Slashdot Mirror
Could We Beam Broadband Internet Into Iran?
abenamer writes "Some reporter at a recent White House press briefing just asked the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, this question: Was 'the White House....considering beaming broad capability into Iran via satellite so the opposition forces would be able to communicate with themselves and the outside world?' 'Gibbs said he didn't know such a thing was possible. (Is it?) But he said he would check on the technological feasibility and get back with an answer.' I'm not sure what the reporter meant by beaming broadband into Iran: Do they even have 3G? Would we bomb the Iranians with SIM cards that would allow them to get text messages from the VOA? Or somehow put up massive Wi-Fi transmitters from Iraq and beam it into Iran? How would you beam broadband into Iran?"
How about we "beam broadband" to our own have-nots first?
Caveat Utilitor
I don't. The more we interfere here, the more likely it is that someone new is going to form a grudge against us. Why can't we just let people revolt without our interference? If the protests in Iran escalate to a civil war, then we need to stay the hell out of it. If we don't, how are we going to respond if the revolt loses and the Iranian government accuses us of encouraging violence and discord in their country? Do we really have to wonder why the Iranian government thinks we're a bunch of bullies?
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
Does whoever asked that question know absolutely nothing about how "beaming" works? We could easily transmit more or less whatever we like down; but that won't magically turn Iranian cell phones or wifi devices into satellite modems. You'd need to substantially change, and upgrade, the hardware that they are using for any sort of communication to be established.
And, if the plan is to provide large quantities of Officially Discouraged Hardware to all and sundry, we might as well just mix rifles in with the phones and call it a day.
The world has been clamoring for you guys to stop meddling in their affairs and only mind your own. So I suggest that you should do just that: it will cost you nothing and you won't generate any further ill will towards you. What's not to like?
Maybe people will change their mind or maybe they won't, either way you'll be covered.
Global warming is a cube.
My first thought when I read this article was BGAN, since they were throwing around the 'Broadband' term so much. BGAN stands for Broadband Global Area Network.
The downside of all of these systems (besides getting the hardware into the country) is that the airtime is fairly expensive. BGAN runs you about $3.50/Megabyte, and it's cheap for satellite data.
I read the internet for the articles.
Iran, murky as it is, is a sovereign nation. Revolutions come from within, which is why we're spending trillions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The clue is: the iranians will figure it out. The more external influences are brought to bear, the more a subsequent government will be suspect by its people. They have to do it. We have to sit back and watch. Otherwise, it won't stick, and it will devolve into the seventh civil war in the Middle East. Here's the current list, if you're not sure: Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine, Pakistan, Somalia, Eritrea/Ethiopia. A quiet revolution makes much more sense than one that will continue to divide what were once peace-loving peoples.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Could we beam broadband internet into Iran? Yes. Could they send anything back? No.
However, everyone assumes that we 'should' be doing this and helping the revolution so they can experience 'freedom'.
For one thing, this isn't a popular uprising. It's taking place in a liberal city and is mostly students (although not entirely). Polls taken beforehand that were trustworthy indicate that Ahmadinejad could've expected between 40-50% of the vote in the election. That means he has a whole lot of supporters out there.
How do you think these supporters would feel if the opposition not only got brought into power on the basis of 'liberal' protesters who didn't represent them, but they were helped and organised through American help? Even if it wasn't state sanctioned, they'll still see it as America behind it.
All this to get a president into power who isn't that much better than the current one in terms of how liberal he is.
Brown and Obama have taken a strictly hands off approach for a reason. It's best at the moment to hope the situation resolves itself without excessive bloodshed. Too much pushing will at best, make a good portion of the country think we're meddling, at worst, it'll push the two entrenched sides into a bloody civil war.
It's currently Iran's problem and it should be up to the Iranian people to resolve it, not for the outside to decide what they think is best for them.
We screwed the Afgans. We promised them the world if they'd fight the Soviets, and when they won, we pulled out and left them with more unexploded landmines than people, and a hardass government that we'd put in power because we wanted evil bastards to fight the Soviets.
Pretty much the same story in Iraq. Saddam was one of ours, a secular dictator that we sustained in power as a foil against the religious extremists.
Turns out, if you put hardasses in power, they can turn around on you. If we just offered actual aid rather than screwing with their governance, we'd be much better regarded in that part of the world.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Is this like support from *individual Mormons* in the Proposition 8 campaign, because I don't think that kind of support will go down well with the Iranians either.
May the Maths Be with you!
We replaced the Communists with gangs of illiterate Mujahadin and then Taliban warlords who were even more brutal than the Communists, who cut the country up into feudal feifs, destroyed everything and built nothing, who drove out Doctors Without Borders (after 30 years), and whose idea of education was having boys (not girls) read the Koran which they then interpret to mean "Anything we want it to mean." They were allied with lunatics like Osama bin Ladin who used all our training against the Soviets to attack us, and with the Pakistani islamists.
Our support for the Mujahadeen against the Soviets was in our interest only in the mind of an unrepentant lunatic cold warrior.
If the Russians would help us today in Afghanistan, we would be overjoyed (because it would mean fewer dead Americans).
If we had left them alone, Afghanistan would have been in more competent hands, with a secular or non-sectarian society, with more freedom than they have today, and with less of a threat to the U.S. than they are today.
"Paper ballots?"
"Digital voting machines are way too easy to tamper with, and campaigns get really competitive around here."
-- Sheriff Jack Carter and Deputy Jo Lupo; Eureka "Here Come The Suns"
I want a website where my ssn and vote are public record!
So... you want a system where your employer can retaliate against you for voting the wrong way?
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Sit down.
Get rid of your bile and your testosterone. Leave them alone.
If our interests are the Iranians, let's watch them win this one. If it's US interests, then you're just one more corporate stooge looking for your next earnings statement.
Hedging your bet means getting your hands dirty. Let them win by exposing bias and distortions of the truth within their process. External pressure from the US and/or UK will have a negative reaction. Give them tools; let them do the work. Things are much more valued if you really have to earn them.
And the US tendency to meddle in the affairs of sovereign nations is plainly stupid and serves (often) only corporate interests, not those of the US people or those of the sovereign nation. Look at what history tells you. Look at the damage done.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
A couple of things:
Mousavi *is* a reformer. At least, he certainly has been promising reforms during his election campaign.
His history is definitely not good. His promises of reforms may or may not be believable... I don't know.
To be clear, in the context of a Canadian election this man and his policies would be considered extremist religious lunacy.
In the context of an Iranian election his election platform is a worthwhile step in the right direction.
If he had been elected last week I would not have any great hope for major reforms... I would hope for some small incremental changes.
Even without significant reforms, simply reducing the amount jingoistic 'jews jews americans americans!' hate-promotion coming from the office of the president would have been a very good thing.
Since the electoral fraud (assuming for the moment that it was fraud) and the supreme leader declaring that the results were legit and will stand all bets are off.
Many millions of people in Iran believe that the announced electoral results were obviously fraudulent.
When the Supreme leader unilaterally declared the opposite he insulted the intelligence of the Iranian middle class and popular support for more democratic rule surged. At least, support for the current system of quasi-theocratic/democratic rule plummeted.
Things have now gone so far that the very structure of government could change (crosses fingers).
In short, Iranians signed up for theocracy, not despotism.
(sure, we could argue that it is the same thing but you know what I mean)
"you read that in a book somewhere"
No, Operation AJAX, is a well documented CIA operation to overthrow the government of Iran in 1953. I included the Wikipedia link which you apparently didn't read. It was initiated by American and British intelligence agencies when Mossadeq nationalized British oil fields in Iran. In a recent speech by Obama, maybe the one in Cairo, he for the first time officially acknowledged that the U.S. overthrew the Iranian government in 1953. The "loyal factions of the Iranian Military" you cite were lead by General Fazlollah Zahedi who was working with/for the CIA who were running the coup.
"were the Q'oran thumping whackjobs who opposed or replaced him any better"
I never said or implied any such thing. The Islamists who overthrew the Shah are just as bad if not worse. Only difference is one is pro western and the other is Islamic so the repression has a different flavor. The Basij and Revolutionary Guards are just as bad if not worse than SAVAK. The one redeeming quality of the Islamic revolution, in the eyes of Iranian nationalists, is they aren't stooges of the American government, the Shah was. A lot of Iranians still hate America for putting the Shah in power.
You should read the link I put in my original article on Mohammed Mosaddeq. He was a secular Socialist, not an Islamist, moderate, very popular, and I'm sure women would have faired as well or better under his government than the Shah. The fatal mistake he made is he screwed British oil companies, by taking back control of Iran's oil fields, and you didn't screw with British and American oil companies in the 1950's.
The point I was making which was apparently completely lost on you is both the Shah, and the current Islamic regime are terrible. The best chance Iran had for a good government was Mossadeq. He probably wasn't perfect but the U.S. and Britian overthrew him, deprived Iran of a chance at a moderate regime and plunged Iran in to 56 years of brutal authoritarian rule which continues today, half under the Shah and half under the current Islamic Regime.
The U.S. did the same thing all over the world throughout the 20tj century and is still doing it today in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately the U.S. consistently abused its power to install one repressive dictator after another as long at they were:
A. pro business and let U.S. companies profitably exploit their resources whether they be oil or bananas (the U.S. installing dictators in Central America to protect the plantations of United Fruit is where the term Banana Republic comes from.
B. anti worker and labor union because places like United Fruit wanted their labor as cheap and exploitable as possible, which meant crushing unions
C. staunchly anti Soviet Union and anti Communist
@de_machina