted to the disaster in Iraq. Look at any of Cheney's comments. These people are both deluded and greedy and they DON'T CARE.
As for point 2, of course Israel doesn't want to strike first. They want the US to strike first. They want the US to bear the brunt of the war. Israel will take a few Iranian conventional missile hits. So what? That is no threat to Israel's existence. The only problem Israel might have is Hizballah in Lebanon and possibly Syria. Israel believes it can handle those threats militarily - although such belief was severely shaken last summer when Hizballah handed the Israelis their heads in southern Lebanon. Israel believes that as long as Iran is taken out, they can deal with Lebanon and Hizballah and Syria.
I read an article yesterday that says basically the plan appears to be to break up all the countries around Israel into ethnically and religiously partitioned states that are thus so weakened they cannot threaten Israel hegemony in the Middle East and thus allow it to do whatever it wants to the Palestinians. This theory makes sense - except of course that such partitioned states will become breeding grounds for Muslim extremists which will massively increase terrorism. But the Zionists appear to buy into this concept.
As for point 3, while you might have enough protests over time to impeach Bush - or even more likely reduce the changes of a Republican win in 2008 - remember that the damage will have been done by then. Also keep in mind that Bush can hide behind the idea of being a "War President" and that anybody asking to impeach him is a "traitor" - they've already tried those memes and they play well with the morons supporting Bush. Also, an impeachment would need absolute legal grounds with evidence. Look how long the relatively stupid impeachment of Clinton took to execute. It could be a year or two to get Bush and by then it would be irrelevant (except to the next Republican Presidential hopeful.)
Most of the leading Democrats are too timid to oppose a Bush invasion of Iran. Hillary Clinton in particular is in AIPAC's pocket and considers Iran to be a threat and that military options must remain open. Barak is not far behind.
Ad for point 4, while there is a report the other day that some generals will quit if Bush attacks Iran, the military is not in the habit of refusing orders from the President. Many top generals - who are at no threat from ANY war personally - will go along in order to get rank. The rest of the military will "follow orders" - that's the nature of most militaries. Only when the situation has become SO dire - as in Iraq today - will the military begin to rebel.
I do expect the war with Iran, which will begin as an air and naval war, will eventually develop into a ground war. And I expect that ground war to develop similarly to the way this summer's Lebanon war went. Thousands of US troops will die and the war will drag on for years, like Vietnam - except twice as bad. At some point, the military will begin to at least verbally rebel - and the US public will also rebel.
But if Iran sponsors terrorism inside the United States as a retaliatory measure for the US war on Iran, the US public is likely to be splintered into factions, making a full-fledged peace movement impossible.
The whole situation looks like it will easily become the worst strategic decision in US history. The US-Iran war will bleed the US economically, militarily and geopolitically in a way that Vietnam or Iraq could never do.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
The revolution was backed by those who felt the mandate of the local oil industry should be to benefit the society.
The nationalization of the oil industry was a democratic decision, not part of the revolution. The revolution happened because the Shah was oppressive, secular, and pro-western. I'm not nitpicking dates or names here, you guys are just way off.
But hey, I'll cut you a break, let's switch revolution with "democratic decision by the prime minister." You're still using the PM's subjective reasoning. The oil industry depended on international investment which was lost when the PM nationalized it. The whole reason the Shah took over was because Iranians were pissed off that Mossadegh tanked the oil industry.
And of course, by America, who did want a return on investing in Iranian oil.
P.P.S. I'm doing Science and I'm still alive.
Where do I send my condolence card for your sense of humor?
sic
If someone said "Your wallet or your life", I'd probably just give them the wallet. Most people wouldn't make such a statement without having their means of killing me ready to go, and I likely wouldn't be expecting a threat so I would have no chance of getting the drop on the mugger. Not wanting to risk my life for a few hundred bucks...he can have the waller.
You seem to think handing over a wallet with a few cancellable credit cards and money that can be earned is worth taking the life of another person. I do not.
Respond to words with words, to actions with actions.
Blar.
Danny, it doesn't matter if I paid attention. I'm never going to meet you. But if I do, I'm not going to say, "you're that guy who was sticking up for that dork on slashdot who tried to argue with a sarcastic comment!"
Actually, do you live in the bay area or in central Ohio? If so, there's a chance, and I'll surely buy you a beer for the amusement of getting to say that.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Saddam wasn't buying yellowcake from Nigeria, he was about to buy it from North Korea. Remember a few months before the invasion of Iraq NK had unplugged the cameras in their reactors and began to reactivate them?
Iraq needed uranium. North Korea needed oil and fuel. It was the perfect trade until the US stepped in and took our Saddam.
Libertas in infinitum
What kind of moron to you have to be to equate anything critical of Zionism as anti-semitism?
And what's a "real" Jew anyway? The State of Israel itself doesn't care if you follow Judaism or not as long as you have a Jewish mother. (and she doesn't have to be religious either, a perfect example of recursion). Just like the parent I have plenty of secular Jews as friends/coworkers and they laugh at Torah and criticize Israel but the funniest thing they are welcome to immigrate to Israel any time they want. Hundreds of thousands of secular Jews , who hadn't the faintest idea about the religion or language and culture (bit the had Jew as their nationality stamped in the soviet passports) immigrated from the former SU in the 90s just because Israel was the country with a moderately high standard of living. Now tell me that Jews/judaism and zionism are inseparable. Maybe in the minds of ultra-orthodox rabies.
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
uhm, did you completely forget what you wrote? You made a mistake about who you were replying to. I wasn't the one who missed the original sarcasm. I merely replied to your statement about the "mental disease" of not recognizing sarcasm. These forums are not for one on one conversations. I suggested paying attention to who said what so that you wouldn't make the same mistake again. ;) :)
Or maybe you are testing my sarcasm detector by pretending that you didn't make the mistake at all?
hrm, if that is a popular thing to do, it would explain a lot of conversations I've seen online where people have the "mental disease" of being unable to recognize their own mistakes.
There is a common ground which, if all vidiots would allow to flourish, could provide a scientific basis for developing information based solutions (as opposed to vengeance) in this traditionally volatile part of the world.
g -on-worlds-vid.html
See: http://www.vidiots.us/2007/01/bin-laden-is-sittin
You'll probably now notice that suddeny our government wants Iran to "help" stabalize Iraq.
?Que?
Evidently they launched either a spy satellite or a GPS type satellite - that would be my guess - and it has our side suddenly concerned that their military forces are as easy to spot and track as Iran's are.
Same old song and dance. When our leaders think they can be the bully, they are - when they get called on it - they whine like puppies and start talking "diplomacy".
All this teaches countries to do is to get nukes asap so that they won't be invaded by the U.S. Seems a bit self-defeating to me, considering the alternative of talking to them and agreeing to disagree - but live together.(and as a result, no nukes are needed)
I'm saying Zionism is a culture full of attitudes, and those attitudes are evil, elitist, xenophobic and racist as well.
I don't judge people based on their race. But anyone who self-represents themselves as sharing these common values has self-identified as having these evil attitudes, and should be treated as an dangerously insane anti-social criminal.
If you're a Zionist, it's not your moms fault. It's YOUR fault.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth