Slashdot Mirror
Nuclear Training Software Downloaded To Iran
SixFactor sends in word of a theft of training software for a nuclear plant. An ex-employee of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, in Arizona, allegedly downloaded training software to his laptop while he was in Iran. The software was downloaded from a Maryland-based contractor to the nuclear plant. It contained information about the Palo Verde facility: control rooms, reactors, and design. It was used to simulate situations for training at the site. Why the ex-engineer downloaded the software is not known. What is troubling is this person's ability to access the software after his employment at the site ended.
Got to make sure everyone is scared of the Iranians, so there won't be an outcry when the bombing starts.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Seems to me that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty basically requires the sharing of nuclear know-how. This is not the method to do it, but sharing the way to run a plant should be pretty basic under the treaty. The trouble is that everyone feels so threatened by the prolifereation and the lack of serious progress on arms reductions that the fabric of the treaty is very frayed.s -selling-solar.html
--
Sun Beams for Peace: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
As the New World Order accomplishes one mission after another transparently and throw the area of Chaostan into further oblivion news items like this become more common place. The press is going to constantly remind us of confrontation with Iran so that invasion will seem inevitable soon. This should be disturbing to any males reading Slashdot under the age of 35 not to mention John Murtha swearing he will get the draft back soon...
Do you mean the nuclear strikes on Isreal? Or the UN and/or US bombing of Iran that will never happen, even after the aforementioned bombing occurs?
"Yawn" is ironically right - You need to wake up to what a nuclear equipped Iran means to the world. I don't think we should attack them either but to act unconcerned at them aquiring nuclear weapons is a particularily odd form of madness in its own right, just as mad as Iran willing to "burn" as they said they would to get rid of pesky Israel.
After all, we'll all be breathing the dust that floats over from a nasty nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You probably meant UPLOADED to Iran. Or, downloaded FROM Iran.
The hip way to get your IP. No ads, ever.
I suppose Iran doesn't consider sandwich artistry a particularly vaulted profession.
It disturbs me that this politician is being quoted as saying that Iran is dead-set on developing a nuclear weapon when there is absolutely no proof that is happening. That would be like saying that Iraq had weapons of mass destructions.
"What is troubling is this person's ability to access the software after his employment at the site ended."
This all could have been avoided if they'd locked access down to specific IPs ONLY. As in domestic US only.
A message from our sponsor
All of the governments you listed had fair doses of common sense. They knew that if they were to use said weapons in attack, retaliation would be pretty bad and much of the country would be destroyed. Nucelar weapons for them were for defensive posturing so no-one would try and attack them.
Iran however seems to relish the scenario of massive retaliation and would by the words of the current leader love to be obliterated, because the ideals they are fighting for would live on in the region only without Israel around to bother them any longer.
Now the people of Iran are quite different than the leader, they are rational and fine people indeed. But it only takes a handful of guys to press that magic button. Attacking them is not the right solution (and I don't really see anyone making moves to do so). But letting them get nuclear weapons is not the right answer either. How you solve those contradctory needs I have no idea.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You are correct that fallout would spread fairly far in and Iran-Israel exchange. But what may be of greater concern is the floatup. The carbon content of cities can be lifted quite high when the Sun heats the soot aeorsols. This means prolonged global cooling with substantial effects on growing seasons http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/06121 1090729.htm. An India-Pakistan-size exchange could lead to famine around the world. Presumably at least one side has that kind of fire power in the Iran-Israel situation.
Sorry, the term you're looking for is copyright infrigement. Copyright infrigement is not theft since when a copy of a file is made, the owner isn't stripped of the original file. (queue some more inane Slashbot babble about copyright and `information should be free')
Why not respond to all the cowards at once?
Basically attacks on Israel upset me as a person who finds the instant deaths of millions in any country (Iran or Israel) disquieting. If you are an environmentalist you should be concerend with all the radioactive dust coating the planet. If you are a libertarian you should be concerned because a nuclear exchange in the middle east means big-time ramping of of miltary spending across the planet. If you are an international foreign policy wonk you would have to be concerned about total disruption to the middle east.
But to go back to the first point, if you are a human being with any emptahy at all the thought of any use of nuclear weapons against anyone, no matter how seemingly bad to you currently, should be unthinkable. Shame on you if you think otherwise.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Why did the server even accept the connection from the Iranian ISP? Can't be that hard to block out connections from rouge countries.
Windows has detected an undetectable error.
Wasn't the whole nuclear winter thing kind of discredited some time back? Though that paper you linked to is much more recent... And I'm sure some people are thinking right now "Hey, that'll offset global Warming!". Yipe.
Basically I'd love not to find out either way. Instant climate change to an unknown state is not a fun expiriment.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Would it be Nucular or Nuclear? If it's the first, then I'm not worried.
So this is why North Korea has been invaded already right?
I don't quite understand why this is a response to my message. I said nothing about it working or not, just why the various countries sought to hold nuclear weapons - even if it wasn't effective the belief was it was a deterrent by the powers theat held them. They did not seek to aquire said weapons with intent to use them ASAP caring not if the country would be annihalated in the process. Again, the aquistion was traditionally made in order to keep a country intact from perceived outside threats.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It was SENT to Iran, but not UPLOADED to Iran. Sending != Uploading. Send/Receive refers to source/destination, but Up/Down refers to the server/client status of endpoints.
...what's going on. The media is being saturated with propaganda psyops pieces (using the "big lie" theory of preconditioning) spin stories, being passed off as "leaks", etc. In addition, they are indoctrinating their soldiers that their next big false flag operation (following the outstanding success of the 9-11 reichstagg fire operation and coup, and the iraq invasion based on total lies) will be coming from "the terrorists", jumping between iranians and "al queda". The "nuclear terrorist attack wargames" actually begin today, and run through april 27th and are called "Noble Resolve 07".
The software is non-classified & publically available, as reported on PBS.
They are trying to convince the world, their nuclear program is for electricity only.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I knew it all along. Bush knew it all along, Iran lied about developing nuclear technology for power plants and instead intends to make WMD's!! Oh wait what. . ? Other way around? Iran might have been telling the truth the whole time? Shouldn't this be "good" news?
If you are about to mod me down, keep in mind that this post was most likely sarcastic.
The big question. Is there any way to stop an out of control US government. I can see it now. A small nuclear blast hits Africa (CIA scurry away). US blames Iran. US tells citizens if we don't stop them we are next. Defence manufactures raise champagne glasses in back rooms as the bombing of Iran starts. Money starts flowing to over seas bank accounts, relatives companies get rich. Welcome to the modern day capitalism.
"Never say Never."
It's a response to your message because Kim Jong Il is the definition of bat-shit-insane.
Yes that is true, but not the sort of insane where getting blown up for firing off a nuclear weapon is his idea of a good time. It would seriously mess with his colection of gold-plated iPods or whatever the hell else he's been importing.
Fact is, the only way to prevent a nation from getting "the bomb" is to infiltrate their development program and sabotage it from within over an extended period. That's exactly what Mossad is doing, so don't worry about it, ok?
That's a good plan, and it'll probably delay things for a while - but information wants to be free, you know? I don't know if they can stop it that way forever.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Well, that's really not too hard to believe -- up until 1978, when the current bunch of crackpots took over, Iran was a fairly strong U.S. ally in the region. Which isn't to say that the Shah was exactly a nice fellow that you'd want to invite over for dinner, but that GE and Westinghouse were working to sell nuclear-power stuff there isn't as untoward as it might sound. It's just like U.S. corporations doing business in China right now. Sure, they may be a bunch of despicable despots, but they're despicable despots allied with us.
The Iranian Revolution is a little before my time, so I'm not sure exactly what the zeitgeist in the U.S. was when it happened, but it certainly seems like we got caught with our pants down -- I mean, we had all those people in the embassy that got caught, because we didn't pull them out before the shit hit the fan; I don't know if that was just the Carter administration being typically asleep at the switch, or if nobody suspected things were deteriorating that quickly, but in either case, it explains why, a few years previously, nobody was really thinking too hard about selling them crap (particularly not when it would have brought a few billion bucks to the U.S, which at the time was seriously rusting). Plus, anything to keep them on our side instead of going over to the Soviets for their nuclear needs -- it's not as though they would have had (or have had, since) much compunction about selling reactors to anyone with the hard currency to buy them.
When viewed in the context of the period, the U.S. actions may have been a little shortsighted, but they're not as bald-facedly hypocritical as some people today like to make them seem.
Ultimately, the critical mistake of U.S. policy during the latter part of the 20th century was to think that the enemy of our Enemy (and that's how we really seemed to think about it; Enemy with a capital 'E,' that's E that rhymes with C and that stands for Communism) was our friend. In time, I think we're going to look back on the halcyon days of the Cold War with nostalgia, when we had an enemy who was basically rational and we could sit down over a negotiating table and talk to, or pull out a map and point at.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Keep in mind all their internal response measures have been compromised. That doesn't seem safe at all.
Yes except that in the case of Iran we have some pretty virulent speeches by its leader telling us exactly what he'd love to do with a nuclear weapon.
You are like the guy who stopped listening to the boy who cried wolf. That's fine for a while, but eventually there is actually a wolf, you know?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This is from the article I linked. "The investigation has not led us to believe this information was taken for the purpose of being used by a foreign government or terrorists to attack us," said Deborah McCarley, a spokeswoman for the FBI in Phoenix. "This does not appear to be terrorist-related." AZCentral is more concerned with reactions from politicians think about something they know no more about than any of us.
Why is AZCentral interviewing politicians about this case and not people involved in the investigation? AZC doesn't even mention that Palo Verde has already changed their system to not let anyone gain access to any files after they are no longer employed by them. This story really isn't a big deal. If he was able to steal classified information on designs of a nuclear reactor, that'd be one thing, but this is just another case of the media trying to make it a bigger deal than it really is.
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
Somebody mislabelled the Iran tube, leading to the prudent but perhaps unnecessary blocking of all ISPs from Guam.
Dang tubes. They'll get you every time. Why they had to build the internet out of 'em in the first place will never make much sense to me.
Because every topic must have at least one post making fun of the fact that an 83 year old man doesn't understand the internet... sorry, Ted!
By 'yet another Chernobyl' I assume you mean the second one.
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
Saying I have no idea is letting people with ideas step forward - ideas for a non-nuclear Iran that is.
Being totally unconcerned with Iran gaining nuclear weapons abilities however is equally a non-idea, only a more dangerous one - for it's basically espousing that we should let Iran have nuclear weapons if they wish. I am saying that's a Bad Idea, and am perfectly willing to let people propose ways for that not to happen. So I have some idea of a result I would like, just not a path to it.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
In short, the DoD has all the infrastructure it needs to prevent unauthorized access without having to ban specific IP addresses. They simply invalidate the public key and certificate for whoever leaves. No more problems. I did say they had the infrastructure, but do they have the cognisance? Apparently not. The DoD failed their recent IT security inspection, if I remember the recent Slashdot story correctly -- would someone mind telling me HOW you can screw up a perfectly standard PKI-based authentication system so badly that (a) an entire department can get a failing grade, and (b) a person who has left for some time still has active certificates in the database?
Look, we all know that bureaucrats are total nutters, but do they all have to be so hellbent on being the nuttiest? Why not place Captain Sensible in charge of the DoD - he can't really do much worse, if the current lot aren't even following their own rules and regulations on IT security.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The prototypical dumb US-american with his simple solutions.
What are those "red" countries you're talking about anyway, moron?
Playing the devil advocate - I would rather have them manage their nuclear stations safely correctly and being properly trained then having yet another Chernobyl. So if their nuclear espionage stays within the limit of nicking our safety training software for a nuclear plant I would say: Spy more please. And do it more successfully. Please. Pretty please...
True, but if the reactor in question is a Pu breeder, like the Iraqi one the Israelis blew up at Osirak, then I'd much rather they didn't learn how to operate it safely. (That's kinda like saying "gee, I hope those guys know how to operate that gas chamber safely, I sure wouldn't want them to accidentally inhale some by mistake.")
If all they're doing is building light-water power reactors to keep the lights on, by all means I wish them, and the workers there, well. But I really don't think that's what they're up to. Anyone with half a brain can tell that they desperately want a bomb -- and probably if I were in their shoes, I'd want a bomb too. But that doesn't mean that as a Westerner and an American, that I want them to have one, because frankly I think there's too great a chance it might end up going off in my front yard.
All things considered, I'd much rather they melt it into a (radioactive) smoking hole in the desert.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
You mean like the one where he says that Iran will wipe Israel off the map and for which people like Bolton are calling for him to be charged with inciting genocide in the world court?
Plus the bit where he mentions not caring about Iran being cleansed by fire, yeah.
If you don't want to believe his stated intent, fine - but you have to at least realize there is a chance he means what he says, and a few million lives hang in the balance.
I'm sure there were people like you back during the cuban missile crisis as well.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I get it, they are a backwards country....
It is a series of steel tubes which support wires on which you can hang your clothes. Documents and articles on the internet are like the clothes - to put them on the clothes line you need to lift them up (think uploading), to use the clothing (read the article) you need to take it down from the line (think downloading).
Hope that clarifies the situation.
"What is troubling is this person's ability to access the software after his employment at the site ended."
Sure, he shouldn't have had access anymore. But how much more secure would that have been. If you're employed there, you can download it. And you would still have it after your employment ends.
People are overly concerned with security, to a degree that it is becoming rediculous.
If people can read it, hear it or see it, it can be reproduced to a non-secure form anyway.
Sure, you must have ways to make it more difficult/near impossible to get there without inside help, but don't get silly.
Hardliners, hawks, extremists, neocons in the US and Israel are the only one's who are interested in attacking Iran. [p] Maintaining a state of constant never-ending 'war on terror' benefits these individuals in obvious ways. [p] Now, if the US and Israel were all of a sudden forced to negotiate on a more level playing field, calmer minds may yet prevail. [p] Nuclear weapons have done wonders for Pakistan and India negotiations, EVEN taking into account mutual and frequent terror attacks against one another... atleast they haven't had another war. [p] Is this a troll? No, its the pathetic reality of our current world we live in. A world where you only count if you can 'back up your words with nuclear weapons'.
Now the people operating Iran's nuclear reactors will have had some proper training. That makes accidents less likely to happen. How is this anything other than good news?
Anyone got the .torrent to the software?
for.. training purposes. You know.
Who's to say the Iranians won't be more responsible than the Americans?
was it shareware or freeware and what is the download link?
I don't think it's anything to be worried about.
http://www.ida.liu.se/~her/npp/demo.html
This is ironical, since one of the provisions of the NPT was assistance and technology transfer to non-nuclear states for peaceful purposes in return for their undertaking not acquiring nukes. Iran should not have to obtain such data clandestinely (That too, and operation manual!). The reality is that nuclear weapon states (P5) has done little to transfer technology , and even less on their commitment to reduce nuclear stockpiles.
Btw, the NPT is flawed and fundamentally flawed. Discriminatory to the naivest, I am not sure how anyone could even suggest something like - 'I CAN, but you sire, CANNOT'. Justice and equality.
What is needed is complete disarmament, or transfer of nukes to common control against possibly an asteroid or comet. Until then, I refuse to say that some nukes are good and some are bad.
Life is a conviction.
Israel doesn't actually exist without US or other foreign involvement.
Erm, no. The U.S. basically hung Israel out to dry on several occasions, and time and time again whenever Israel and the Arab countries got into a spat, if Israel started to win, the Arabs would go back to the Soviets and the Soviets would get the U.N. to declare a cease-fire, and the U.S. would never object. The Arab armies would use the cease-fires to rearm and resupply (illegally), and drag the war out longer.
The only time Israel made major territorial gains was in 1956, and that was only because the U.S. thought they would get and keep the Suez, which would have been a big bonus, and in return for this they let the Soviets crush Budapest in return for their non-interference. (The government in Budapest, which had practically won the revolution already, was counting on U.S. help -- when it didn't happen, the Soviets rolled over them. Though for future reference, don't ever count on U.S. help for your democratic revolution if they can do better by selling you all to people who'll put you in front of a wall -- welcome to realpolitik.)
There were long periods of time when Israel had very little in the way of a relationship with the U.S., at least not the U.S. government. There have always been fairly strong ties between the people of Israel and the people, particularly the Jewish population, in the U.S., but official relations have ebbed and flowed depending on convenience. There were periods when Israel's best allies were South Africa and Taiwan -- talk about the black sheep of the world stage.
Israel shouldn't count anyone, least of all the U.S., as a "true" ally; we'd sell them up the river in a millisecond and leave them on their own in a millisecond if it was temporarily expedient to do so, just like we've done to other groups when they were no longer useful (anyone talked to the Kurds lately? how's that country we promised them working out?).
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Nuclear Power Plant Tycoon tm
we spend our time hemming and hawing about the conservative and religious nature of the current us administration, but when an actual theocracy gets nukes, well, that doesn't bother us at all ...btw, i don't mean "theocracy" as in "bush said something about crusades once, therefore the entire administration is a fascist authoritarian state!" because that would be what is called hysteria
when i say "theocracy" i mean, drum roll, please... an actual, genuine, clearly defined theocracy, where a bunch of grumpy old men, who claim to speak for god himself, decide who runs for office, and who wield final power on all issues
go ahead, search the internet, you'll find that i'm onto something, it's called reality
nah... nothing scary about a REAL GENUINE theocracy with nukes, right?
a nuclear theocracy is perfectly ok in this world, because as we all know, if anything bad happens in this world, it only comes form washington dc
our hatred of bush, who will be gone in 2 years, is such that we will embrace the actual real life manifestation of what our hysterical propaganda tells us is the threat: an archconservative ultrareligious bunch of zealots with nuclear weapons
nothing to worry about there at all
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
USA pulls out of all the countries we're militarily involved in. Ship our and Israel's nukes into the Sun. Say we're sorry everyone. Pay reparations to Iraq, Guatemala, etc. Say we're very very sorry.
And we have world peace, yay.
Suppose that we were aware (well that would be a first in the last 6 years) about an ongoing attempt to steal these? We may actually substitute a fake! As it is, we do not normally let out that we lost something of this magnitude (esp now). So I would not be surprised to see that they pulled a Japan/Chinese/Capacitor switch-a-roo game.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Which is precisely why it's actually *good* for Iran to have a bomb of its own: that way, Israel won't be tempted to "preemptively" nuke them without fear of retribution. The balance of power worked wonders during the cold war, it will work extremely well in the middle east too.
A bunch of you guys would have badmouthed the US had they reported his firing for ANY reason in the first place. Anyone want to speculate how much information the guy transferred before he jumped the fence.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Which isn't to say that the Shah was exactly a nice fellow that you'd want to invite over for dinner,
Shah was a murderous dictator, he was put in place in 1953 when the CIA deposed democratically elected Mossadegh.
Gee, you've gotta wonder why they're not such big fans of the US of A.
Some of the same officials who are strongly opposed to the Iranian nuclear program now, were advocating it back in the 70s when the Shah was in power. So it's ok for a brutal dictator but not for a theocracy? The nuclear issue is really a distraction. The US government is opposed to the current theocratic regime just as it was opposed to the democratic regime under Mossadegh. The internal nature of the regime is not a concern, only it's stance towards US interests. It's a question of control.
The Iranians say they just want to go nuclear for power use. The US say no, you are making bombs (with the tacit assumption to wipe out Israel). And then Iran steals nuclear power station training software. Doesn't that sort give some kind of indicator on some level?
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
>when the CIA deposed democratically elected Mossadegh.
Partly because he was all for nationalising an oil company largely owned by overseas interests which simply wouldn't do, not with all that profit to be made.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
Whenever the RIAA or some software firm make a statement about 'the theft of software/music/whatever' at least one post gets upmodded about how 'the original still exists, therefore not theft.'
So where is that argument?
I think that there is a more interesting thread that's being ignored: Closing the IT door on former employees. Internet-accessible systems present a unique challenge since the physical security of an internal LAN is lost. Some of these systems contain sensitive information (duh) and are Internet accessable for one business reason or another. Also, a lot of these systems do not share the enterprise identity management system that the internal systems do, so it takes discrete manual intervention to deny access to them. I know that I deal with several unconfederated systems that make me lose sleep because no one will accept responsibility for getting people OUT of them when they no long need access. How are others dealing with this new angle on the insider threat?
They might actually build a CONTROL ROOM. YOU SICK TWISTED MUSLIM TERRORISTS HAVE NO RIGHT TO EXPLORE CHEAP ELECTRICITY!!! OPEC will kill you all!!
/. humor is being lame filtered.
rhY
PS This is where I put plenty of non caps text because my attempt at
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
So they an now operate a nuclear plant without blowing it up - shouldn't we be, you know, glad ? I wouldn't want a Tchernobyl 2 - do you?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Nope.
1956 - Israel invades Egypt jointly with France and UK to take over the recently nationalised Suez Canal. So the truth is that Israel invaded a neighbouring country first, unprovoked and for solely mercantile reasons. From there on it was a more or less tit-for-tat affair all the way to the 70-es.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Come on, we Iranians are just trying the software before buying it.
In this story the possible theft of nuclear related information is not the critical part of this story. It is the fact that an EX-employee still had access to his former employer's IT systems. Whether this was nuclear related information or (for instance) the companies client lists/pricing model or the canteen menu is irrelevant.
When an employee leaves as soon as they hand their pass or sign the I've gone form IT should be informed immediately and any associated access rights should be revoked without any delay.
Someone in the employer's organisation ought to have a good look at their IT and HR processes...
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
Look, the cia/pentagon etc.. spend $25b/year on news/media fake reporting.
They pay reporters 250k+ to be on their payroll to fake stories.
Whats one thing that changes peoples minds and decides what they like or not? The media.... If you can get 1000 fake stories a day, you
are going to skew peoples minds/factors.
You're living in the matrix, the physical world may be real and not virtual, but the information is virtual, and not real.
Instead of sucking your electricity, they suck your pay checks, ie 40+ through 2 levels of illegal income taxes and legal state taxes, and also
5-12% inflation (monetory inflation, go read shadowstats).
Face it people.... the corporations have taken over, there is no govt, its a puppet of the trillion dollar elite corporate world that owns the
planet, and we are just like their sheep/cattle.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
You know, much as I can enjoy a piece of revisionist bullshit, I just have to rain on your parrade there. There are a ton of countries, Iran included, where the USA didn't just happen to have a friend, but actually installed a puppet dictator. The Shah was only your friend because a bloody CIA coup deposed the democratically elected government and installed him. _Again_. That's all.
;)
And understanding that, also gives you the key as to why those people hate you now. It's not just some people that inexplicably forgot their old friendships, it's some people who hate you for what you did to them. That pseudo-friendship only lasted as long as the USA-installed puppet lasted. The dictator might have been your faithful puppet friend, but the people ended up hating not only him, but also the foreign power that installed and kept him in power. Gee, big surprise there. And as soon as they managed to free them of him, by brutal revolt, gee, who would have guessed that they're no longer your friends? Completely unexpected surprise that
And, generally, if we're talking about that period, the USA was bloody active installing and backing dictators left and right. That's champions of democracy at work for ya. Sure preferred a brutal tyrant to an elected government. _Especially_ if that government happened to be left wing or get in the way of western colonial interests.
It started right after WWII, e.g.,
- South Korea: got saddled with an inept totalitarian regime, where the "president" hadn't even lived in Korea before. Just because, god forbid, you can't let them maybe vote for a left-wing government. (The current favourite was actually left wing.) Got to give them our version of "democracy" instead.
- Vietnam: the USA actually prevented them from holding democratic elections and backed an inept dictator instead. Again, out of fear that the left might win.
And it continued throughout the 20'th century, with some of the most brutal third world dictators installed or helped by the USA. If you happen to be on our side, here, let us teach you how to torture and terrorize dissidents. And god forbid if you happen to _not_ be on our side. Then we'll stage a coup and replace you with some puppet that's on our side. And teach _him_ how to torture and terrorize disidents.
Gee, I wonder why a lot of people ended up hating the USA. You'd think they'd appreciate the support and training it gave to their dictator's secret police more.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
So basically it would be OK for Iran to have nukes because of the dirty Jews? I'm sure these are the same Jews that you think are behind 9/11, the World Bank and every other Western "conspiracy".
Iran supports the destruction of the West. The Mullahs of Iran have been at war with the west since they took over power in Iran. America just happens to be the largest target right now. If America were to fail and succumb to these people Europe will be next. Hell, Europeans are already being destroyed from the inside out by a so called Islamic mainstream. Paris didn't burn last year because of disenfranchised youths.
Europeans can continue to act smug but this isn't a war where they will be able to rely on America riding to their rescue again.
So they *_ARE_* interested in peaceful use of nucular technology. They're telling the truth! Sneaky bastards.
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
So by your definition, Egypt's theft of someone else's property isn't provocation?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The big bankers want their iran war. funny to see how
slashdot is lending space for that purpose.
It's a long way to Israel, there are not trade links with Israel, lots of people there hate Israel. It's an election winner with no need for an actual military buildup or anything other than token action. Nobody really cares about the Palestinians so the extreme right fantasy of Bond supervillians financing hordes of terrorists is not going to happen - the reality is old rockets that don't work very well sold at discount rates to Hizbolla.
this engineer didnt happen to have a meeting recently where they told him he wont get severance if he doesnt train his indian h1b replacement did he?
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
So what does the software do, teach the Iranians how to maintain a nuclear facility?
Fine. Tell you what when they're building and using nuclear reactors I _want_ them
to know what they're doing and if that software helps them then fine, they and
anyone else should have been able to obtain that completely and totally free of
charge. Just think of what happened at Chernobyl and how the radioactive crap went
around the world to contaminate _YOUR_ food and water.
What's more I don't appreciate the button pushing: Iran. Nuclear. US Facility accessed.
First of all, the software is most likely on some administrative file server which
is most likely not at all be connected to any computer system monitoring the plant.
To not hold the governing bodies behind who can and can't download any type of sensitive information pertaining to Nuclear facilities is what really upsets me.
Part of being in power is taking responsibility for your wrongs, but let's just focus on the keyword 'Iran'.
bah
So... basically sealing Israel's land borders, denying flights to or from Israel any use of Arab airspace, and using the newly-nationalized Suez Canal to prevent shipment to/from Israel by water -- none of that was 'provoking' Israel?
C'mon. The tit-for-tat bullshit in that region goes back much, much further than 1956.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
USA = bad
3rd world theocracies with 7th century outlooks on life = good
p.s. To those bellyaching about the evil Imperialists (read: whites) divvying up the lands stupidly, the (muslim) middle eastern countries in question have had ample time to sort out the proper borders. Funny how they haven't come to a understanding amongst themselves. They just seek to increase their own borders. The ideas of ceding land more suited to another country or to allow independence of some areas are abhorrent to them.
People don't own something just because they were born within 300 miles of it. Before the Western oil companies sank hundreds of millions of dollars into the area in order to develop that oil, it didn't exist -- not in any meaningful way. The oil belongs to whoever caused it to be accessible... and Western utilization of it does not, itself, harm the natives.
Besides, the natives already were given generous cuts of the profits, despite the total absence of justice for such generosity.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
How do you say doh in farsi?
The US and Europe has been disasterously meddling in the Middle East since WW2. The "they" that hate are a small minority that is given weight and power by the West's blatant power plays for their oil. Why the fuck do you think America is a target? Because "they" hate us? Yeah, that's it - those people just hate for no fucking reason. Bullshit. And those "smug" Euorpeans who we dragged in to our latest fiasco are "smug" because they are finally beggining to realize that our insane war is stirring up the hornets in their backyard - how the fuck are we gonna "ride to their rescue" when every shot we fire worsens our position? In a "war" against "terrorism" - there is no enemy that can accept terms of surrender. Instead there is just the amorphous enemy that we use to justify the police state.
That's a problem to be solved by international arbitration, NOT by deposing democratically elected leaders and putting thuggish princelings back in power. Not just from a humanitarian standpoint, but from a pragmatic one as well -- the coup against Mossadegh lead to the 1979 revolution, which lead to the 80s Iran-Iraq war in which we armed Hussein's Iraq, which lead to a strong Iraq that could bully Kuwait... etc. And now it's 2007 and we're mired in the Iraqi situation.
-b.
Sorry to go off topic here...I would like to preface this by saying that going to war with Iran would be horrible and stupid but not for the reasons you site. Simply put, we could destroy Iran without having to set foot in their country and without using nuclear weapons. The first Gulf War was a walk in the park and I imagine Iran would be the same.
I believe in our part of the world we call this "national sovereignty". But if you DO believe that taking someone else's property is provocation for WAR (as in the biggest crime invented so far), why cry when terrorists blow you up? Obviously you provoked them by taking their oil...
that it's Microsoft software, and will drive those phundamentalist physicists out of their phrigging minds.
Remember the future...
C + H20 = C0 + H2
And both CO and H2 are quite explosive when combined in the right (wrong?) quantities with air. Not to mention that the graphite is in itself flammable at a high enough temperature.
Western water- or heavy-water moderated reactors are a much better technology - the RBMK (Chernobyl type) reactors were essentially evolutions of military, plutonium-production designs not noted for their safety.
-b.
The nation does, literally, own that nation's land and other natural resources. Plutocracy works one way in the west with our democratic governments, trade unions and whatnot, it works in an entirely nastier way overseas.
The nature of the data isn't the biggest story...it's the fact that someone who doesn't work there anymore had access to it.
I've seen this a million times; it happens in every single company, but especially so in large ones. There's no connection between human resources and the system administrators in some cases. When you're fired or quit, an automatic process that is kicked off by the routine that prints your last paycheck should also disable your accounts. The problem is the disconnected nature of systems.
Even in disconnected environments, it's possible to do this by assigning someone to be responsible for accounts. In previous IT organizations, this was usually the PFY's job. Unfortunately, this is an incredibly boring job and it is difficult to keep someone doing this forever. It's a problem that could be solved by technology, but either (a) none of the sysadmin staff want to work on it because they fear automation that might take their jobs, or (b) the company has such a complex HR system (homegrown mess, SAP, etc.) that building interfaces is really hard.
I'm going to sound old here, but I'd like to jump back a few technology generations to when you actually needed to be a highly skilled technologist to take care of systems. It would force a little discipline, which is lacking. Sysadmins are overworked, this is true. That's often why you see stories like this. But a good sysadmin knows how to automate the tedious.
Um, I think 1948 is earlier than 1956.
"Gee, you've gotta wonder why they're not such big fans of the US of A."
It's called hypocrisy, like selling oil as part oF OPEC and reaping the benefits therein; take the money while spouting the hate. It's call propaganda, blaming the US for all it's countries ills year in and year out; at to that, it's called stupidity, given their people continue to believe it.
I'm also left wondering why the standard to some of my country (the US) has become that of having "fans." We aren't a sports team. The world political process isn't that of nice sentiments and who has the most fuzzy teddy bears. War and conflict, unfortunately, is part of the political process. As crappy as that is, as small and/or impotent as that may make us feel, countries do usually move on because, after all, that's also part of the point of war too.
And maybe, just maybe, Iran can't get over it. We didn't have fans with the Soviets. The US has fought active WARS (not just cold) with Germany (twice), Japan, and Korea and for the most part, the parties have gotten over it. (North Korea's population has crashed and is more a rogue screwed up regime; Japan still has issues with continuing US military presence.)
The only nation which probably approximates Iran in terms of ongoing negative relationship with the US is Vietnam, and even then, they aren't going whacko and have pretty much kept to themselves, even putting out ties, somewhat, for the past few years. You can blame the US for inducing Iran into its regime, but if you are going to hold the US responsible for its actions regardless of the reasoning, then ultimately Iran too is responsible for their actions, and their present actions suck.
The reality is that Canada donated the CIRUS reactor to India with the promise that India wouldn't use the reactor for nuclear weapons. It isn't that hard to build these weapons - it's just refined nuclear material smashed against itself in one form of the weapon.
It's not that easy. People have lived there. Were going hunting there. Had their herds there. Had their crops growing there. It may not look very productive to our standards, but at least this land had a usage, and it can't be used for that anymore if you are pulling out the crude. So at least you have to either buy the priviledge to use the land, or you have to share the profits to offset the lost usage.
If a nation tries to nationalize the local ressources it's often because the priviledges were bought before in an unclear way, by bribing the clan leaders or just going there and shooting everyone coming close, or because the previous regime were selling and the new one doesn't feel obliged to fulfill the contracts because the old one was considered illegal anyway, thus the revolution.
Biased anti-semitic clap-trap. You're either a Muslim or a Brown Shirt.
Excuse me? Since when is it "hate speech" to even mention what a country did wrong? It's just history, lemming.
I'm sorry if history makes you personally uncomfortable, but, tough shit, it can't just be erased. And at the very least, knowing what happened back then, provides an answer to all the "oh, woe is us, I wonder why those mean Iranians are no longer our friends" laments. Now you know exactly why.
Doubly so when that lament is laced with the outright accusation that they are all irrational and you can't even have a rational discussion with them. Because that's the underlying message of moaning for the good old days when you had the Soviets as enemies, and you could at least talk rationally to them.
No, it's not just the arabs who are irrational and not listening there. The USA and we the western world as a whole aren't listening either. We're stuffing our fingers in the ears and pretending that we don't even hear anything uncomfortable coming from that part of the world. Whenever they try to say exactly what _is_ their problem, the western media and politicians manage to twist it back to, "dunno what they want. They're probably babbling some terrorist nonsense about their false god." That's not a rational talk either, sorry.
_Neither_ side is listening. _That_ is the whole middle-east problem in a nutshell.
Or to put it otherwise: noone's proposing to make you individually responsible for it all, _but_ I've also had it up to here with the bullshit "we were just their friends and then suddenly, unexplainably they turned against us. Guess we just chose our friends wrong" revisionism. Because that's the kind of message I was answering to. No, the USA was not friends with Iran, by any sane definition of the word "friend." And they didn't ask for that kind of friendship in the first place. It's not them who tricked the USA into thinking they're friends, it's the USA who basically went there and kicked them in the nuts to protect big oil interests.
Basically, let's all just stop the whole us-vs-them bullshit, where "us" == all saintly and friendly, and "them" == some evil two-faced bastards who turned against us only for some evil religious reasons. The world isn't that simple. That's all.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
The legality of this act was analysed by the British Government legal advisors and their report to the prime minister stated in clear and non-ambiguous terms that Egypt actions are legal provided that it adequately compensates all shareholders (which it was willing to do). As a matter of fact, it was British, French and Israeli government actions which deprived them from their money as they gave Egypt a reason not to pay. Which it gladly did (at least for a while).
This happened during the same decade when British Government nationalised the health service, the railway, large portion the car industry, the mining industry, etc. The french nationalised even more. Neither one of them got invaded for that.
By the standards of the day Egypt was doing what everyone was doing and applying the same rulebook. This is something everyone nowdays grudgingly admits and the declassified documents show that the invader's government were clearly shown this and the decision taken had nothing to do with property theft.
All it had to do was "Oil" and "Access to the Middle East and India". Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Yes, and it was known that these companies paid much less taxes than they should have. And they refused to allow audit.
Fine, though I humbly do suggest that said contractors be required to hire a certain number of people who come back crippled (either physically, emotionally, or mentally) from Iraq or Iran if we go in there. Call it their way of repaying society for the opportunity to make fuck-you money.
-b.
So what if Iran stole (or had passed on to them) copies of nuke plant training docs. Isn't the non-weapons use of nuclear power what the US gov would prefer them to be engaged in? Hell, we should be offering nuke plant training to them. If they are serious about using nuke power for peaceful purposes they'd take us up on it (and if we were serious about not obstructing peaceful nuke power we'd still offer it). Congressman Harry Mitchell should learn something about how power generating nuke plants work and the big leap between them and weapons manufacture.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
It's a pretty big stretch to imagine that a canal right through your country could belong to anyone but you. A negotiated settlement would have been far better, of course.
"unprovoked and for solely mercantile reasons" Theft doesn't count as provocation? The Egyptians "nationalized" (i.e. stole) the canal from French and British investors. That's a perfectly good justification for military action in my book. Even the UN sided with israel on this one.
My blog
The good news is that with The Liberal Democrats in control of the country we wont be starting any new wars against Legitimate countries like Iran anytime soon. Yes there is the slight chance that they may have a nuclear weapon soon and may decide to use it against the US however the most likely place that they would strike would be a Largely democratic area like most of the major cities in the US. Good news for republicans who mostly reside in inland red states. I'm sure after the strike takes place like most problems of the city will be blamed on the farmers and ranchers living in rural areas. The democratically controlled areas of the country are the most problematic and this is all the fault of religion and republicans living no where near the problem areas. If New York got nuked would anyone really care? No I don't think so. They are in control and are not worried.
Telecommuting! What about socialization?
Well, I'm not a British legal expert living 40 years ago, but based on some assumptions that seemed to hold up on a Wikipedia review, Egypt did *not* have the right to close off the Suez canal simply by buying out shareholders. Under the Convention of Constantinople of 1888, ships were guaranteed right of passage through the canal. Even if it were a "misunderstanding" of some sort, the decades of adherence of Egypt and all other countries to that standard created a sort of "easement" to use of the canal. Britain was specifically given the right to protect the canal in the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936, which Egypt unilaterally rejected in 1951.
Britain did nationalize a lot of things of at the time, of course (cue joke about Churchill commenting in the men's room that "Every time you see something big you want to nationalize it"), but none for which they had international obligations to guarantee access.
So, yes, Egypt was bound by treaty to allow passage of ships through the Suez canal. Just as you or I can't close off our driveways to sidewalks that pass over it, Egypt was bound to respect that particular easement.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
1. French - that I can understand. They just had the railways, post, ports and electricity nationalised. Apparently, they are allowed to while noone else is. British, I can also understand. They just finished nationalising British Rail, British Coal, NHS and a few others. They are allowed to, but noone else is. Now WTF does Israel have to do with all that?
2. The UN of those days was not by any means the amorphous UN we know now. That was prior to the foundation of the league of unaligned states, prior to most members of the Warsaw block being members and it was very clearly pushing one sole line. The line of US, UK, France and a few others. The UN of those days authorised and deployed forces actively engaged in several local conflicts, most notably Korea. The US hates referring to them this way nowdays, but the South in the conflict was known as the "UN Forces" (just read any newspaper of the day). So UN siding with someone prior to mid-1960es cannot be used to signify neither moral superiority nor the world opinion for that matter. All it says that this was US and UK opinion of the day.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
The people in power despise the US in Iran, but the general populace was slightly fond of us until recently. And, just so we're also clear on this, a war with Iran would be a very "Bad Thing". Iraq, for all intents and purposes, was a pushover (ignoring the currently failing occupation efforts). Iran is a mountainous region with a much larger population who would not give up ground without serious casualties. No, if George W starts a war with Iran it'll be bloody, and it'll make this little dance in Iraq look like a picnic.
No one has any right to control access to software. We should make a GPL version of this nuclear control room training software, so anyone has the right to use, change, and distribute it.
This is simply false. Egypt had begun blockading Israeli ports (a blockade is widely considered an act of war http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9015678/block ade ) as well as providing considerable material support to paramilitary forces regularly staging attacks into Israel across the Egyptian border, in violation of cease fire agreements. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Histor y/Suez_War.html/ mf5.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths
Fsck the millennium, we want it now.
Millennium Crisis Line: 0890 900 2000 [calls cost 50p/min]
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
You have a really poor grasp of National Sovereignity. The ability to determine what happens with your resources is a basic property of sovereignity. Nations aren't bound by contracts, just their reputations.
Notmysig
Another justification for Israel's participation was the Fedayeen raids which took place between 1951 and 1956 in which terrorists killed about 1300 Israelis. The terrorists where using bases in Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. While it is easy to say the nationalization of the canal was Israel's prime motivation it was not the case. There where several other valid reasons for Israel to participate. I blame the Ottoman Turks for most of the modern troubles in the region.
FG
People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
The UN of those days was not by any means the amorphous UN we know now. That was prior to the foundation of the league of unaligned states, prior to most members of the Warsaw block being members and it was very clearly pushing one sole line. The line of US, UK, France and a few others. The UN of those days authorised and deployed forces actively engaged in several local conflicts, most notably Korea. The US hates referring to them this way nowdays, but the South in the conflict was known as the "UN Forces" (just read any newspaper of the day). So UN siding with someone prior to mid-1960es cannot be used to signify neither moral superiority nor the world opinion for that matter. All it says that this was US and UK opinion of the day.
prior to the suez canal incident, there was no charter in the United Nations that allowed them to field peacekeeping forces. that ability was proposed by the Canadian delegate and passed to allow the U.N. to create a force that could deal with the suez canal crisis. The U.N. also immediately opposed and condemned the action against Egypt. It had previously acknowledged that Egypt had the right to nationalize the canal zone as long as shipping was not interfered with.
The U.S. and Soviet Union also condemned the action against Egypt.
Darth --
Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
Eqypt had no intention of closing off the suez canal. They wanted it for revenue and closing it off wouldn't have been constructive.
At the time, Egypt was trying to build a big hydroelectric dam and needed money. The U.S. and Britain were going to foot most of the bill, but Egypt started getting cozy with the Soviet Union. The U.S. said if they wanted to be buddies with the Soviets, the U.S. wasnt going to fund the dam. Britain agreed and pulled their funding also. Egypt nationalized the suez canal to get the money to build the dam. Britain and France got together and got Israel to invade Egypt. Britain and France then showed up and occupied the canal to "protect" it and enforce peace in the area (mostly by attacking Egypt). The U.S. told Israel to cut it out and they backed off. Nasser sank a bunch of ships and blocked off the canal. Britain's economy tanked due to oil shortages caused by the suez being blocked. The Canadian delegate to the U.N. introduced a resolution to create an official peace keeping force for the U.N. This force then took control of the suez canal and sent Britain and France home. Britian gave up willingly since their economy was fubar and they recognised the plan was a pretty big mistake. France went begrudgingly.
Also, the UN had already acknowledged that Egypt had the right to nationalize the canal zone as long as shipping remained unaffected. Later (much after this incident) Egypt did try to close the canal to Israeli traffic.
Darth --
Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
If I had my druthers, giving the Iranians a top nuclear education is better than letting them build the next Chernobyl.
i'm trying to find an example of religious fundamentalist lunatics being especially aggressive egregious and ignoring of innocent victims in their tactics, and i'm trying to find some recent examples... hmmm... help me out here... can you think of anything?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I won't dispute your historical account, but I will dispute this:
Eqypt had no intention of closing off the suez canal. They wanted it for revenue and closing it off wouldn't have been constructive.
With all due respect, that sounds more like your hindsight bias talking. I can imagine how critical world powers at the time didn't have the same confidence you have in Egypt's willingness to adhere to those terms. The fact that:
Later (much after this incident) Egypt did try to close the canal to Israeli traffic.
shows that these fears were not without basis.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
the next time some guy with a gun enters my home at night, i'll just ask him to sit down so we can talk it out
because as we know, there's no such thing as a imminent threat to life that requires action. if you pick up your own gun in defense of yourself, it's ALWAYS because you were the belligerent one, right?
bluffing? you think people are bluffing about this? how do YOU react when there is a threat to your existence?
i don't know about you, but if you hadn't noticed, the theocracy of iran has spent the last 30 years chating "death to america" at every chance and now they are getting nukes
why is it WE are the belligerent ones in the face of that? when does your mind not percieve that the iranians are the belligerent ones? why is the possibility that the iranians are the belligerent ones, considering their behavior and verbiage towards the west for the past 30 years, an impossibility in your mind?
yeah, nothing to worry about a nuclear theocracy that has been chanting death to america for 30 years. we're the belligerent ones, uh huh
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Well, the larger ships can't go through Suez anyway, that's why they want to enlarge it considerably now. Still, the only country you have to deal with is Egypt. Though I dunno if some other country holds the rights to the canal.
Intercontinental transport is mainly done through ships today. Simply because of cost efficiency. You certainly do NOT want to do a land transport through the middle east, not only because of the political situation. It's not really comfy to run your goods through deserts and mountains. So you would essentially bypass pretty much all of the middle east, safe those countries that border the red sea. And how much influence they have on travel through the canal can easily be seen at the example of Sudan, Eritrea, Djibouti and the other countries that border it on the African side.
The only country you have to deal with regarding the Suez canal now, is Egypt. That wasn't always the case, and it might not be the case in the future. Cf. 1956 "Suez Crisis", and the Six-Day War; it's not inconceivable that were Egypt or the Arab states and Israel to get into another land war, that the canal's ownership might change again. Stranger things have happened in the past.
Furthermore, although sea transport is currently much preferable to land, this isn't necessarily the case for all goods. Particularly liquids like oil, water, or LPG, would be much better in pipelines over land, than in tankers over the water. If the political situation were to become more stable, to the point where an oil pipeline could be built overland (say from the oil-producing regions of the Persian Gulf to Eastern Europe; particularly if it were natural gas), it would be a huge benefit.
Also, I think that in terms of sheer efficiency, rail transport is comparable if not advantageous to sea transport for bulk carriage of physical goods, and intermodal rail that bypassed the Suez might be an attractive alternative to widening the canal, since most freight today is containerized already.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
unlike Iraq, which seems to have tried to develop a program, failed, but left just enough detritus around to give the chicken hawks material for their misinformation campaign
Well, they did have one, but the Israelis blew it up.
The French -- in some sort of a fit of Gaullish pique -- sold the Iraqis a breeder reactor (technically it was a "materials testing reactor," but without an established nuclear program and any 'materials' to 'test,' it was pretty clear what they wanted with a high-neutron-flux design). The Israelis decided that was a no-go, and so they did some serious damage to it via an airstrike, before the fuel was loaded.
Then the Iran-Iraq war broke out, and -- at least in hindsight -- it's not clear whether Saddam ever really put that much serious effort into restarting the project. There's a lot of speculation in both directions; that the attack caused Saddam to pour a lot more resources into uranium enrichment (via gas separation), which would ultimately have produced more bombs than the single Pu breeder (see the quote on the WP page), or alternately that the Iran-Iraq war was such a drain on Iraq's resources that they never had the capability again, and/or put their resources into chem/bio stuff from then on.
The rest of the reactor complex was destroyed (pretty much pounded into rubble) in 1991, so it's probably not going to answer any questions now.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Where do you get this information from? Surely you can see that there is an agenda going on here.
Well, if all they wanted was a nice light-water power reactor, and they didn't have bomb-making aspirations, they could just stop all the saber-rattling and have one set up next month. I'm sure GE, Westinghouse, ABB, and a half-dozen other companies would be falling over themselves to be the prime contractor on that.
They'd get a reactor, and all the knowledge on how it works, plus all the training to run it, and probably all the MOX or low-enriched fuel they could shake a stick at. All they'd have to do is play by the rules that they already signed up to follow.
But I think it's pretty obvious that they don't really care about power generation -- first of all, they're sitting on a huge load of petroleum, which by the time they run out of it, any reactor they build today will be woefully obsolete -- and there's a lot to be gained, politically, if they have bombs. They protect themselves from invasion, they can threaten Israel, they can threaten the more moderate Arab states, heck they can probably threaten parts of Eastern Europe. They'd be able to have the ultimate carrot and stick: the carrot is the petroleum they're sitting on, which everyone wants, and the stick would be their nuclear arsenal, coupled with the theatre ballistic missiles they already have.
The goal of having a peaceful nuclear power industry just doesn't mesh with any of their actions, and I don't think -- given Ahmadinejad's fiery rhetoric -- that anyone really trusts what their real intentions are.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
European occupation of Middle East oil fields is akin to the ravaging of resources by the same nations in Africa. The countries in the Middle East are very justified in taking back control of the resources that were stolen from them.
Yeah let's make sure my mother's metal hip is completely checked out at the airport. Plans? pfffft, didn't anyone tell you that fuuriners kaint read? We deserve to get blown up at this point.
Certainly they can pass laws to regulate what occurs within the bounds of their national sovereignty. That does not, however, give them the moral right to seize assets that were developed there by foreigners... especially when that development was done under a joint-ownership agreement.
A counterexample: America allows Canadian firms to mine gold and diamonds out of Utah. The mining operations are subject to American laws, of course, and to regular taxes... but the created wealth is not subject to expropriation.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
With all due respect, that sounds more like your hindsight bias talking. I can imagine how critical world powers at the time didn't have the same confidence you have in Egypt's willingness to adhere to those terms.
I dont really have a bias about it. It happened before i was born and i find it interesting historically, but i have nothing personally invested in the event. The reason i believe they had no intention to close it is because the whole purpose of nationalizing it was to generate revenue to fund the construction of the hydroelectric dam. Interfering with the traffic through it would have defeated the point of nationalizing it to begin with.
The fact that they later tried to block Israeli use of it, to me, speaks more to the long running conflicts between the two countries more than to a general agenda Egypt had with the suez canal. Also, that event happened over 10 years after the suez canal crisis. Abdel Nasser, the president of Egypt who nationalized the canal, had been dead for a long time at that point.
Darth --
Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
Yes indeed, we have to thank Suez for that. UN started trying to do peacekeeping instead of actively intervening in wars. You are correct - this is the first piecekeeping mandate.
. shtml. 15 countries under UN mandate to be more exact with the UN secretary general at the time actively involved in lobbying for troops.
Before that UN tried to actively get involved in war on the ground in Korea: http://korea50.army.mil/history/factsheets/allied
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
So... basically sealing Israel's land borders, denying flights to or from Israel any use of Arab airspace, and using the newly-nationalized Suez Canal to prevent shipment to/from Israel by water -- none of that was 'provoking' Israel?
Just curious, by the same logic, would you agree that the US provoked the war with Japan and that we should have never enter WWII based on their striking back?
funny how many geeks think history is 'beneath them' in college.
Japan had invaded several neighbors within the last 15 years before Pearl Harbor. The US was the biggest obstacle to Japan's expansion. In comparison, Israel did not have a history of aggressive acquisition of territory, was under siege for several years, and it was clear that the goal was the destruction of Israel.
The problem is we're talking about going into their home in the middle of the night - and fighting words when going in would be a disaster we don't want to face are a bluff. The whole Wolfowitz "doctrine of premption" thing has been shown to be the sort of military thinking that could only come from a draft dodger, you can't fight in five seperate countries at once without getting the entire country behind it making major sacrifices. That is where the "picking up the gun in defence" analogy fails and turns into challenging two guys in the street to a gunfight.
Blaming everything on the Iranians may be patriotic but it is pointless. Unfortuantely it is two sided due to stupid meddling going back decades by what is probably ultimately uncontrolled US and earlier UK groups that wanted to play Bond villians and be kingmakers. We had 911 - they had an airliner shot down by an idiot in the US navy that did not follow procedure and even check what he was shooting at and they are not going to forget it. However when it gets down to it US citizens still work in the place and US companies still trade in the place - a bunch of extremists hurling insults does not completely define the USA or Iran but it makes good press and wins elections - even over there. They are not going to attack Israel tommorrow let alone the USA that they hate by association, if only becuase it would help Syria more than Iran and they don't get on.
The nuclear threat there is a bluff - but the threat of armed invasion from the USA is also a bluff or utter stupidity. After the failed show of strength in Iraq sabre rattling doesn't work anymore and a war against Iran would make Vietnam look like a minor conflict - Iran can and will ignore the bluff.
There's a lot of informed news on the topic if you watch something other than Fox - also remember that most of the population of Iran was not even born in the 1980s so it is a very different place to what is in the old stories that get recycles.
What like China or Vietnam? Oh, you mean rogue countries...
i never watch fox. i am not the propagandzied one here, and the issue is not blaming everything on the iranians, the issue is not blaming everything on the usa. blindly pro-usa=retard. blindly anti-usa=retard. you happen to be the latter. i am not the former. get it? you compare 9/11 to a mistake. do you know what the word INTENT means? we live in a wordl of rising islamic fundamentalism. it has an agenda, it does evil things, and it is not because of anything the usa has ever done before. you think you can base your world view on something other than "what happened? ok, we must figure out a way to blame the usa for htis"
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Next time you're travelling and your wallet gets lifted, don't complain. Your assets were just nationalized.
> Alavi is charged with one count of violating trade restrictions that prohibit exporting any goods or services to Iran.
s -Charges.asp
> He faces up to 21 months in prison if convicted.
Wow, tough sentencing.
Well, at least our other deterrents kept him away from drugs. http://www.commondreams.org/views/050900-101.htm
And its good to know that export of nuclear secrets is an infraction of about the same magnitude as carrying an illegal firearm. http://www.davidyannetti.com/PracticeAreas/Weapon
Sanity is a sandbox. I prefer the swings.
Since when can you download to something? You can upload to something, or you can download from something.
Staring at a white background [on a computer screen] while you read is like staring at a light bulb — Maddox
Ahh to quote my earlier reply... "Iran has large stock piles of refined U-235 and the whole nuclear industry here is in a buzz about it, but the press is not reporting it... I have family that works in the industry and this is what they tell me."
Much of the nuclear industry is military reserve (like the Civil Reserve Air Fleet) and the government keeps the company executives abreast on international affairs.
Wrong. Please read the entire post and don't take things personally - I am not bashing the USA or even saying that Iran is a nice place to be. Forget the extra baggage that wasn't there - the mention of 911 and the airliner was about two horrific incidents that shaped the opinions of their nations and will never be forgotten. Obviously very different, one was a deliberate act of terror and the other was a deliberate act to kill people on an aircraft that had not been identified - a tragic act of incompetance that it was an airliner with hundreds on board. "Why do they hate us?" is really an important question and is not some act of treason. I don't think they should have the bomb either but sabre ratting is not going to fix it - we are bluffing and they know it. A weapons program is a major effort so there will be ways to stop it short of large scale invasion and a war spanning years - which is what we'd need if we just refuse to talk, keep making threats and wait until some guy has to carry out the threat to stay in office.
Looks like another "failing grade" for US Government network and computer security.
- Contractors accessing data/systems after they no longer work there. - Connections being accepted from Iranian IP addresses.
The US Military blocks inbound and outbound traffic to/from China and several other countries. Why not the rest of the government -- or at least areas where potentially valuable information could be found?
Of course that's not going to stop attackers located in 'friendly' countries, but it is a least a MINIMAL starting point.
In any case, this guy will surely have a free extended vacation in Cuba while they ask him a few questions about the incident...
Israel did not have a history of aggressive acquisition of territory
Ummm, the proto-Israeli used terrorism to drive the British out in the first place. As for Japan, regardless of what they had done, they weren't a direct threat to the US and we should have kept to ourselves. We had no right to cripple their economy and then act all indignant when they turned around and punched us in the nose. The vast majority of people at the time wanted nothing to do with another bloody war.
We had no right to cripple their economy and then act all indignant when they turned around and punched us in the nose.
Keep in mind that this is the same Japan that had gradually acrued power for many decades and was involved in some heinious massacres in the 30's. Eg, the "Rape of Nanking" happened in 1937 and resulted in the death of 300,000 chinese. Japan had engaged in numerous military adventures culminating in the wars on China and the US. Israel has been implicated in massacres, but the deaths involved are at least a couple orders of magnitude fewer and Israel has never engaged in empire building. At some point, you need to recognize that your analogy is deeply flawed and lacks merit. The World had an obligation to stop the Empire of Japan. No similar obligation exists for Israel.