Slashdot Mirror
An Inside Look At Iran's Nuclear Program
NotBornYesterday writes "On April 8, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited his country's secretive nuclear enrichment plant at Natanz for a photo op. What came out of this visit is a series of photos which have caused a fair amount of interest among western scientists. Shown in the photos are not only some of the inner workings of the plant and current generation of enrichment centrifuges, but also key components to newer generations of more effective centrifuges. Analysts are 'intrigued' not only by the technical revelations in the pictures, but also because Iran's Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar accompanied Ahmadinejad through the facility."
Just nuke them already.
Captcha: tyranny
Way before the invasion of iraq we heard alot of how bad iraq was with their WMD:s and their connections to terrorism. And now what? No WMD:s no connection what so ever to al'quaida and what is the answer now? It was to bring democracy to Iraq.
And now it's irans turn, well you know what; this is a war that america can't afford. The dollar isn't worth salt so just turn the fucking propaganda machine of again.
We have a choice:
Risk the death of 100,000 people and do nothing.
Ensure the death of 100,000 people and bomb Iran.
You morons!
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
Just a thought, you might want to ad government propaganda to the tag list below.
Violence creates more violence.
Fair enough. We'll start with your family.
The question becomes: which nation winds up having the most people die in each scenario?
What makes you think that they are a threat at all? Just because they have a nuclear program doesn't make them dangerous.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
Neville Chamberlain was unavailable for comment.
That NotBornYesterday seems to think that we were born yesterday. He wanted to make sure we knew that Iran's Defense Minister went on tour of the facility with Mahmoud. What I also find intriguing is that Iran wanted to turn the visit to a top secret facility into a photo op. Would President. Bush want to turn a visit to Area 51 into a photo op?
New rule. Before we start another war, we need to finish the first one. OK?
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
They're a net exporter of oil so they are the least susceptible to peak oil. Yet even they're not foolish enough to sit back and rely on it.
"The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
How does the laser-guided precision bombing of a military target ensure the death of 100,000 people? It is easy to call us morons when you live on the other side of the world. I live in Isreal where we are faced with the thought of total annihilation. If you were faced with such a delima -- I wonder if you would also consider bombing.
Yuck
While we're at it why don't we just turn the place to glass? You know from Jordan all the way to Afghanistan. We can drill through the glass and still get to the oil. This plan has the added bonus, that we could use the whole region as a big telescopic mirror to study the universe. Whats more, we will solve global warming, because the earth's surface being large and reflective over that region, like the ice at the poles will reflect sun light back into space. Everybody wins!
Then we can let the Russians do it to the Chechnyans, the Chinese to the Unghars. This is such an awesome plan! Solve global warming, terrorism, world hunger (there will be a lot fewer people in the world). Nobel prize baby! mrbluze! you are a genius!
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/photo/2008/04/29/042908-Nuke/22938775.JPG
"This looks shopped. I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time."
Why would you want to power your country on oil? Stupid, dirty technology.
Why do you not take them at their word?Whose word? Whose (mis)translation?
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
See this? It's the world's smallest violin, playing just for you. Feel special yet?
-- "...I'm a bad guy because I, well, I sing some rock-and-roll songs." M. Manson
Why do these articles continue to be popping up? Slashdot is described as this "Source for technology related news with a heavy slant towards Linux and Open Source issues." Now what in the world does irans nuclear program have to do with Technology? Unless SlashDot is designed around talking about warfare technology, another wasted post.
Acquiring nuclear weapons with which they can force their will upon otehrs through threat or action?
You mean like the United States?
The illegal military actions of the United States against soverign nations that pose no threat to them (Iraq, Panama, etc.) is a stark example of which nation, Iran or the US, is more violently out of control.
at http://www.debka.com
Because Iran has not attack any of it's neighbors for hundred of years.
I once attended a lecture where the speaker said that the best thing to do with Iran was to force them to produce uranium in a consortium. Europeans do this by sharing the same enrichment plant, and it lets them keep tabs on how enriched each country is making its uranium. With Iran's new centrifuge technology, I'm sure they would be welcome at an international plant, especially if it allayed fears about a weapons program.
Nuclear engineers build weapons. Civil engineers build targets.
Processing uranium is an integral part of the procedure to utilize nuclear energy. Stated aims are for nuclear power generation. What is the problem with that? There is no evidence that this is being used to produce weapons of any kind or that it will ever be used for that purpose.
If Iran wants nukes, Bush WILL GIVE THEM NUKES up the ass nukes !! Or Israel if they don't pussy out again !!
Signatories to the NPT are allowed to enrich Uranium as part of a civilian program. Perhaps if Iran had not been the target of US sanctions since 1979 (when they overthrew the brutal western-backed Shah and his CIA-trained SAVAK secret police), they would be more trusting about getting their nuclear fuel from outside. As it is, they have a mentality of being as independent and self-sufficient as possible.
Iran is not in violation of the NPT, but the major nuclear powers are, since they have not disarmed and have no intention of doing so. In fact new nuclear weapons systems are being developed right now. Why then does the media not focus on the NPT violations of the big 5? Perhaps people feel the big 5 are so responsible that it's ok for them to posses them, but frankly the historical record does not back that up. Hiroshima and Nagasaki aside, Richard Nixon is on tape suggesting a nuclear strike on North Vietnam and before the Iraq war, UK Minister of Defence Geoff Hoon threatened Iraq with a nuclear strike (crazy I know).
The big 5 want to maintain a permanent nuclear apartheid whereby they keep their weapons (and threaten others with them, explicitly or implicitly) while preventing any other country from developing them. It's not a sustainable situation. You can't wave your gun about and then expect everybody else to refrain from acquiring guns of their own. It is the major powers themselves that are putting us all in a huge amount of long term danger due to their failure to disarm. That should be the real focus of media attention.
Because it's hard to take them at their word and blame America for it at the same time.
Jesus is coming -- look busy!
Well gee, do you suppose maybe the Iranians are simply building the enrichment facility to fuel a power plant as they've been saying all along? Duh.
9/11 Eyewitnesses to Explosive WTC Demolition 1 of 2
If you seriously believe that Israel would use nukes in a first-strike scenario , you've been horribly mislead by propaganda. Get a grip. The anti-Israel propaganda that pervades Middle-Eastern life is a subterfuge in support of the corrupt and autocratic governments in Iran and Syria and to a lesser extent those of Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.
The anti-Israel position has become a point of nearly complete cultural blindness.
Some of the sites are buried and hardened to the point that trying to destroy them with conventional weapons might not work. Planners have been drawing up plans to use B61-11s, nuclear bunker busters. Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh had a source tell him "...whenever anybody tries to get it [the use of nuclear weapons] out they're shouted down.".
A groundburst is the most fallout-inducing thing you can do with a nuclear weapon. There are dozens of sites involved, all with people living downwind.
The Guardian's Jonathan Steele cites four different translations, from professors to the BBC to the New York Times and even pro-Israel news outlets, in none of those translations is the word "map" used. The closest translation to what the Iranian President actually said is, "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time," or a narrow relative thereof. In no version is the word "map" used or a context of mass genocide or hostile military action even hinted at.
Iran has always since 1979 stated their desire for government of Israel to go away, and be given back to whoever people of whatever religion or race who lived there before the state of Israel was created, but never intended the people to die.
Could an innocuous non-weaponized nuclear program actually be more harmful to the west than the doomsday-device-building vision that the US is attempting to portray?
Ahmadinejad is no fool, and knows that any evidence of "actual" nuclear weapons would spell doom for his nation.
He's playing his cards, and seems to be coming out on top, and making his opponents look like absolute idiots...
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
I doubt the US want Iran to check their uranium enrichment plans. And neither the other way around. So a middle east consortium would be the at least thinkable solution. Now, do you think the US will tolerate or even trust a middle east consortium to act as a device to ensure no weapon capable uranium is produced?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Uhhhhh...I guess that whole Iran vs. Iraq war must have been Iran attacking (and being attacked by) some OTHER neighbor then... (unless you were being sarcastic?)
Iran like any other signatory of the NPT has a right to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. They also have a right to develop, purchase and sell said technology freely and without any hindrance as long as they abide by the NPT. Iran unlike other countries such as India, Pakistan and Israel (which are not signatories of the NPT) intends to use its nuclear technology for generating energy as a way to decrease dependence on oil exports (as any sane country should be doing now).
When other nuclear powers (lead by a country where its own president can't even pronounce the word nuclear properly) get in the way of this process it sends a clear message to other countries that are signatories of the NPT they it may not be as easy as they think to develop peaceful nuclear technologies within their own countries. As a result black-markets start popping up making ratifying the NPT all that more difficult.
If the US and UK just abide by the terms of the NPT then the majority of problems they are now seeing will all but disappear.
Arash Partow's Philosophy: Be a person who knows what they don't know, and not a person who doesn't know.
If you are so intent on learning from history, then go learn from the Iraq WMD lies (and all the other lies of this corrupt administration).
I wonder if you'd say the same thing if I killed (and raped, before AND after) your daughter and you have the choice of informing the police or staying silent.
... do you hide my crime ?
... because they can make bombs with it.
Remember, before you answer : violence only creates more violence. You obviously know the police will use violence against me.
So
Peace man. Where do you live ? Is your daughter pretty ?
(this post is fiction, obviously, and only meant to illustrate the utter stupidity of this fake "pacifism", the fake "salvation" that non-violence supposedly provides).
Violence against Iran may prove to be a VERY good idea, it may prove to be a very bad idea. We don't know.
One thing is for sure however, Iran is using heavy water reactors, less efficient and more complex than light-water reactors. They make this uneconomical decision for a reason
Do they want bombs for defense ? Why don't you answer this question for yourself. Is it reasonable to assume they need deterrence ? Or do they want to attack ? (little detail : like they've done before, with MASSIVE casualties, they lost 500.000 people, most of them children in an attempt to expand into Iraq)
http://michaelsmith.id.au
The president of Iran visits a top secret (!) nuclear facility, taks his defense minister along, and everything they do there (give or take...) is photographed and published.
Umm... am I the only one that wonders about the only question worth asking? I.e. why?
He is not dumb. Doing a tour to an uranium enrichment plan with your minister of defense and going public about it is not really what you do if you have a nuke program running and want to keep it secret. The very first reaction is, well, the reaction it caused. That's a no brainer. So the only logic conclusion is that this reaction was wanted.
And that again starts another round of asking why.
There are now two possible reasons. First, there is a nuke program and they are trying to create some sort of deterrent for an immediate strike, to show that they are able to retaliate. Second, there is no nuke program, but they want everyone to think there is one. Now, there is no strike planned (at least none that I know of), so the first reason makes little sense.
The second starts another round of why.
Personally, I could see a plan. The US will start a new ralley for nuke inspections in Iran, finally Iran will grudgingly agree, they will poke and prod and find nothing, and Iran can do another finger pointing at the US as some aggressor, which only thinks the worst of any country they can't control, discredit the US internationally.
And then start a nuke program. Who'd call for inspections?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The anti-Israel position has become a point of nearly complete cultural blindness. If you seriously believe that Iran would use nukes in a first-strike scenario , you've been horribly mislead by propaganda. Get a grip. The anti-Iran propaganda that pervades the American life is a subterfuge in support of the corrupt and autocratic government in United States.
The anti-Iran position has become a point of nearly complete cultural blindness.
Mutually Assured Destruction doesn't work with people who WANT TO DIE. Besides, it's easy to make such a substantial gamble with other people's lives.
The fundamentalists running Iraq have stated time and again that they wish to accelerate the return of the 12th Imam (the "hidden Imam") which will signal the end of the earth. This divine saviour ("Mahdi") will appear at the End of Days. Only after chaos and global war will the Mahdi lead Muslims to an era of universal peace.
In other words, the sooner they get on with global war, the sooner they can reach paradise. The Iranian government is trying to acquire the means to carry out this insane vision. They have stated clearly this is their intent, yet the Western world ignores them. Just as we Ignored the words and actions of Germany's socialists until it was too late.
Whistling past the graveyard, people.
We're geeks here. So let's compare their options. They don't just have "a" nuclear program. There are many nuclear programs a country can pursue.
...
Specifically they built heavy water reactors and built cascades of over 3000 centrifuges.
There are also simpler, more efficient "light water" reactors, requiring very little if any enrichment. They know this, and specifically chose against them
Why does one build heavy water reactors (and Ahmadinejad knows this, as he's a civil engineer), because you can build "heavy isotopes" with it. They want to use them to "cure aids" and stuff. Right.
But the part about heavy isotopes is true. Why do you want heavy isotopes ? Since these days we have a simple neutron-producing device, making small (okay... utterly tiny) amounts of medical isotopes is much simpler and much cheaper and flexible using alternative methods.
You want these reactors to produce large amounts of heavy isotopes. Which ones ? There's exactly one that's of any use : plutonium. There's exactly one thing those centrifuges produce : weapons grade purity uranium and plutonium. And there's one use for it : bombs.
Do they want bombs to avoid being nuked themselves ? Does Iran today need deterrence to avoid being bombed ?
There is only one conclusion with this course of action : they're making weapons, and they're making them because they want to attack (not necessarily with said nuclear weapons, but they want to attack, who and what is not clear, they want the bombs to prevent retaliation)
I believe they are taking a page out of the N. Korean playbook, taunting the world with images and tests, and then laughing when the world, particularly the US, can do nothing about it. Of course nothing can be done about it because they probably do have something, and any force would be risky. Compare this to Iraq where there was little risk as iRaq has little, and unlike the some other countries in the region, apparently had relatively little influence in global events.
Of course if the US like, like the British empire in it's waning day, had not deployed it's forces so willy nilly, and has not spent itself to the brink of bankruptcy, there might be something we could do with Iran and N. Korea. As it is we can't even take care of the real and present threat, Afghanistan and Pakistan, so little else matters.
In the end though I think it is just PR. Just because you have the toys does not mean you know how to use them. And, unlike the end of WWII, two or three big bombs, with threats of more to follow, it not enough to win a confrontation. In any case, one can hardly argue that fanatical religious states with nuclear weapons are inherently dangerous. Israel, which ranks very low in freedoms granted by the modern state, and appears to be controlled by fundamentalism as any country in the region, has had nuclear weapons for years with little negatve effect.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
That's like a +1 Insightful, +1 Funny, +1 just plain sad because it's so damn true.
Money is the root of all evil?
Funny you should mention Chamberlain. People tend to assume that he avoided going to war with Hitler because he was a wimp. Thing is, when Hitler first emerged as a threat, the UK was in no position to challenge him. On top of that, there was a lot of anti-war sentiment that didn't go away until Hitler showed his true colors — several times. By playing the wimp, Chamberlain bought the Allies time to rearm. Of course, they squandered that advantage when the war actually started, but that's another issue.
There's also the little detail that many leading politicos in Chamberlain's Conservative Party considered Hitler a hero. These were the guys in the House of Commons who booed Churchill the first time he entered the House as Prime Minister. Eventually, they became politically irrelevent, but until they did, any Conservative PM who had gone against Hitler would have been out of office faster than you can say "jackboot".
Now, we don't have a lot of Islamists in U.S. politics, but aside from that, we're pretty much in the same spot now the Brits were then. It's true our armed forces are way better than theirs were, but between our global committments and the Iraq tarbaby, we've nothing to spare. Even if we did have the troops to spare, we've gone and used up all our credibility with our recent fuckups. Starting another war would turn us into absolute pariahs.
And here's one thing that really bugs me: how can we tell Iran that they can't have nukes when we have thousands. Which we are not only making no move to draw down, we are actually planning to increase
One other thing: are you willing to pay all the extra taxes it would take to cover a third war? It's true that we've been running the first two on credit, but that's playing bloody hell with the value of the dollar. So I think we should assume we're at our credit limit.
So don't bash poor Neville. At least he knew his limitations.
Iraq started that war by invading Iran on Sept. 22, 1980.
...the party bombs you!
What makes you think that the government of Israel would not use their nukes?
The evidence I see supports the notion that the Israeli government is as ruthless and values the lives of foreigners about as much as does the US government.
Would you disagree with this statement?
If so, why?
There's a lot about this fabled US vs Iran rivalry that does not add up and it almost makes me think that to a large degree the Bush Administration is covertly fostering the rise of Iran as a middle eastern superpower.
Motive
1. Geopolitically, US foreign policy is to create regional checks around the globe so that she can use her weight so swing a balance of power one way or the other but without having to be overtly committed. A strong Iran creates enormous problems for Russia and China both. China has no domestic oil whatsoever, and Russia is well within range of Iranian missiles.
2. Money. We often talk about the US petrodollar as a product of Saudi Arabia, but what's often overlooked is that the USA still possesses a fairly sizable proved reserve of oil in her own right. In essence, the dollar is not just backed by US influence in the middle east but also by the USA's own oil reserves. Yes, the USA does not pump enough of its own oil, but, if we were to throw the environment into the dumper, we could drill Alaska, drill offshore, grind up all the shale in Colorado, convert to coal to liquids, drill the Bakken, and we'd wind up with trillions of barrels of the stuff. So, in the long run, high oil prices benefit the United States, because ultimately, the USA has that money in the bank. Let's put it this way: ANWR alone is worth a trillion dollars.
Supporting Evidence
1. Whose benefited. Everything the Bush Administration has done has benefited Iran from a security perspective. The Iranian foreign minister even pointed this out on NPR. Bush knocked off Iraq and Afghanistan both, and neither regime supported the USA. On the flipside, the high oil prices that exist partially because of the war in Iraq and the bellicosity with Iran actually are proving to be lucrative for nearly every traditionally Republican constituency. Oil men, miners, agribusiness, chemical, even US manufacturers have all benefited from rising oil prices and a devalued dollar. If Iran and the USA are enemies, both sides are laughing all the way to the bank.
2. History. Republicans, in particular, despite their bellicosity with Iran, have a long and fabled history of actually dealing with the Iran in pragmatic terms "behind the scenes". Ronald Reagan was nearly brought down because of a complicated deal which actually saw the USA supply weapons to Iran during the Iran - Iraq war. I mean, while Democrats talked rapproachment with Iran, Republicans were already making deals with them and hiding it.
Later on, administration officials from both Reagan and Bush I would both admit that they did, in fact, have a back door in communications to Iran. It's reasonable to think that a Dick Cheney who was an integral part of all of those administrations might actually have a back door to Iran himself. We do know, right away, that the government we work with in Iraq travels to Iran rather frequently. It's almost inconceivable that the USA would not be using the Iraqi leadership as the most covert sort of conduit.
3. Careful rules of engagement. The USA rightfully complains about the Iranians funding and helping anti-American insurgents in Iraq, but at the same time, the USA is also helping anti-Iranian insurgents in Iran. This is a sort of a standoff. Despite proclamations against Iranian leadership, the Administration has bent out of its way to say, for the most part, that Iranian leaders are not directly implicated in this and they actually might not be.
4. A total pass on WMD proves cooperation. The USA had absolutely no problem launching a unilateral war on Iraq because of WMD that didn't even exist, but Iran has 9000 centrifuges spinning and there's not been a shot fired. Even the claim that the Iraqi invasion has weakened the USA abilities to conduct airstrikes doesn't wash. The Navy and Air Force are certainly not tied down. The USA has, since the invasion of Iraq, conducted airstrikes in Somalia, Sudan, Pakistan... rumoured to have conducted airstrikes in Oma
This is my sig.
How to prepare the public mind for an unjustified war in two sentences within three easy steps ...
.. oh wait where's the prime minister?] given Iran's claim that the desert labors are entirely peaceful in nature[the fuckers, now we have proooffs!!1!]. In one picture, Mr. Najjar, smiling widely, [oh shits, he was having a fantasy on worlds domination!!1!!] appears to lead the presidential retinue."
1. "One surprise [surprise!] of the tour was the presence of Iran's defense minister, Mostafa Mohammad Najjar. His attendance struck some analysts [gotta love weasel words] as odd [seriously, very odd
2. ??
3. Get screwed by your government and get thousands killed and displaced.
This is a little silly on the face of it. There is little doubt that Israel could obliterate them right back and that is BEFORE we chuck a MIRV or two in their general direction. Israel has reliable delivery systems and there is very little doubt they have nukes of their own. And more than one or two nukes. It's probably more like 30. Israel can annihilate the cities of any Middle Eastern state of their choosing and still have a stick to wave afterwards.
One Defense Intelligence Agency estimate puts the number of Israeli nukes at 65 to 85 weapons.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
If Iran were so foolish as to attempt to "obliterate" Israel, Iran would cease to exist within hours of the attempt.
Middle Eastern leaders talk of destroying Israel because it plays well to the masses and the Iranian leadership are crazy like foxes in this regard. These leaders themselves live comfortable privileged lives and will not act like the young suicide bombers they employ as cannon fodder. The mad-dog Arab who will do anything is a propaganda tool meant to scare the shit out of the West. And it works.
Everything belongs in context. In this context it's not about individual violence. A better description than the really over-the-top example you used would be:
You daughter gets raped and murdered. The crime gets reported. The person who is suspected of doing the crime lives in a run down apartment building that everyone knows houses nothing but criminals. Instead of arresting the suspect at work (imagine they know where he works, and no he hasn't ducked out) they decide instead to organize a SWAT raid on the whole building. During the raid the police enter 12 seperate residenses and make 18 arrests for other crimes (drug possesion that sort of thing). The police during the raid injure 9 people (2 placed in ICU) and one person is fatally wounded. During the confusion, no one manages to arrest the murder/rape suspect. In fact he's wasn't home at the time of the raid, he was at work. Later, in a press release, the Chief of Police explains to the press that the raid was done to catch the man suspected (photo given out, if you know his location please call (bet you money he skips town at this point)) and they show a photo of the girl that he supossedly raped and murdered. And the photo of the concerned father. You live a mile from the location of the raid.
Now, that's a better analogy, and if it were up to me I'd prefer that instead of what I just outlined that they arrest him at work.
Do you get it yet?
Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
This is the new 21st century western imperialism, keep countries forever backwards so that they will always be dependent. The end of western hegemony is finally approaching, and if it takes ww3 to make it happen so be it!
I've lived there, and I've seen them. The people who least believe in any imaginary being in the sky are the same people who preach most about its existence, and themselves being his representatives on earth, the latter of which is the reason they need religion.
These people are only there for business, they are businessmen.
I start by more familiar examples, say Dick Cheney. Does anybody believe him to be a true Christian or a ruthless businessman who'll do anything for the sake of profit? Or when he talks of supporting troops, is he telling what he truly means?
In Iran we have our own businessmen. Since the 'Islamic' revolution of 1979, these people have taken over the government in a country where 90%+ of the economy is owned and operated by the government.
A clear example, is the largest of these business entities: Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), most recent bogeyman on CNN/FOX. While the American media focuses on the 'military' part of IRGC's operation, they neglect to mention the much much bigger side of IRGC.
Revolutionary Guards is the single biggest business entity in Iran, they build all the dams, bridges, tunnels and roads, railroad, they operate civilian airports all across the country, they do the largest mining operations, they own many of the largest and most profit generating financial institutions in Iran and this list goes on forever.
Almost half of the members of the current parliament are former IRGC members, Ahmadinejad himself made his way to being Tehran's Mayor and later, Iran's president through IRGC.
Then there's Mesbah Yazdi, a mid-level clergy, known as the mentor of Ahmadinejad, the biggest fucking piece of shit I know in Iran. Plays the same role to Ahmadi Nejad as Dick plays to Bush. But there's another side to this guy, he is also known as "Sultan of Sugar" in Iran. He controls import, distribution and sale of all Sugar in Iran. Believe me, in a country of 70 million population a monopoly on sugar is better than a monopoly on gold mines. He also says that the 'Zionist regime' of Israel is doomed, however nuking them means end of the sweet sugar business for him.
Former president Rafsanjani, former parliament speaker Nategh Noori and many others are businessmen too. They don't give a fuck about religion unless in public when preaching people.
Oh, did you hear the Moral Police Chief of Tehran was recently arrested in a brothel with six girls and they were mocking muslim prayers, naked? That screams of the hypocrisy of the current situation in Iran.
I just want you to think, what benefit does nuking Israel which guarantees a much much harsher reaction from Israel bring to these ruling businessmen? See, that's why Iran, even with nukes is no threat at all to any other country?
All that matters to these people is survival of their business, they are not religious zealots, they don't believe in the second coming or afterlife or crap like what they preach to people. If a day comes where wiping their asses with pages of Quran helps them keep control of their business, then that's what they WILL HAPPILY DO.
for sure? the main reason for a heavy water reactor is that it can run on natural uranium. It is one way to start a nuclear program when there is no enriched fuel. Sure it can do some neat tricks for bomb making, but also for research and industry. You seem to be confused like a few others here on history, Iraq invaded Iran to start the Iran-Iraq war. Iraq even used chemical weapons. Iran has invaded no one for centuries.
If you think no one would want to attack Iran you haven't been watching the joint sabre-rattling in the news from the US and Israel. Who did we attack, Iraq, the relatively stable country with no nuclear weapons, or North Korea, the ticking time bomb of regional destablization who already had them? Nuclear weapons seem like a fine deterrent again.
Israel is NOT america. And though I think the nuclear 'threat' is merely generated to secure oil in the future, I must say that I am completely and utterly disgusted by our continued BULLSHIT interventions on earth. If people can't establish their own defense, then fuckem. Its not OUR problem. We've even armed israel to a large extent. We've given them defense equipment. Do we need to do all the work for them as well? I mean.. Crap.. The only thing of value in Israel is Judaism, which means nothing to me, but means a lot to those that own America.
Yes, if I was Ahmadinejad I would be trying like hell to get me some deterrence to avoid being bombed. I mean imagine if you are Iran, look east, look west and then shit yourself. And our (USA) decision to *not* invade North Korea gave him what he could logically see as a possible solution. Did we force Iran's hand? I believe so, even if indirectly. (and Ahmadinejad knows this, as he's a civil engineer) I guess the old saying "MechE's make weapons, CivE's make targets" applies then?
Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
dude, unclog your brain. It's heavy water reactors that can run on un-enriched fuel, they can even run on depleted uranium (= 0.7% u-235)
there are numerous useful isotopes for industry and medicine and research that can be produced by a heavy water reactor. do some research before spewing your ignorance all over the internet.
a heavy water reactor is one way to start a nuclear program without having a stock of enriched fuel on hand
I said that they wouldn't use it as a first strike weapon; I'm sure if they were in danger of being overrun, they'd use them. But you say that you believe they act in their own self-interest. Do you realize how small of an area we're talking about? A nuclear strike by Israel into Syria or Iran would almost surely lead to radioactive fallout blowing through Israeli cities and polluting Israeli water-supplies as well.
Both Israel and US take substantial pains to minimize casualties--as much as possible short of avoid hostilities all together. Perhaps you consider risking even one innocent death ruthless, but I do not. I think the US substantially values the lives of foreigners and human life in general.
The fact that Israel has many nukes forward deployed is what scares the hell out of me. They do not believe in MAD!
and i will say it again. their nuclear program is most likely as they said, civilian. they are a oil/nat gas exporter that also use's it's own production for domestic use including making electricity. they are smart and know that as their domestic consumption increases their income decreases as there is less available to sell/export. so why not use nuclear power to satisfy their internal demand at least for natural gas there by increasing the amount for export and thus the money they will get. though the reason this get's the ire of this country is because the people they would be selling it too would not be us but china who can now most likely out bid us.
- You compare calling the police to violence, whereas normally, in a civilised country the expected outcome of a (successful) intervention of the Police, will finally end up in court in a fair trial, with the criminal being subject to what punition has been deemed relevant by the law (which law itself should preferably have been voted democratically by the population).
Pacifism is not about inaction. Pacifism is about trying to reach results while resorting to more modern and less barbaric means.
- You compare a situation where the horrible crime has been committed, with a situation where one might encounter a menace and is resorting preventively on violence. The more exact parallel would be beating the head of some random person into pulp, on the grounds that there's a doubt that maybe that random person could have planned to rape twice and murder your daughter.
- Why are you resorting to violence *for* in the place ? What was the goal of you action ? You wanted to make the world a better place ? A better place devoid of "Evil Guys" who might use nukes against you ? And what do you do against them ? Drop bombs on their country ? How is that different from being an Evil Guy ? If you resort to violence to solve your problem, you end up being not different from the guys themselves which cause said problems.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Dick...is that you?
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
But they attacked them back! They should have just let them in to take whatever they wanted!
Those girls are actually very cute. Not the bleach blonde surgically enhanced beach balls that some people like but genuinely cute girls.
We do people keep getting this crap about no WMD's in Iraqi? Hell we sold the weapons to them. Sadam used them on the Kurds shortly after Desert Storm I. So where do people get this crap about no WMDs?
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
Um... How did that "War on Drugs" go? I don't recall hearing who won that one.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death by an Iraqi judge in an Iraqi court, and executed by the Iraqi government. The US supported this government, but opposed his execution (at least as quickly as it happened). Afghanistan has not had a leader executed by an invading party in recent memory; the last one to be killed was Prime Minister Mohammed Daoud Khan, executed during a Communist coup in 1978.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
I agree completely.
However, critics say once Iran gets the bomb they will immediately bomb Israel. (The neocons are even implying Iran will immediately bomb the US. And people believe them. That is how much Israel's existence is tied into our own in some people's minds. They have people in Ohio scared of an Iranian nuclear attack.) Is this plausible? Do they think Iranians have learned nothing from the Cold War? Mutually Assured Destruction? Iran would be glass if they even started fueling up a nuclear missile.
While I certainly don't relish the idea of nuclear bombs in Iran, I think the threat is overstated. Might even lead to an uneasy peace in the Mideast. Much like now.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
I'm supposed to believe that I can get any honest assessment from a site that is as rabidly Zionist as this? How about citing a source that is a bit more honest? I suggest mosaic:
http://www.linktv.org/mosaic/streamsArchive/
And by the way, since you are an insider and all, maybe you can give us the inside scoop on Dimona. Like how much weapons-grade plutonium it produces yearly? Or how many nukes Israel already possesses? Something like 100 - 200 warheads?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/israel/dimona.htm
And while you're at it, maybe you can explain why Israel refuses to sign on to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty
I'm supposed to get excited about Iran making *one* nuke, when Israel has hundreds?
And the last time that I checked, Iran wasn't attacking its neighbors, stealing their land, and ethnic cleansing. In fact, some would even call it holocaust...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3459144.ece
Shame on Israel, and shame on the USA (my country).
It's not a matter of propaganda, or anything of the sort. A nuclear-armed country is likely to nuke other countries if, and only if they are don't have nuclear capabilities. And while I don't think Israel is stupid enough to bomb Iran (for obvious reasons), I do consider it a client-state of the US and the latter never hid its intentions to overthrow (yet again!) the Iranian government. There's this MAD thing that makes it a lot more likely for Israel to strike Iran with nukes they have than Iran to do the same with nukes they might potentially acquire in the future.
Res publica non dominetur
If the muslim world put down their weapons there would be peace.
If Israel put down their weapons there would be genocide.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Res publica non dominetur
It would be much easier to believe the nukes are only for deterrence, that the silly stories currently used to justify the nuclear program.
If Iran want nukes, they can easily buy them in the black market, any country/terrorist group can do it. Why take the effort to build nuclear facilities when you just can buy the six pack?
I've been to most places in the world and for my money, Israel has a LOT of hot chicks per capita, and when I say hot I mean HOT. Nothing like a 18-21yr old hottie carrying an uzi...mmmmmm
Dark Reflection
Debian FTW
BadAnalogyGuy, is that you?
And as you tread the halls of sanity, You feel so glad to be, Unable to go beyond. I have a message, From another time..
It doesn't help that various extremist loonies in Israel declare that any objection to extremist loonies is an objection to Israel. Thankfully Israel is about the only place in the middle east where the rule of law applies so somethimes they get removed from power, charged for their crimes and hopefully soon jailed or otherwise kept out of politics. I think the earlier poster was dragged in by the reaction to these extremists and doesn't realise that there would be others that would stop them using nukes unless the prevailing view is to use the nukes. You wouldn't see a nuclear strike as a distraction from domestic political strife even with far right loonies in charge - an attack with conventional weapons on Lebanon was what happened instead.
Look at the Korean war. We won't invade North Korea because of China. As long as they support them, we will not invade. China has a huge army, and is right next door. We have an army that is worn down from two wars. If we poured all our resources to fighting china, we could win because of our Air Force, but no president wants to do that.
hey asshole, stop posting with multiple accounts, everyone is tired of your shit
How very naive, and somewhat typical of someone who has not quite matured yet.
Violence sometimes is necessary. Violence wins wars. Anybody remember when wars used to be fought to a conclusion instead of what we have nowadays? The United Nations was created to make damned sure that a war never ended properly, i.e. a clear winner and a clear loser. And that's why we have the situation where a war drags on and on and on, seemingly with no end in sight.
There is evil in this world whether you naive young snots want to admit it or not. Evil HAS to be defeated to save millions of innocent people from suffering needlessly. How can you live with yourself if you take the opposite view?!?
If the Muslim world put down their weapons, there would be a Berlin Conference 2008.
If Israel put down their weapons, not even god would save them.
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3762
I'll give you an extract
Then we have the illegal detention of suddam, and how his charges were created in court, during trial, and not before the actual trial. (Illegal in Iraq)
http://loc.gov/law//help/hussein/comments.html
And who's jurisdiction was the court under. It couldn't be the international courts, he was being tried for actions committed before it existed and thus outside of its jurisdiction
If it was Iraq's jurisdiction, then by Iraq law, Saddam was still president and thus had immunity from prosecution.
The summery of this post is.
The court that sentenced Saddam to death had no jurisdiction over him, was highly influenced by the controlling forces (The Iraq government, and probably the US), and freely broke the law to deliver the guilty verdict
Saddam did a lot of evil things I'm sure, and if its all true, he did deserve death in my books. But to suggest that his trial was just and fair is a bold lie, committed either through ignorance or unbridled emotion.
To avoid criticism; Say nothing, Do nothing, Be nothing.
like they've done before, with MASSIVE casualties, they lost 500.000 people, most of them children in an attempt to expand into Iraq
You fail at history. Saddam started the Iran-Iraq war, basically at our, the U.S., bidding. Of course, there wouldn't be a foreign military in the region that they might be worried about attacking them.
This also assumes that they really are secretly building a bomb, which has hardly been established, despite your intimations otherwise.
A blog about stuff.
Just for the record, first strike means you don't use nukes first, regardless of the conventional weapons used against you, not that you only use nukes when you're really, really in trouble. So you pretty much admitted that Israel would use them as a first strike weapon.
A blog about stuff.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The what??? Muslim world?
Only a severely misinformed person would make such a statement. First of all, the bulk of the "Muslim world" as you call it is made off Indonesia and Pakistan. Secondly, the Lebanese have every reason to shoot at Israeli soldiers. After Sabra and Shatila, decades of occupation, regular incursions and violation of their sovereignty came the destruction of Beirut two years ago. They could be Buddhists and it wouldn't change a thing. In fact, Muslims hardly account for 2/3 of the country. As for the Palestinians, their struggle is anything but religious. Hamas was de facto supported by Tel-Aviv in the 80s because it was seen as a good opposition to the secular nationalists. It bit them right in the ass as is often the case in such cases - a lesson which the US learned the hard way in 2001.
In the minds of the Palestinians, the wound is still too fresh. After all, it's only been a few decades since a massive influx of Europeans debarked on their lands, and their situation went downhills from there. So, they will never forgive nor forget. Israelis, on the other hand, have sacrificed way too much to make any concessions now. Hence, the deadlock. The status quo is largely in favor of Israel. There are still millions of Palestinian refugees scattered around the world, the proposed two states solution amounts to bantustans, Israeli settlements are still being built and the IDF is reigning in supremacy. Why would any Palestinian with a drop of blood in his/her veins put down their weapons is beyond me.
Res publica non dominetur
Great stuff - geeks talking politics - great insights and life experience to fall back on drinking all that pop and watching Youtube videos. Actually more fun than the guy from the Nvidia article who explains multi-threading - wow that was a revelation - and now I see it: life is multi-threaded. While Clinton and Obummer duke it out Iran is getting the nukes out.
Did anyone else notice the 4th picture in the 15 picture series features Solitaire on the computer monitor to the immediate left side of the blue divider and what looks to be mine sweeper on the bottom right of the same screen.
If that guy squatting my house put his gun down I'd kick him out.
A blog about stuff.
Whoever modded this down doesn't get the reference to Barbara Ann. Which the OP may have gotten from this.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Who gives a shit?
twitter may be a dumbass, but you guys are even more obnoxious. 'OMG sockpuppets!' Just shut the fuck up already. At the very least, hold off on the crapflooding when he's posting with his real account.
Hahah. Dude, you're funny. If I didn't know better I would think you actually believe what you said. Next time you should use the sarcasm tag though.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Let's get a few things straight about what we've actually learned in the last 5 years.
People in Saddam's own government believed he had WMD's. Why? Saddam wanted people to believe this. Most likely to keep Iran in check.
Saddam didn't have stockpiles of anything, but he had weapons programs ready to go.
Now, what do we know about Iran? They support Hezbollah and Hamas which create instability and murder people in Israel/Palestine and Lebanon.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Circumcision is child abuse.
why are people babbling about the usa?
iran is a THEOCRACY. you know, grumpy old men who think they have a monopoly on the word of god?
and i don't know about you, but a skeptical view of religious fundamentalism, to me, is a necessity for a healthy mind. being such a person, this is what i think: a THEOCRACY with NUCLEAR BOMBS strikes me as a VERY BAD IDEA FOR THE WORLD no matter WHAT ELSE IS GOING ON IN IT
i don't really see how any other observation concerning iran and nuclear power somehow trumps, surpasses, modifies, or eclipses this point
you may now continue with the "bless the usa" "fuck the usa" fest, completely forgetting the real issue here
here, it is, by the way, the real issue here:
http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/Government/constitution-1.html
ok, and this government is going to have nukes?
and you are all pissing away about the usa is great/ the usa sucks?
why the fuck is everyone babbling about the usa? what a bunch of fools you all are to completely miss the main issue here
HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
REAL ISSUE: OVER HERE: THEOCRACY WITH NUKES
no, not the propaganda kind of theocracy, the real kind, as in, THE FACT IT IS A THEOCRACY IS IN THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION
wake up the fuck up fools. THEOCRACY WITH NUKES=BAD IDEA. some of you, of course, won't wake the fuck up until you see a mushroom cloud, unfortunately
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
OMG. I had no idea that Israeli chicks were so hot. It would almost be a privilege to be killed by one. Now I know why we are on their side. We can't we recruit hot girls like that into our military? There should be some sort of international law against bombing or attacking countries with a high per capita hot girl ratio. Do the arab countries know about this? Too bad about the language though. It's one of the few languages that sounds worse than German to my ear. Of course Arabic is even worse. Clearing your throat should never be used as a phoneme in any language.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Please point out to me where I said it was just and/or fair. There were some very significant issues about it, and unlike some of those who, like me, supported the invasion, I had no issues with people like Ramsey Clark coming forward in an attempt to defend Hussein, as all defendants deserve competent counsel, no matter what they've done. I look back at the Nuremberg trials as a model of how such trials should be dealt with (which also tried people for charges that didn't exist before the trials). Had he not been executed and the trials continued, it would be, in my eyes, a victory for the court system if he had been exonerated of some charge because the actions were carried out by others outside of his command, whether or not he failed to punish them later.
I'm inclined to believe that the US complicity in the trial was largely limited to turning him over on a regular basis, as it's my understanding that he remained in US custody when not in court. The rest of it was simply Shi'ite vengeance. There were at least some in the US military and political structures who argued vociferously regarding the trial and, especially, the rush to execute Hussein. In the end, Hussein went out in as dignified a manner as he could muster, and his executioners looked like the bloodthirsty mob that they had become. But truth be told, his fate was a foregone conclusion when he was captured. Much like Nicolae CeauÅYescu, no one in the West was going to seriously intervene in his execution at the end of a trial put on mainly to go through the motions.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
The Bush presidency dearly wants to invade Iran. They are also utterly incompetent and their intentions are self-serving. The U.S. has been lied to and bankrupted and there are still people who don't get it. In a democracy, I think you should not be allowed to vote if you can't tell the difference between an 'M' and a 'W'.
-FL
Of course, if you read armscontrolwonk.com you would have had this info three weeks ago (note that J. Lewis contributed on the NYT story mentioned as well).
But not just for this reason is critical discussion of the U.S. war machine entirely reasonable. The U.S. is the country which will be doing any invading, and it can be expected to fail to simply clip the head off the beast, but rather act to reduce all of Iran to rubble and chaos. I know decent, sane people who have family in Iran who will be destroyed if the U.S. government gets its way. I'd really rather not see this happen. --With the long history of American war mongering and corruption, to suggest that people remove discussion of the U.S. from the table simply because you want to grandstand with back-of-the-class, smart-alec "Look at how different and smart I am" nonsense chatter, is not realistic.
wake up the fuck up fools. THEOCRACY WITH NUKES=BAD IDEA. some of you, of course, won't wake the fuck up until you see a mushroom cloud, unfortunately
Even though Rice said the same thing more cleverly and with fewer explicatives, your comments remain on the level of a Fox News clip. Tie a rope around that ego of yours and smother it. It's both tiresome and dangerous.
-FL
At risk is the US Capitol, Tel Aviv. We must protect the Israelis' right to build settlements on Palestinian lands. Even if it means the Empire Strikes First. You must trust US politicians, after all, they did save us from Iraq. (With the help of some helpful Israeli intelligence concerning WMD).
Iran backs a number of radical groups in the middle east, including Hezbollah and Hamas (we know this because both groups have used Iranian weapons), and probably Al Qaeda in Iraq. They have suggested that Israel be wiped off the map, and do not seem opposed to using nuclear weapons as a means to do so.
most worrisome is the fact that they are a wild card. What will they do with nuclear weapons? Pass them on to terrorists? Use them as deterrence? Push their will on the rest of the region, which is cowering in terror under the nuclear shadow? It is a reasonable assumption that the US will not use nuclear weapons except in retaliation. The same can be said for Russia, and even China. However, Iran is an unknown. In the best case, Iran having nukes will make them harder to work with, and will likely create a shelter for terrorist groups seeking to disrupt Iraq (as Iraq is also a shelter for terrorist groups seeking to disrupt Iran).
Qxe4
A good case for getting out of the middle east. Iran and all these other "bad guys" wouldn't give two shits of interest about us if we weren't always getting involved in their regional affairs.
Whenever one of these so-called "enemies" tries to resist our influence and encroachment, it is called "terrorism" and is used as an excuse to continue being involved and sacrificing ourselves.
The reality of this situation is:
1) Israel and the neo-conservative movement involves a lot of, ahem, Jewish people who root for their ethnic homeland
2) Commercial interests want to open new markets in places that traditionally resist western influence
3) Cheap access to oil to continue our materialistically consumptive culture
I don't think Israel should be eliminated, but it is a very natural reaction that people would begin to hate us when we take sides in their regional conflicts. This is the price we pay.
Until that time, we have no choice but to deal with the middle east. The only question is how.
Qxe4
oh no.. they got them "nuclear booties" on... someone tell our fearless leader ASAP!
The US didn't oppose the killing of Saddam. IIRC Bushes response at that time was they could not interfer with judicial rulings of other countries. I remember it because my hypocrite detector exploded leaving a small crater.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
It also doesn't help that, in America, any criticism of Israeli policy is anti-semitism... Which means most of my in-laws are apparently self-hating Jews...
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
The US used 2 nukes against Japan and Japan did not own nukes so it is not at all reasonable to assume that the US will not use nuclear weapons except in retaliation. The US they have supported terrorists, death squads, bombing of civilian targets, invasion of foreign countries that were no thread to them. So better stop assuming and look at the facts.
But all that is in the past... post-Hawaii, people aren't allowed to just take land they want, unless the UN says it's okay.
To be fair (and slightly more serious), giving the land to the Jews is much like giving up Mexico City to anyone with a legitimate claim to Aztec blood - sure, it's gone through a dozen other hands first, but it was 'theirs' (in as much anything can be owned by an ethnic group) to begin with.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
(Socialists start as government bureaucrats, take over the corporate economy, and generally screw it up. Fascists start as corporate board members, take over the government apparatus, and generally screw it up.)
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Having read various chunks of the discussion, I'm still not sure where to put this, but I want to mention Paved with Good Intentions: The American Experience and Iran , circa 1981 by Barry M. Rubin. Review at:
http://dubyaurb.blogspot.com/2007/04/paved-with-good-intentions-american.html
Short summary is that we contributed a whole lot to the mess, though the British probably did more to set the stage. There are still some moderates in Iran, but we have done everything we could to marginalize them to the point where they probably want the bomb, too, just to keep us away.
However, all things considered, I think we already have enough to worry about with the bombs that we already know about--even including the possibility of a rogue Israeli bomb. Given the current state of affairs, I'd say the Pakistani bombs are the most dangerous threats, and we should be trying to get *SOME* kind of leverage there. Our puppet there can't last much longer...
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
If Saddam had had nukes, he still would have got booted out of Kuwait, but he would have been safe from invasion.
Iran having nukes will make them harder to work with, True, but hardly an excuse to start a war.It's hard to argue that nuking Japan was substantially different from the previous fire bombing campaigns. That aside, I think one of the best pieces of evidence that the US substantially values human life is that in the wars the US has fought since WWII massive strategic air campaigns weren't used.
If you compare US tactics during WWII to those employed more recently, its hard to escape the conclusion that the US currently substantially values the lives of foreigners. If the US didn't, Iraq would be strewn with land-mines, Baghdad and other cities, would be burned out shells and the response to mortar attacks on US bases would be to counter-battery the area with massive heavy artillery and bombing.
Did you experience the Cold War?
There was a lot of threatening going on, whilst the leaders themselves were on the phone, trying to work everything out.
Propaganda is just a tool to win the hearts and minds of the masses.
When was the last time your elected official actually did what he/she promised?
"I was in love with a beautiful blonde once, dear. She drove me to drink. It's the one thing I am indebted to her for."
1. Iran is the only UN member calling for the outright destruction of another UN member (Israel).
2. Iran, besides a bloody history of recent aggression, has a *current* history of aggression through its Hezbollah proxies.
A little bit of sanity there. I myself have always been baffled by the portrayal of Ahmadinejad as a mad person because he seeks nuclear weapons. His country is flanked on both sides by an incredibly powerful, incredibly aggressive military force. He would be insane to not want nuclear weapons.
And, for all the bad stuff happening in the Iran - Iranians are a shitload better off than Iraqis of Aghans. I for one hope, for the sake of the Iranian people not their government, that Iran develops a deterrent before the US is ready to launch another genocidal invasion.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
And who owned that land before that?
And before that?
How many different groups people have actually owned that land in the last, say, 3000 years?
How will you decide who is the actual owner of that land?
From a semi-unrelated earlier
post about Iraq :
Before that (Iraq vs. US), the USA was arming Iraq to fight Iran. Some time prior to that, Iraq went through numerous coups, a British invasion, two monarchies and a partridge in a pear tree. Prior to the pear tree, Iraq was owned by the British. Actually, two distinct regions (Basra and Baghdad) were owned by the British. To save on ink, when drawing maps, they called the group "Iraq". Before that was the Ottoman Empire, who - ultimately - can be blamed quite reasonably for most of the current blood-feuds in Europe and the Middle East. Before that were the Mongols, who can be blamed for just about everything else. Before that, the Islamic forces of Khalid ibn al-Walid decimated the area and took it out of Persian control, who in turn invaded before they even became Persians. Nothing like getting ahead of themselves! Some time before that, Alexander the Great made a royal mess of the area. Before that, there were endless wars between the Assyrians, the Akkadians, the Sumerians (who were largely obliterated), assorted other nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes, and whatever culture lived there first of which there is almost no trace left.
In other words, there is no meaningful "first", unless you want to go back around 10,000 years. Almost everything that happened after that point was in direct retribution to what had happened before. That's one reason it will take a lot of effort to calm the region down - ten thousand years is a long time to build up grdudges and resentments -- and don't think a single one of them has been forgotten.
"I was in love with a beautiful blonde once, dear. She drove me to drink. It's the one thing I am indebted to her for."
Ohh, the old "Criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism" argument! Well done, you get a gold star, now shut up.
In former times, a leader could speak to a specific target group and speak over the top without any danger. Now, that is impossible, as international media picks up eveything.
That means that the whole world is laughing when American presidential candidates humilitate themselves in public by stating Darvin was wrong and the world is only 6000 years old.
This also means that when an Iranian president needs to deliver necessary propaganda to his own people, that this sounds alarming in many western countries.
So two problems: Politicians needs to deliver targeted messages and we need to filter out what is really meant and what of it are jzst exaggerations for special interest groups.
Regarding your point 1, are you sure?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel
it's in my head
Ohh, the old "Criticism of an anti-Semite is always unwarranted" argument!
But, poorly done. He stated a fact which refuted an earlier claim, you need to try to answer this at least, even flippantly, before resorting to your argument.
Agreed. Let's develop a form of energy independent from oil so we don't have to keep sending our money over there, and leave them happily alone.
That would leave them with only a single option : attack.
Lack of money and resources, and lack of ways to keep the people occupied was the reason nazi germany attacked.
Why would Iran be any different in the same situation ? Because they care so much about hanging gays, oops, I mean human rights.
If Saddam had had nukes, he still would have got booted out of Kuwait, but he would have been safe from invasion.
... and lost massively. (Iran lost massively too, because they kept sending in untrained children against buried-in posities. Iran lost about 500.000 of it's children that way, that is the main reason islam is so terribly unpopular in Iran nowadays)
... all are wars that the attacker could in no way hope to win ...
No, Kuwait would have gotten nuked, after which there would be nobody left (Kuwait is really small, barely larger than Israel, with only a single city).
And there would have been no alternative to giving it to Iraq. After all, there would be maybe 10000 Kuwaiti's left world-wide.
What would have stopped Saddam from nuking them ? The common decency and conscience that mass-murdering thieves tend to exhibit in times of stress ?
Use them as deterrence? Push their will on the rest of the region, which is cowering in terror under the nuclear shadow?
Actually the region has seen a LOT of wars where the agressors KNOWINGLY attacked, even when they knew the attack would destroy them.
Take the Iraq-Iran war for example. Iraq saw Iran fall back over a mountain range, and tried to pursue. Less than a month after that the Iraqi army was in shambles, supply lines cut, barely capable of policing normal streets in territory on their own side of the border.
Are you saying Saddam didn't know that would happen ? He pushed the attack when he could have easily stopped in a quasi invulnerable position, which would have provided an ideal starting point for the next attack in 10 years.
Yet he attacked
But attacking, knowing full well that retaliation might come is not a rare event in the middle east.
Egypt's attacks against Israel. Hezbollah-Israel, Israel's independance war, Jordan versus Britain, Pakistan versus India (and even worse : Pakistan versus East-Pakistan/Bangladesh)
And this is a tradition that goes back tens of centuries. When the muslims decided to attack the crusader states, they knew it would mean they'd fall to the mongols, that over 35 million people would starve (because there are letters, preserved by the libraries of Byzantium, that literally say this would happen). The muslims attacked, "won", got massacred by the mongols, and of the remaining muslims, at least 30 million starved, but not after killing the entire city that the sultan inhabited, including the sultan himself.
So let's be careful with "they won't attack if they can't reasonably win" ideas.
You make the stupid mistake to think that the Iranian government is there to defend it's people. It's not. It's there only to conquer, and to enforce islam (just read their constitution). Same with Saddam's government. It wasn't there for Iraqi's to prosper, it was there for Saddam to prosper. It attacked because of Saddam's pride.
Spoken like a truly blind partisan. Bravo sir, for demonstrating the concept of utter ignorance.
Can you tell us the story of Saddam Hussein starting the Apocalypse again? It's been a while since I heard THAT one, whatever happened to that tale?
Oh, it's IRAN now, not IRAQ. Silly me, just one letter off, but still the heightened expectation of nothing, since we're talking about yet another nation that hasn't attacked either the U.S. or Israel.
When the conversation turns to attacking Saudi Arabia, let me know.
Er -- neat word trick, but you're smoking crack, dude.
Let's review: Iran has been sponsoring groups to destabilize the middle east since 1979. Iran was directly involved in bombing the Marine barracks in Beirut in the 80s, and has been definitively linked to many other acts of violence against the United States (which we have mostly ignored). And that's not even getting into Iraq.
In terms of deploying weapons, Iran has never had a weapon it did not move into the field and use against the west or Israel.
Propaganda is one thing. Facts are another. You don't have to support the use of force against Iran to realize that they are historically headed down a very, very dangerous path for the region.
And yes, I know you can take my argument and once again try to turn it against the U.S., but then you miss completely the point. You can accept that Iran is extremely dangerous without being blind to much of anything.
As for the rest of your argument, blah blah blah the US is evil etc. So what. I still don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons. If you for some reason think it would be good, then you are either from Syria or Iran or need to have your head checked.
Qxe4
I think the problem is not that the US is evil more that it is stupid . That the current iranian government is there is a direct result of bad foreign policy. You can pay democracy lip service but if you are not perceived as sincere there is not much point to that.
Iran is not funding Al Qaeda in Iraq, you nimrod. AQI is Sunni.
Iran, which is Shia, is working with the legitimate government of Iraq, which is also mostly Shia. And they're also working with the Shia militias, which we don't like, but those militias are basically keeping law and order in certain parts of Iraq where government control is nonexistence. Those are the groups fighting AQI.
But, I'm sure 'using Iranian weapons' proves it. Despite the fact that, um, they aren't, and our government has actually never provided proof of that rather stupid claim. Even the people Iran is actually supporting aren't using Iranian weapons. People in Iraq are mainly using Iraqi weapons because we stupidly disbanded the military and didn't secure the weapon depots fast enough.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Your comment makes no sense because the basic premise is outright false-
"Iran is not in violation of the NPT, but the major nuclear powers are, since they have not disarmed and have no intention of doing so. In fact new nuclear weapons systems are being developed right now. Why then does the media not focus on the NPT violations of the big 5?"
Iran is very much in violation of the NPT because it's not fulfilling it's obligations to allow IAEA inspectors to prove that it's not got a covert nuclear weapons programme. I'm not sure why you'd think otherwise. Israel is in violation of the NPT for similar reasons.
The big 5 that are signatories of the NPT being France, Russia, the US, the UK and China certainly are performing mutual nuclear disarmament, certainly they're lowering stockpiles. You suggest that the creation of new weapons is evidence that they aren't disarming but that's simply not true, it's merely a case of ensuring a small nuclear deterrent to ensure the other nations all still disarm. Nuclear disarmament was always going to be a slow process and the last thing any nation involved in it wants is to have their nuclear arsenal become obsolete, hence becoming effectively disarmed whilst other opposing nations still have their arsenal effectively taking you out the game and making you their bitch. Making new weapons doesn't not necessarily mean increasing stockpiles, making 5 new weapons doesn't make you suddenly have a greater stockpile than you started when at the same time you've phased out 20 old weapons.
The only point on which you are somewhat right is that the big 5 currently probably have no intention to disarm but this is also entirely explainable. When you have nations that aren't signatories like India, Pakistan, North Korea holding nuclear weapons it weakens the point of the NPT. The NPT only works when all nuclear powers are signed up to it and adhering to it. On top of the non-signatories you have signatories like Iran (and Syria) with potential covert nuclear weapons programs that defy the NPT. When you have rogue elements like this either ignoring the NPT or outright defying it then you can't expect eventual worldwide nuclear disarmament.
To suggest it's some plan by the big 5 to rule the world is complete rubbish because they all have as much to lose and even more so if other nations feel they need to join the game. The more players there are the more dangerous the whole situation becomes and they realise this fully.
Nope.
The idiom of 'wiping things off maps' doesn't even exist outside of the western world.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yeah, I agree. If we had actually been supporting democracy and human-rights for the last 50 years instead of any government (no matter how evil) who was anti-communism, then we would have been a lot better off. Here's to the future and hopes that we've learned from our past mistakes.
Qxe4
Iran was directly involved in bombing the Marine barracks in Beirut in the 80s,
I love it when people mention this like it was some random terrorist thing.
Israel invaded Lebanon, occupying it and causing a civil war to eventually happen. There was a war going on. The US picked a side, the Israel side, and stationed troops in a war zone, where they were attacked by fighters from the other side.
That's not 'destablizing' anything. Lebanon was destabilized by the PLO and Jordanian fighters, who were attacking Israel from it, and obviously the actual invasion by Israel made things 100 times worse. Iran (and Syria) had nothing to do with starting that clusterfuck, they didn't stick their finger into it until it was well underway.
And note I'm presuming that a) The bombing was indeed done by Hezbollah, which they denied, and b) Hezbollah was indeed under control of Iran, which they also denied. There's very good odds that bombing had nothing to do with Iran at all.
Attacking troops on the opposite side of a war is not terrorism. That's called 'war'.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Tell that to the Carthiginians.
Advice: on VPS providers
Which is why it's really no coincidence there hasn't been an Arab invasion of Israel since 1973...
Advice: on VPS providers
When the conversation turns to attacking Saudi Arabia, let me know.
Sunni:al Quadi:Saudi Arabia:Pakistan
Shia:Hezbollah:Iran:Syria
Two religions, two organization funded by two countries and based in two other countries.
Now, which of these fucking attacked us?
Perhaps more to the point of whom we're current fighting, which of these is Israel's enemy? But I'm sure mentioning that we appear to be fighting Israel's enemies and not our own makes me anti-Semitic so I won't.
Also, the analogy isn't perfect because Hezbollah is, basically, a quasi-government entity....it's based solely in Lebanon, it defends itself. It's not some international conspiracy, despite various people trying to make it out to be a terrorist cell. It does, however, commit war crimes by attacking civilians, and it possibly has attacked the US on two occasions within Lebanon, when we were helping the other side of a war they were also engaged in.
It's rather like the militias in Iraq...in fact, it's exactly like them. A weak central government, so a strongman arises that provides defense, social services, collects taxes, etc. Everything a government does, in fact...the only reason we don't call them a government is that they're officially within the area of another government.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Now, as long as we're on the subject, we might as well talk about Iranian weapons in Iraq. After a quick search, I found this lovely gem. Hmmm. Look at that. Iranian weapons in Iraq. Can you give any evidence that Iran isn't giving weapons to Iraq? Would there even be a reason for them NOT to give weapons to Iraq? US gives weapons (or sells them) to countries they support, why wouldn't Iran?
Qxe4
So, it's OK for Iran to pursue nuclear power (and possibly a bomb or two). Why, then, are most of the left against nuclear power for the USA, which hasn't used a nuclear bomb in 60 years?
A good number of Al Qaeda members have entered Iraq through Syria. This much is documented. Syria and Iran are friends.
I thought us and Syria were friends? (Aren't they torturing people for us? Or did we stop outsourcing that?) A good deal of actual al Qaeda (Not the pretend one in Iraq, the actual one that attacked us) have left Afganistan through Pakistan, and I'm fairly certain we're friends with Pakistan, too.
What that actually demonstrates is that Syria can't control their Iraq border, nothing more and nothing less. And considering that Turkey has been complaining about Kurdish terrorists getting into to Turkey through the Iraq border, which we in theory should be stopping, I don't know that we're actually allowed to complain about terrorists slipping over lax borders.
Sunni and Shia are not such clear dividing lines as you seem to imply, they actually do work together when it is convenient.
Yes, but 'convenient to work together' rarely describes them during civil wars when they're on opposite sides. Sorta like how Virginia and Maryland work together but not, you know, during the Civil War. Iran is not supplying weapons to al Qaeda in Iraq, because it wants them to lose and the Shia government (Or some Shia government, at least) to (re)gain control of Iraq. So Iran can then ally with them.
I like that there's some deluded universe where Iran actually wants a war in Iraq. Um, no. The majority of Iraqis have no problem with Iran. The sooner the damn war is over and the majority actually control the country, the sooner Iran can make friends. The war is, if anything, delaying Iran's plans. They were happy in 2005, now they're just sorta tapping their fingers waiting for the killing to end.
I didn't even mention Iran supplying weapons to people in Iraq.
Can you not read your post? You said:
Iran backs a number of radical groups in the middle east, including...probably Al Qaeda in Iraq.
As for supplying weapons to Hamas, there's never been any evidence of that. At all. (Hamas doesn't need weapons supplied to it, it's the fricking 'government' of Palestinian.)
Hezbollah, yes. Iran supplies the Hezbollah militia. Hezbollah is Iran's attempt to take over Lebanon, not destroy Israel.
Interesting enough for two organizations that dislike Israel, Hezbollah and Hamas have a notably frigid relation, because that Hezbollah was founded when Israel invaded Lebanon because the PLO had taken up residence there. Hezbollah may dislike Israel, but what it really disliked was Israel and the PLO fighting their war inside Lebanon, and they aren't real fond of Palestinians in general, especially Hamas. There have been signs of this dislike chilling in recent years, but asserting that Iran is helping both is probably just wrong.
If Iran wanted to help Hamas, it would ask Hezbollah to do something, as Hezbollah has demonstrated it can enter and leave Israel secretly. (And, while it's there, kidnap Israeli soldiers for fun and profit.) If Hezbollah actually were to step in and help Hamas, they could really help Hamas. But Hezbollah's is not helping Hamas, their Israel policy is (was) "wave their hand in front of Israel's face and say 'I'm not touching you'". Until Israel punched them in the face in 2006.
After a quick search, I found this lovely gem.
Oh, well, if General Petraeus says it, it must be true. I'm sure that he could read the serial numbers of the rockets in the air and track them back to their source. But, more to the point, that's a Shia militia, not 'al Qaeda in Iraq'. And, although I'm sure you won't believe it, al-Sadr is actually famous for being the one militia leader who won't work with Iran, so it's more than likely the weapons were stolen or purchased on the black market.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
The Guardian's Jonathan Steele cites four different translations , from professors to the BBC to the New York Times and even pro-Israel news outlets, in none of those translations is the word "map" used. The closest translation to what the Iranian President actually said is, "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time," or a narrow relative thereof. In no version is the word "map" used or a context of mass genocide or hostile military action even hinted at.
it really isn't
i understand that you hate the usa. you fling various charges against the usa, most of which in fact are true
but its not a theocracy moron
if you really hate the usa and you want to defeat it, you have to understand what it actually is. but you don't even understand the true nature of what you hate. which makes you loud and stupid and useless
so please, hate the usa, be my guest. but hate it for what it actually is. not the odd hysterical propaganda your mind operates under. although, saying that your mind operates is giving you a fair bit of credit. i don't think intelligence and reason has much to do with what you beleive
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
In case of Soviets, about two decades ago, Khomeini 'predicted' the demise of that system of government too, and even sent an official letter to Gorbachev stating that soon the communist government will be history. But was it through a nuclear war or any kind of aggression for that matter?
Usage: km/h for speed (kilometers per hour); kph for very slow impulses (kilopond hours).
The SU had no-first-strike policy. It was not only the leaders who worked things out, many fruitful relationships were formed at lower levels starting with missile forces and space programme.
Considering that close to 50% of the American people don't support sanctions against Iran; your rewrite is meaningless nonsense. We have a vibrant debate in this country about Iran and the intentions of the Iran leadership. This is about as from 'cultural blindness' as you can reasonable get.
Calling the US government corrupt and autocratic is ridiculous. Maybe you need to spend some time in other countries: Bulgaria, Romania, Sudan, Ethiopia, Burma, Russia, etc, etc. Get out of your echo chamber man. You've been conned.
No. They do not count. And any American president would have been a fool to "nuke" Iran back in 1980 (over 52 hostages? are you serious?). Reagan wouldn't have done it either (hell, his Administration sold weapons to Iran). Nor would Nixon or either Bush. And if an American president wanted to do that, the Joint Chiefs would have had something to say about it. Say what you want about warmongers or peaceniks, but these people are not idiots.
Yes, Carter's multiple attempts to use aggressive military force to rescue the hostages were too peaceful; surely any real man would have engaged in the mass murder of Iranian civilians instead of attempting merely to rescue the hostages.
English is easier said than done.
...anti-American rhetoric.
??
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
You have this totally wrong. Light water reactors require the enriched uranium that goes in bombs. Heavy water reactors use unenriched uranium that is useless for bombs.
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
I will answer you, as of the three responses to my original post, yours is the only one with any sense of mental stability attached to it. The other two express only anger and fact-less blank rejection without any attempt at reason.
However, I am having trouble fully understanding you; George Bush IS a Christian. Being Christian means being intimately tied to the Jewish faith, but with the addition of another third of bible or so. As for supporting Muslim theocracies, you need to offer some examples of before I can properly respond. But guessing at your meaning, I might point out that Muslim theocracies also support the U.S., (Saudi Arabia and its ilk); and they do this for the same reasons the U.S. does it; out of political and material advantage. Unless you were intending to offer something I'm not getting, then I don't see how this is relevant to the idea that the U.S. is and always has been ruled by Christians.
-FL
This thread's long-dead, but if you check your comment history and see this, I'm going to refer you to Arms Control Wonk for nonpartisan coverage of proliferation issues.
This week we're talking about the mysterious box (reactor) on the Euphrates, but last week we had pictures of Iran's president holding bits of Iranian centrifuge rotors.
If, as you suggest, the Iranian civilian nuclear programme relies on un-enriched uranium, what are the centrifuges for?
PROTIP: If you can get from natural uranium to 5% LEU, you're 95% of the way to weapons-grade HEU. Google the term "separative work unit" and go from there. Six months from the day the Iranians can produce enough LEU to run a heavy-water-moderated reactor they will have a gun-type device. It'll be a waste of fissionables compared to the harder-to-build implosion-type device, but maybe the Iranians don't care.
In truth, Vietnam was probably the most massive strategic air campaign of all time. Korea was also a huge air campaign. Maybe what you mean is "sub-wars in the War on Terror". And to be honest, if we thought we could justify it, we would. Lovely world, innit?
-----[0_o]-----
We are not amused.
"Land is just land. Did the Palestinians always own it?"
Yes: you can ask.
-Hey, Mr. Ahmed Abbas, did you always own this land?
-Yes, I did. And my parents before me.
-Hey, Mr. Ira Levin, did you always own this land?
-No: I came here with my parents thirty years ago from Poland, then I took a gun and rushed Mr. Ahmed Abbas who is now living in a refugees camp.
See?
Well you didn't say just or fair, but the way you said it was from an iraq judge, from an iraq court, i feel is at best, leaving too much out of the picture, or at worst, bending the truth.
A lot of uninformed people will read your post and think justice happened.
I wrote my reply to give a better picture of the proceedings that happened in that case
To avoid criticism; Say nothing, Do nothing, Be nothing.
Well now. . , telling me that I have not studied enough is rather presumptive on your part since you know very little about me, so I would ask that you not be so bold or rude. It is better to ask for clarification rather than accuse. But I think we can continue nonetheless, since you have offered plenty of thoughtful meat, for which I thank you. . .
--I would suggest that we are defending equally defensible points which are not actually in conflict. You are quite right. There is little love lost between the various religions. For my part, I was merely pointing out that Jews and Christians, as I am sure you know, rely upon a shared story featuring all the same characters, places and chronicle of events right up until the end of the Old Testament. Such being the case, the two religions cannot escape a deep level of kinship. They MUST agree with one another about certain things. For instance, Moses, according to both camps, was real, as were his proclamations. One big one includes "god's" predictions with regard to Jews settling in Palestine, among other items, which is a requirement before the Second Coming can come about. In this way, political agendas as we are seeing them in the world become entangled and indeed are advanced by the drive, which I would argue many in power hold, to see Christ's return.
One other thing that you seem not to be getting. In fact it might even be the main misunderstanding here. Americans for the most part are just not religious. I know it can seem that way sometimes. Especially if you ever watch our political speeches or maybe even some of our movies. But this country has become much more secular than it used to be. Religion is just not an important force in peoples lives here. And the younger the generation the more likely it is to be true. I can't remember the last person I met that actually read the bible or who spends more than 1 day a year in church. They may say that they believe in Christianity but they live their lives just like an atheist would.
Well, this is subjective. I agree that American culture appears rather secular, but the fact that so many even know what the word 'Secular' means is indicative. I've met far, far too many Christians who blend in just fine in a day-to-day manner in secular culture, but when it comes to personal rhetoric and deeply held beliefs, I am routinely made very nervous. Living a secular life does not mean that one has not been a child victim of church mind-programming which can manifest as actual behavior in an instant given the right stimulus. The book series, "Left Behind," in that it has sold so many millions of copies offers a general example of the fascination Americans have with their religion. You would be served well, if you have not already done so, to explore the private beliefs of those in the political arena and in the pundit game, particularly those across the right-wing spectrum. There are certainly some dangerous views held by people of influence.
-FL
"I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
There was also another peace offer that was to Internationalize Iran's nuclear program where they said, let's go ahead and bring in French and German companies and we'll make it an international consortium. That way it is all perfectly above board, because it is America's allies helping them do it.
Ritter: But the bottom line again is that we are talking about genuine efforts at diplomacy on the part of Iran to resolve a difficult situation. To me this screams intent; the Intent of the Iranians not to pursue nuclear weapons. If you were going to pursue a nuclear weapons program, why would you agree to these things? Why would you put them on the table? Why would you go down this path?
"I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
Mahmoud said that the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time. I interpret this as meaning "get rid of Israel".
The Unicode standard is over 20 years old. Why does Slashdot not support it?
Why do you interpret it to mean something it does not? Have you thought about the reasons behind your bias?
it's in my head
As far as I know, there is only one regime occupying Jerusalem, and that is Israel. So what else could it mean?
The Unicode standard is over 20 years old. Why does Slashdot not support it?
So if I were to tell you that basically the whole world wants to get rid of the current regime in the US - that means we want to destroy the USA as a whole?
it's in my head
He didn't say the regime "ruling Israel", he said "occupying Jerusalem". If he said he wanted to get rid of the current Israeli regime, I would take it differently. The fact he didn't refer directly to the sovereign country, but to the land, and also referred to it as an "occupying regime" as opposed to a regime, it is very obvious what is meant.
But obviously, you are right, and all the well-educated and trained diplomats who interpreted it the way I did are wrong.
The Unicode standard is over 20 years old. Why does Slashdot not support it?
Instead of, again, claiming something that isn't true - maybe you should study the link on the subject in more detail?
Why are you biased, and why do you insist on staying biased after having been corrected? Is that a world view you would appreciate if others took against you yourself?
it's in my head
OK, I retract.
Hey, you just won the Internet!
The Unicode standard is over 20 years old. Why does Slashdot not support it?