The Secret To Iranian Drone Technology? Just Add Photoshop

garymortimer writes "Earlier this month, Iran's news agency provided visual evidence that its government had figured out to make a fancy new drone that could take off and land vertically. What they didn't tell us is that they used Photoshop to make it stop taking off from the roof of Japan's Chiba University, which built the aircraft and never had anything to do with Iran's alleged version of it."

Comments

Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[crazyjj]

Though none of them are gay or drink alcohol, of course.

But seriously, everything Iran does these days is done with one thing in mind: sending the message that they're strong and won't be invaded easily. Their military bragging, their nuclear program, etc. are all aimed at this. That's why I don't worry about them nuking Israel of any of that nonsense. They're not crazy, they just want to make it clear that they're not going to be an easy pushover the way Saddamn Hussein was.

Look at it from their perspective. George W. Bush includes them as part of the "Axis of Evil" (and that speech one of the worst diplomatic blunders in the 21st century IMHO). Then he proceeds to invade one of the three members of said Axis, right next door. And this was just after the U.S. had invaded the country on the OTHER SIDE of them. It's little surprise that they went a little nuts and elected hardliners in the next election and really started ramping up their nuke program immediately following (or that North Korea followed suite). Let's face it, about the only way to ensure that the U.S. can't invade you is to have nukes.

Their nukes, their saber rattling, even their Photoshopping of fictional weapons--those aren't about Israel, they're about the U.S.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[zeroryoko1974]

Could have been shopped by the Chinese for them.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[FriendlyLurker]

They "they went a little nuts" and hardliners took power right after we brutally ransacked the country via a violent puppet regime.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not crazy ... It's little surprise that they went a little nuts ...

Contradict yourself often?

A false narrative about how little danger your enemies pose to you is a danger in and of itself. No one is saying Iran is going to launch nukes but you appear to be an uninformed armchair analyst who has never set foot in Tehran nor spoken a word of Farsi.

Their nukes, their saber rattling, even their Photoshopping of fictional weapons--those aren't about Israel, they're about the U.S.

I dare say you are unaware of just how conflated those two entities are in the Middle East. Attacking Israel is attacking the United States in the eyes of both sides.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[crazyjj]

Iran isn't looking to attack. They're looking to make damn sure no one dares attack them.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it's not targeted at other nations at all. The Iranian governement just doesn't want their people to realize they're ruled by crazy idiots who regularily piss off half the world with absolutely no viable defenses.

Iran has been "weeks away from getting the nuke | secretly has it already" for about 40 years now.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

Iran isn't looking to attack. They're looking to make damn sure no one dares attack them.

No one is parading around "looking to attack." Why cough up the element of surprise when that's the best weapon you've got. Have you ever considered that Iran is actively attacking other nations like Turkey through it's Syrian proxy? Do you read Farsi news all day? Do you have any citations or proof that Iran isn't looking to attack? Are you even aware of their financial crisis? Sounds like they need a war ...

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Stickerboy]

Well, they're doing the exact opposite of what they should be doing, then.

Iraq under Saddam Hussein did the same shtick, bluffing for years that they had weapons stockpiles that really didn't exist (anymore). The US military went into the Iraq War expecting that chemical and/or biological weapons would be used against their soldiers on the ground. Did that fear really stop George W. Bush and co. from invading? Not really...

The problem with Iran's government is they're being run by two opposing camps; the religious right-wing extremists pitted against the military nationalist right-wing extremists. Buffoonery and penis length comparing naturally comes with *right-wing extremists of any sort, it seems to be a universal truth.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

A false narrative about how little danger your enemies pose to you is a danger in and of itself.

As much of a danger as a false narrative about how much danger your enemies post to you?

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

A false narrative about how little danger your enemies pose to you is a danger in and of itself.

As much of a danger as a false narrative about how much danger your enemies post to you?

What false narrative are you talking about? The OP was just talking out of his ass like he was some big shot Iranian expert. The reply called him out on it. Claiming someone doesn't know a damn thing about the topic at hand does not constitute a false narrative.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[erroneus]

THIS is exactly what I believe as well. They do not do this to entertain the rest of the world, but to promote confidence of their people in their government. Iran has little defense from the likes of Israel or the US. But it would be unseemly for the US or Israel to attack Iran at the moment. So Iran's primary concern is its own people and they need to remain calm, productive and confident. Quite a problem considering the economic pressures on them at the moment.

It all reminds me somewhat of N.Korea.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they're doing the exact opposite of what they should be doing, then.

crazyjj is talking out of his ass, provides no citations and should just generally be ignored on foreign relation topics.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever considered that Iran is actively attacking other nations like Turkey through it's Syrian proxy

Their Syrian proxy is on its last legs, and has too much of their own serious worries to be actually attacking Turkey. Alleged attacks are just NATO building a case to overrun Syria, as soon as Russkies sells them out (which they most likely already did, if I understood well their latest statements regarding Syria).

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

George W. Bush includes them as part of the "Axis of Evil" =/p>

That's ok, I include George W. Bush as part of the axis of assholes.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

They made a movie about their government too: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1645170/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

Though none of them are gay or drink alcohol, of course.

You would be surprised how many Arabians do. They take the ban of pork seriously, but they drink a lot in the privacy of their homes. And polygamy means that there are lots of young men who can't get wives, and resort to each other or become the boyfriends of rich old men. Seeing men walk hand-by-hand is common in Arabian streets.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

Why wouldn't they be gay or drink alcohol? Just because it's illegal doesn't mean people don't do it.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18504268

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

you know, I agreed with you up until "right wing extremists".

Why must everything be right wing? You realize WWI, and then indirectly, WWII were caused by left wing extremists called anarchists. I realize they weren't entirely caused by the actions of the anarchists, but the actions of the left wing extremists acted as the catalyst to throw Europe into war.

And I know how common here it is to equate anarchy with libertarian, and libertarian is a form of conservatism, but look it up. Anarchy is considered an extreme leftist view, not an extreme rightist view. Conservatives wants to keep things the way they were, and completely eliminating government is hardly a conservative view. Keeping it small is.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[AntiBasic]

Oh yes, The shah was sooooo horrible compared to mossadegh who was friendly with the USSR. The islamists took power in 1979, not the decades prior. Your ilk is merely a cabal of useful idiots without a shred of historical perspective. Look at how the idiot liberals in Iran got "betrayed" by Khomeini right after taking power.

Stop blaming America for everything. Try to understand that history is more complicated than your cute little wikipedia articles.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

Seeing men walk hand-by-hand is common in Arabian streets.

That's not (always) because they're homosexual, men holding hands in Arabic culture is more an indicator of equality and that both are actually paying attention to what the other has to say than sexuality.

Not entirely unlike the behavioral difficulty when an Arabic person tries to confide in a foreigner, by getting REALLY up close, and the foreigner (who likes personal space or has had friends recently exploded) takes it the wrong way.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Alex Belits]

Why must everything be right wing? You realize WWI, and then indirectly, WWII were caused by left wing extremists called anarchists.

You have serious mental problems if you believe that.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

What give the United States the right to decide who rules a country?

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[rahvin112]

Define "they". The US had a role in the Shah, primarily as an attempt to combat what they saw as a communist friendly regime, but the primary instigators of the Shah were the British who were trying to protect British Petroleum (formerly the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company) oil rights and revenues. Most of the worlds present conflicts tie back to historical meddling by European powers in the 19th and 20th centuries. US meddling started with the attempt to control the spread of communism and has persisted in various forms since but the primary conflicts of the present day are due to the former European actions.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

The argument could be made that by supporting the Shah we were saving them from themselves. A look at where they are now supports this argument.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[interval1066]

Being a player in geopolitics does, as it did the Soviet Union at the time. You have to remember during the Shah the US was embroiled in a deadly cold war with the SU. Every move in that war, including Iran, was a counter to some move the SU made. You can't look at the US as some lone power-hungry king maker in a vacuum, at least at that time.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

Their military might?

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[SilentStaid]

That doesn't necessarily mean they're gay. There's a different social custom in that culture where that is acceptable. I honestly thought that as well when I got to Afghanistan until someone explained it to me.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

The same thing that's always given people the right to decide who rules a country...guns and money.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that some countries can't seem to do a good job at it and 'elect' despots and dictators who indiscriminately kill their own. That's what give the United States the right. Hide back under your anti-war rock, you numb fuck.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

If they quote Wikipedia, they are hoping someone else know what they are talking about, because they don't.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

'Can't we all just get along'

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[darkmeridian]

It is you who suffers from a lack of historical perspective, especially when you think you're so cute and intelligent for calling other people useful idiots. You imply the Mossadegh was a bad guy because he was friendly with the USSR, but you miss the fucking point that him being friendly with the USSR might be bad for the US, but it might have been good for Iran, you know, the country that he was leading.

The Shah was propped up by the United States, and his regime was brutal and corrupt. The Iranians supported Khomeini because of his anti-Western sentiment, which was there because, you know, we propped up a brutal and corrupt regime that had screwed their country over.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[V for Vendetta]

Iraq under Saddam Hussein did the same shtick, bluffing for years that they had weapons stockpiles that really didn't exist (anymore). The US military went into the Iraq War expecting that chemical and/or biological weapons would be used against their soldiers on the ground. Did that fear really stop George W. Bush and co. from invading? Not really...

Whoever rated this insightful should go back and read a bit about the alleged claims of WMDs. All knew the claims were false, Powell later admitted that the presentation he gave to the UN Security Council about those imaginary WMDs was an error. Some are even convinced he knew the claims were false at the time of the presentation. So in reality there was nothing to be afraid of when sending troops in an GWB knew that pretty well.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

Waah mommy mommy I whacked the hornets nest again and they came out and stung me kill them kill them

QFT.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[TheCarp]

Yah no shit.

Those anarchists killed 1 guy, in the most inept fuckup got lucky assasination of ALL TIME. They had already failed their attempt when the Archduke's car went down a street right by one of the bungling assasains. If not for this random set of circumstances, it would have been little more than a failure.

To blame the entire WW on such an event is ludicris. Throwing a match into a powder keg may START an explosion, but, does a lit match alone cause an explosion? The system of alliances that had built up had allowed the entire european region to turn into a powder keg, just waiting for something to touch it off. And we are not talking about a powder keg deep in a safe ammo dump. We are talking about a powder keg out in front right next to the sign that says "smoking area".

No left wing philosophy built those military alliances. No left wing philosophy caused them to fall into war like a house of cards into disorder.

To use an analogy.... imagine some guy was mad at you and kicks your newly built house. Now imagine the house actually collapsed after he kicked it. Who is to blame? The guy kicking the house, or the people who designed and built a house that couldn't withstand one asshole kicking it?

(yes clearly they are both in the wrong, but one is clearly did far worst than the other)

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

US and UK did not overthrow anyone in 1953. First of all, the government was not elected. Mossadegh was appointed to become PM by the Shah of Iran according to the Iranian constitution from 1906.

The origin of this whole story is from CIA. Since when does CIA count as a reliable source? Do you believe everything CIA says? Everytime there is article about governments, CIA, NSA or anything similiar on Slashdot the majority of the people who comment are against these and always write bad things about them. But suddenly, in this one case, CIA musy say the truth!

There are many books, articles, documents, audio that proves otherwise. Iranian and foreign historians say otherwise. You guys who frequently visit Slashdot should know that this is the age of Internet and lots of new information exists.

Some goodies:

Ardeshir Zahedi, whos father according to CIA played a huge role in this, wrote in his book "The CIA and IRAN - What Really Happened" : "My father never had any meetings with any CIA agents. One operative has claimed that he spoke to my father in German, ostensibly during secret meetings. The fact is that the only foreign languages my father ever spoke was Russian and Turkish, not German or English."

Mossadegh was opposed by his own close friends, for example Hussein Makki and Mozzafar Baqai, who supported him a lot in the beginning. A leading member of the Majlis (parliament) Hassan Haeri-Zadeh, who had been one of Mossadeghâ(TM)s strongest supporters until then, even cabled the United nations secretary general to appeal for help against Mossadeghâ(TM)s increasingly despotic rule.

Richard Helms, long time CIA director, told a BBC television program that '' the agency did not counter rumours of in Iran because the Iranian episode looked like a success. At the time, of course, agency needed some success, especially to counter fiascos as the Bay of Pigs.'''

Donald Wilber, the CIA operative whose ''secret report'' has been given top billing by the New York Times makes it clear that whatever he and his CIA colleagues were up to in Tehran at the time simply failed.

Barry Rubin writes âoeIt cannot be said that the United States overthrew Mussadeq and replaced him with the Shah⦠Overthrowing Mussadeq was like pushing an open door.â

In closing, Mossadegh was an asshole. I can not remember exactly now, but he either closed the parliament or threatned to close the parliament if they did not give him dictatorial powers. He broke the economy of Iran. He forced women to wear hijabs again and so on. But that's another discussion.

Take care.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[tnk1]

Maybe. Honestly, I think the action we took was entirely legitimate as a course of action against the Soviet Union, and you can be sure that the Soviet Union would never have had a qualm about it. Nevertheless, valid actions for one purpose can have long term consequences that cannot be adequately foreseen at the time.

The Shah's regime was better than some, worse than others. They had a brutal secret police and persecutions of various left wingers and such. On the other hand, Iran had a very decent economy, more or less equal rights for women, and a Western outlook. If the Shah had been a better ruler, Iran could have probably eventually ended up like a South Korea or a Taiwan (other Western-aligned but not-quite free states in the past) and pulled out of their strongman state into something more constitutional and democratic.

Unfortunately, the more liberal elements, which could have been easily been influenced by the overthrow of Mossadegh, had their own Iranian Spring, and it turned out that they were betrayed by Khomeini and the religious leaders. In many ways, there are parallels between Iran and what is happening in Egypt right now, where relatively liberal protesters overthrow one dictator, only to see the Muslim Brotherhood in power. Obviously, it doesn't have to go down the same way, but the same off-ramp to a sharia state has now appeared in front of the Egyptians just like it did for the Iranians in 1979.

There are plenty of people who are mad at the US for supporting dictators, but the reality is that sometimes the only thing keeping a country's own population from turning their country into a pariah state is someone whose hand is on the wheel keeping it in line. Even in the developed world, we're only one or two bad democratic elections away from turning into aggressively expansionist or aggressively isolationist states. Usually the people are against wars like that in a democracy, but you beat them down enough and make them wish for control and the glory of victory over some external enemy, and it wouldn't take much for the armies to start marching.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[tehcyder]

Being a player in geopolitics does, as it did the Soviet Union at the time. You have to remember during the Shah the US was embroiled in a deadly cold war with the SU. Every move in that war, including Iran, was a counter to some move the SU made. You can't look at the US as some lone power-hungry king maker in a vacuum, at least at that time.

It was only a deadly cold war in the eyes of the paranoid retard leaders in the US and USSR. In reality, it was all a load of bollocks. Neither country could ever have invaded or destroyed the other. It was the worst sort of hysterical political theatre, and it lasted for forty five years. In the meantime, people in other countries were dragged into the stupidity when they should have been getting on with running their own countries.

I know the USSR was far from faultless, but when you read about the US deliberately overthrowing democratic regimes that they believed might be "communist" it makes very unpleasant reading indeed.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Archangel Michael]

This is the kind of thinking that allows evil to triumph; good men doing nothing. What right does a good man have in dictating to any other man? No right, except when dictators, tyrants and despots rule. There is a fine line between good and evil, and it is waged on the line of wants to verse has to. I don't want to be in a fight, I don't go looking for a fight, but I will kick the living shit out of bullies who are threatening me or my loved ones. And while I am kicking the shit out of the poor sod, I look exactly like them, if you go by appearances and results.

And if it is a choice between a dictator that is friendly to us, or one that is not friendly to us, I'll support the one who is. Shaw of Iran was NOT a nice guys, but he was a thousand times better than the idiots running the place since, although it is not saying much. Some places need a dictator to rule, because the people and culture expect it.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[tehcyder]

The argument could be made that by supporting the Shah we were saving them from themselves. A look at where they are now supports this argument.

Yeah, that's the White Man's Burden. Gotta protect those folks with brown skin from their own childish inability to see what's best for them.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

what makes you a pundit in this area? why should we ignore him and listen to you?

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[tehcyder]

you appear to be an uninformed armchair analyst who has never set foot in Tehran nor spoken a word of Farsi

I tell you what, I've never set foot in Mecca nor spoken a word of Arabic, same with Beijing and Chinese or New Delhi and Hindi. So I suppose I have no right to read about these countries in English and form opinions based on varying (translated) sources?

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything Iran does these days is done with one thing in mind: sending the message that they're strong and won't be invaded easily. Their military bragging, their nuclear program, etc. are all aimed at this.

Makes sense if you look at it with Sun Tzu in mind. "Know your enemy" (and by induction, "All war is deception"; if you can deceive your enemy, they won't know you); But also, "Don't try to out-fight if you can out-wit" and "No state has ever benefited from prolonged war". Finally, "Avoid the strengths of your enemy; target their weakness".

They're already at war with the USA. They're just not fighting. And you've got to admit... it's working, too. The U.S. is a shadow of what it was just decades ago.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[tnk1]

Iran isn't looking to attack. They're looking to make damn sure no one dares attack them.

Iran is definitely looking to attack. They're already attacking Israel with their own rockets by using their proxies in Hamas to do it.

Yes, Iran is not looking to start a war with the US or NATO. That would be moronic, and their leaders are not stupid. However, they are plenty interested in regional dominance, and they can't play that game until the US and the West can be deterred from a war with them.

Right now, Iran has the ability to shut down the Persian Gulf to shipping with anti-shipping missiles at the Straits of Hormuz, and the only thing preventing them from using that leverage against the Arab states and the West is the US guaranteeing the free passage of international waters through there. That is why the US has a very powerful naval presence in the Gulf. If Iran started firing on ships now, the US would probably launch air strikes on the missile sites and bomb Iranian military bases to end the threat. If Iran had nuclear weapons, the US would have to think at least twice about that course of action. The tension would be similar to something like the Cuban Missile Crisis because the US could not allow Iran to hold the world's oil hostage, but at the same time, they don't want to see mushroom clouds over Israel (or even the US, if Iranian ballistic missiles get to that point).

Let's be clear, two big states with nuclear weapons did not end wars in the 20th Century, all they did was move the wars away from the major powers into the smaller countries that were used as pawns. Iran doesn't purely want "safety" from the US, it wants a free hand to act.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[dywolf]

Why shouldn't we support someone favorable to our interests over someone favorable to our enemies?

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

it was hard to watch his whole carreer blow away like smoke during that speech, in retrospect WATCHING his mannerisms and facial expressions during that speech speak volumes about how he felt lying like that. as far as i know he had a very distinguished carreer as far back as vietnam . he drank the kool-aid freely and voluntarily, just that one batch didnt taste quite right

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[dywolf]

you have no damn clue what you're talking about. if this is what passes for history being taught these days we're in for a load of hurt in the coming years.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Jeremi]

Did that fear really stop George W. Bush and co. from invading? Not really...

The above is precisely why Iran feels the need to develop actual nuclear weapons -- because a nuclear deterrent is the only sure way to keep the US from invading Iran.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Isao]

The SAVAK were a lot of fun for the population. And they had help from the CIA. The educated and wealthy classes liked the Shah, as their life was good under him (at least until the country ran out of jobs for them). The poorer, less educated citizens mainly got the boot, if they interacted with the regime at all. Since the US and Britain put the Shah on the throne, those countries weren't loved by the rebellion. And yes, I think Khomeini made a mistake letting the student rebels put the embassy hostages between him and the West. Iran has been on the short end of that stick ever since.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[tehcyder]

Do you have any citations or proof that Iran isn't looking to attack?

Hard to prove a negative. Do you have any proof that the US isn't run by alien lizard overlords?

Are you even aware of their financial crisis? Sounds like they need a war ...

What, so they can be bombed back into the Stone Age by the US, then get gloriously lifted up again by some Marshall Plan style charity?

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[MightyMartian]

The Iranians supported Khomeini because they thought he would just fade into the background, which is basically what he promised. When he arrived in Iran, he used his influence to squash any notion of a democratic and modern state and used the same kinds of goons the Shah had used to continue, and in fact deepen the oppression.

One can say a helluva lot of bad things against the Shah, but at least the man had a progressive vision. Khomeini, on the other hand, was a power hungry religious fanatic determined to turn back the clock. I doubt there are many Iranians of the Revolution generation who probably feel inviting Khomeini back to Iran was a very good idea.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. We're on the Good Guy Team and they're on the Bad Guy Team! It's all black and white, and we're the Holy Crusaders of this world!

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[interval1066]

It was only a deadly cold war in the eyes of the paranoid retard leaders in the US and USSR.

You seem to believe that the cold war could have been avoided had the US (and I supose the USSR) "done things differently"? Of course. But you types seem to be perfectly happy to rest the fault of that era soley on a very simplistic view of the world at that time. And it is, but to colour the US as wholly or mostly complicate is to completely misunderstand the cold war and how it started.
The Cold War is completely and wholly the fault of one Soviet leader, Joseph Stalin. His meglo paranoia led him to slaughter whole regions of his own country, swallow up whole countries out of eastern europe, and start fucking with other countries' politics behind the scenes. If you look at the stance and shape of eastern europe right after WWII its most obviously the stance of a defendable fortress whose enemy is directly from the west. This is the construction of an increadibly paranoid mind that controls the entire economy of the east. As proof I offer history as well as the outcome of the cuban missle crisis. Can you imagine the soviet ships turning back had Stalin still been in power? The cold war for the west was a response to a very diseased, paranoid mind armed with nukes, that's all. The US is not blameless, but less blameful than you seem to think.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[dywolf]

Diplomacy and foreign policy are not about what's good for the other guy.
We don't go to a place and talk and persuade them in order to make their lives easier and give them things.

You go there to get things favorable to you, not the other guy.

If that results in their lives being easier or them getting things in return, so be it. If not, so be it.
Sometimes they make the decision to shortchange a long term benefit in favor of a short term one. Sometimes they make a decision because of an overriding demand ( such as "oppose communism at all costs").

Point: It's not about them, the other guy, and what's best for them. It's about you, and what's best for you.
That is the reality.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[interval1066]

you have no damn clue what you're talking about

Oh? Well, enlighten me, oh scholar?

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Lithdren]

Then point to something that gives the whole story. Throwing your arms into the air and declaring everyone else an idiot hardly makes you look good. Just makes you look like a loonie.

Honestly I cannot imagine a source that would allow you to justify what the US has done in the middle east in general. But, i'm open to it, if such a thing exists. You wont be supplying one, of course, since none actually do.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[fyngyrz]

Being a player in geopolitics [give the US the right to decide who rules a country],

No. You're confusing the willingness to arbitrarily use power in service of one's own goals with the right to do so, which can only come from consent of the governed, which the US most assuredly did not get from Iranians, or pretty much anyone else it has interfered with.

Please stop doing that.

Aside from being wrong, it blinds you to why other countries resent the US, and why they feel they have legitimate reasons to act against US interests.

Our rights-free meddling has almost entirely stripped the legitimacy from our foreign policy.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[fyngyrz]

Why shouldn't we support someone favorable to our interests over someone favorable to our enemies?

There's a significant difference between "support" and "install by force."

As to why, once you really annoy them by imposing your will by force, they tend to respond. Not necessarily in ways you will see as reasonable or balanced. Like flying into buildings, killing thousands of people. At which point tertiary consequences arise, such as your own government going dumb-fuck-insane, stomping all over your constitutional rights, impeding travel, and generally fucking up life for everyone.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[hazah]

Swoosh?

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[dywolf]

And cue more proof of the sig.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[tehcyder]

Why must everything be right wing? You realize WWI, and then indirectly, WWII were caused by left wing extremists called anarchists

That is by far the most ridiculous political statement I've ever seen on slashdot, and that includes people defending the intellect of George W Bush.

Huge armies slaughtering each other in the name of patriotism but for no real purpose in WW1 (in particular) are about as far from anarchism as it's possible to get.

And I know how common here it is to equate anarchy with libertarian, and libertarian is a form of conservatism, but look it up. Anarchy is considered an extreme leftist view, not an extreme rightist view. Conservatives wants to keep things the way they were, and completely eliminating government is hardly a conservative view. Keeping it small is.

The philosophical basis of anarchism is the abolition of ALL forms of power or control by one human being over another, whether it's political, religious, social or economic. The problem with modern day US "libertarians" is that they don't agree with the last of these, and won't acknowledge that as long as you have a system with some people much richer and more powerful than others, you can never have equality, fraternity or true liberty.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Synerg1y]

Right... but surely somebody over there has got to consider the fact that despite this showmanship, if they actually do get invaded and they don't have said drones / nukes to protect them, they will go the way of Iraq even quicker.

Why not just fall in line with the rest of the world and let the nuclear inspectors inspect their facilities when asked? Nuclear technology affects the world, not just Iran, so it's important to regulate it. Then again it sounds like a bunch of clowns are trying to run Iran and not a real government, if the do get invaded, they only have themselves to blame.

Alternatively, they can go invent everything the "West" has invented real quick, win a couple of world wars, acquire vast natural resources, forefront technology, and then maybe they can decline the inspection legitimately.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[camg188]

That dude, Dulles? I think they named an airport after him.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Attila Dimedici]

It has nothing to do with skin color as very similar arguments were used in supporting opposition leaders in Eastern Europe during the Cold War (one difference being that the Soviet Union was in a position to offer more support to those in power in Eastern Europe than those in power in Iran and other places). A similar line of reasoning was used to intervene in the former Yugoslavia when Bill Clinton was in office as well.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[davydagger]

"Though none of them are gay or drink alcohol, of course."

they are all gay, and heroin is a giant problem.

Don't let a regimes stated morales let blind you to reality.

Hyper strict religeous morales are seldom followed anywhere, almost as a rule

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[akboss]

What about France, Portugal, Belgium, UK, and on and on that just decided to carve up land and people and force them to like it?? This part of history is ok with you?? What about when the Soviets went into Afghanistan and set up a puppet regime, was that ok too with you?? What people are trying to point out is that , yes America was in the wrong, but we were far from being the only party to this. Oh, by the way who was it that freed Europe, then forgave the debt owed, and rebuilt the shattered economies?? Anyone?? See how short memories can be, even with the internet at your finger tips.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Archangel Michael]

Yeah, good job reading what I actually said.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[gtall]

"It's little surprise that they went a little nuts and elected hardliners in the next election", you mean after all the reformist candidates were "disqualified" by the mullahs and their sycophantic followers?

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

If you actually read the link given to you, you would see that the "communist plot" was fabricated by the British to get the US on board with the overthrow (US was initially against it, also referenced):

"Britain was unable to subvert Mossadegh as its embassy and officials had been evicted from Iran in October 1952, but successfully appealed in the U.S. to exaggerated anti-communist sentiments, depicting both Mossadegh and Iran as unstable and likely to fall to communism in their weakened state. If Iran fell, the "enormous assets" of "Iranian oil production and reserves" would fall into Communist control, as would "in short order the other areas of the Middle East".[17]"

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Attila Dimedici]

Whoever rated this insightful should go back and read a bit about the alleged claims of WMDs. All knew the claims were false...

Which is why the countries that opposed military intervention in Iraq (mostly because their leaders were being bribed by Saddam Hussein) all said, "Yes, they have WMDs, but lets give sanctions more time."

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

Wish I had mod points. You get it. Well said.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Attila Dimedici]

Colin Powell was assigned to cover up the Mai Lai Massacre and when it became politically convenient to throw the soldiers under the bus, he was perfectly happy to change course and do that instead (which was still a form of cover up, since the report he created protected higher level officers from culpability)

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

You totally ignore the fact that Iran had modern democratic republic before the Shah was installed by the US/British. Everything else since then has been blowback to the detriment of both the Iranians and the west:

The coup d'état was "a critical event in post-war world history" that destroyed Iran's secular parliamentary democracy, by re-installing the monarchy of the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, as an authoritarian ruler.[110] The coup is widely believed to have significantly contributed to the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which deposed the "pro-Western" Shah and replaced the monarchy with an "anti-Western" Islamic Republic.[23]

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Runaway1956]

Stop blaming America?

I'm an American, and I've studied Operation Ajax. An awful damned lot of what is wrong in Iran is our fault. And, it was all done for the sake of saving a few cents on oil. Not dollars, but cents. Ajax happened just a little before I was born. Gasoline was selling for about twenty cents per gallon. Quarts of oil were little more than a gallon of gas - maybe a quarter. Crude was cheap, cheap, cheap back then.

And, we destroyed a legitimate democracy for the sake of the company that is now known as British Petroleum, or BP.

Profits before anything.

Capitalists can mock Iran, Iranian culture, camel jockeys, and anything else they care to mock. But, we murdered a legitimate democracy for the sake of oil profits, then we installed that puppet who eventually caused the revolution.

Go ahead, put the blame on the rag heads - no good capitalist is ever to blame for anything.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

You totally ignore the fact that Iran had modern democratic republic before the Shah was installed by the US/British. Everything else since then has been blowback to the detriment of both the Iranians and the west:

The coup d'état was "a critical event in post-war world history" that destroyed Iran's secular parliamentary democracy, by re-installing the monarchy of the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, as an authoritarian ruler.[110] The coup is widely believed to have significantly contributed to the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which deposed the "pro-Western" Shah and replaced the monarchy with an "anti-Western" Islamic Republic.[23]

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[aurispector]

WFT. Idiots love to assume that the US had the power to somehow create a better regime than the shah's when in reality our choice was bad or worse. We chose bad, what we have now is worse.

The photochop is just a way for them to control the news of the day. Any day that doesn't include stories about their nuclear program is a good one for them.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, except the Americans.

Bomb, Bomb, Bomb. Bomb, Bomb Iran.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Runaway1956]

Colonialism isn't "alright" with much of the world - except England, Spain, Portugal, and France, and I guess Germany.

And, I guess it's hard for an outsider, or for a colonial, to see much difference between Old World colonialism and modern American hegemony.

Not to worry, though. We are currently pissing away all of our collateral on the world stage, while China collects power. Soon enough, it will be China that everyone hates, instead of us.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate crazyjj as much as the next guy, but he's right this time. Something about blind squirrels & broken clocks twice a day.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Runaway1956]

The Shah of Iran was a low life scumbag, who wasn't worthy of licking the boots of the men and women the United States threw under the bus with Operation Ajax.

Don't compare the Shah with what came after. Compare him with what we destroyed for the sake of having our own puppet ruling that country. The destruction of Iran's democratic government is probably the grandest and most heinous of our sins.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Runaway1956]

The shah had a progressive vision? You simply don't understand - he went BACKWARDS in time! Progressive? Sure, if you call it progress to abandon the cities to move into caves.

The only visions the shah may have ever had, were induced by bad drugs.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Valor958]

"... such as your government going dumb-fuck-insane... et al"

I believe the proper term for this is, "Going full retard"

Politcal correctness aside... if the shoe fits ;)

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Krojack]

Personally I would have left Saddam in power. He was the ONLY buffer in that part of the world that was a threat Iran. Now that he's gone Iran is the single bully in that neighborhood. Something tells me if Saddam was still there then Iran wouldn't be pushing their nuclear program like they are today.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Sique]

Germany hadn't had much colonies anyway and lost all of them after World War I already. Since World War II, Germany is holier than thou when it comes to colonialism and colonies. Not having colonies for nearly 100 years, Germans will mainly tell you that colonies are bad. Very bad. Completely bad. Just BAD[tm].

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

Or they do know what they are talking about, and don't feel like writing several pages of text on something when it is already available somewhere else.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Sique]

No. It doesn't.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

holy shit i never knew that . until i googled it right now
  thnx i guess
captcha barbaric

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[shutdown -p now]

Why are you comparing the Shah to mullahs that came after him, rather than to the democratic government that preceded him (and was overthrown with US assistance, as GP pointed out). The people and the culture of Iran mst definitely don't need or expect a dictator to rule them, and they have shown it already.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[fyngyrz]

This part of history is ok with you??

No, it's not. But it doesn't excuse our actions, either.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Sique]

Leftwing Anarchists? Gavrilo Princip was trying to become a chetnik, and because he was refused for being too weak, he tried to prove himself worthwile by staging a re-enactmend of the assassination attempt against the austrian viceregent of Bosnia, Marijan Varesanin by fellow countryman Bogdan Zerajic. Chetniks were nationalist and monarchist militias in the tradition of the Hajduks, and in the Balkan Wars in 1912 and 1913, they were fighting as irregular troups against the Osmans and laid the foundation for the Kingdom of Serbia. I don't know how that fits to a "leftwing anarchist", but maybe you can enlight me. And I really don't know how you fit the German Nationalsocialists with the leftwing anarchists. I really don't have a clue.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno, Sadam wasn't that much of a pushover. If he were we wouldn't have had to go in there and hand him his azz. And while Iranians as a people may not all be crazy their leader is quite stark raving mad. I think Bush was right in his assessment. From the start we really didn't have an issue with Iran outside of asking them to adhere to their end of the NPT. If in fact they are not creating weapons why deny inspections? They agreed to them in exchange for our technology and aid, and then when the time came they got all beligerant.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[tnk1]

I don't ignore that at all. I make it very clear that I know the Shah was not democratic at all, and not the best ruler to boot. Certainly that was undesirable, but again, you're looking at what happened as a result of one action. It's impossible to say what the results would have been with a Soviet Union friendly Iran. Indeed, the Soviet Union may well have managed to save it's economy with a dominated Iranian oil satellite state and we could still be fighting the Cold War.

It also ignores that there are states out there that the US put dictators in power where they came out of it without being pariah states, even if they ended up being unhappy with the US interference to begin with. What's more, there is no reason the current situation had to happen, even if the liberal population in Iran didn't like US interference. The Iranian Revolution was originally a liberal and even Western oriented one. The Religious folks thought of Khomeini much as you might think of Bishop Tutu in Africa, someone who happened to be religious who was fighting against injustice. What they didn't realize was that his solution was to make Iran a theocracy.

There is no reason that destroyed democracies followed by dictatorships are completely ruined. Spain after Franco is one example of a destroyed republic that regained its freedom after the dictator died off. All it takes is people making the right decisions when the time comes.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Man On Pink Corner]

The Yalta conference.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember that $0.20 in the 1950's is ~$4.00 today.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[drinkypoo]

Could have been shopped by the Chinese for them.

Sure, but they farmed the actual work out to Korea.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Solandri]

What give the United States the right to decide who rules a country?

Nothing. But if the U.S. didn't decide who ruled the country, the Soviets would have. And you'd be asking why the hell the U.S. didn't do anything to stop them from installing a repressive Communist dictatorship there. The Shah for all his faults (basically looting the country), was at least progressive and intent on modernizing the country.

That's the thing about life. The perfect choice is almost never available, and you frequently have to pick from two bad choices. It's a common mistake to then blame the chooser for all the bad that results from that choice, while stripping out the context and ignoring the even worse outcome that would've resulted from the other choice. That's a common error I see people making. Comparing to a vacuum (assuming everything would be ok if the choice had not been made) instead of properly accounting for opportunity costs.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[HairyNevus]

In reality, it was all a load of bollocks. Neither country could ever have invaded or destroyed the other. .

We know this now; hindsight is 20/20.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Solandri]

In many ways, there are parallels between Iran and what is happening in Egypt right now, where relatively liberal protesters overthrow one dictator, only to see the Muslim Brotherhood in power.

Egypt is a bit different from Iran where the revolution overthrew a dictator, and were betrayed by one of their supporting elements which installed another quasi-dictatorship. In Egypt, the revolution overthrew a dictator, and the people voted to put the Muslim Brotherhood in power.

Which raises a question I've had for some time now. What happens if you install a democracy, and the people vote for a non-democracy? Should democratic principles override people's right to choice of self government, and the non-democratic government be disallowed? Or should the people be free to choose their form of government, even if that choice deprives future generations of the right to choose their form of government?

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[fahrbot-bot]

They're not crazy, they just want to make it clear that they're not going to be an easy pushover the way Saddamn Hussein was.

Ya, if only Hussein had exhibited a bit more bluster and defiance or bragged more about (imaginary) weapons...

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

There is humor here. The Wiki link given says the WWII allies, which would include the US, naming specifically the Brits and USSR, all together invaded and occupied Iran in 1941. Now here we are making this a cold war thing.

Realistically, outside of Math or Science, NEVER rely on Wikipedia. For example, within the last four months I caught on that historical bad guys such as the guy who shot JFK, the guy who shot Archduke Ferdinand, tripping WWI, the gal in the early part of the 20th century who lead a communist party that wanted the overthrow of the US government (what was her name?) and a number of others were all anarchists according to Wikipedia. They were really communists, and quite openly so. That is not to say that anarchists do not exist or a denial that some of them have done bad things. The point is that any history or political article will read as the last Wikipedia editor wants it to read. Remember, ANYONE can change it. Try editing such an article to read communist instead of anarchist. I'll bet it gets changed back within days.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[lahvak]

In the case you are refering to the Sarajevo assassination of Franz Ferdinand, the assassins were right wing serbian nationalists, being about as far from anarchists as the iranian president is. If you are refering to some other event, will you please enlighten me?

Besides, nobody said everything has to be right wing. I hate communists, and for a good reason, as I had plenty of direct (very unplesant) experience with them, but clearly in the cases discussed here, the people involved undoubtedly are or were right wing extremists.

By the way, do you realize that, according to your definition of conservative, in a communist regime, the communists are the conservatives?

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[ThatsMyNick]

So your argument is Shah is better than Khomeini, so the US was right to bring Shah to power? Strange I thought the US overthrew Mosaddegh to get Shah into power and not Khomeini.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

US and UK did not overthrow anyone in 1953. First of all, the government was not elected. Mossadegh was appointed to become PM by the Shah of Iran according to the Iranian constitution from 1906.

Wrong - On 28 April 1951, the Majlis (Parliament of Iran) named Mosaddegh as new prime minister by a vote of 79–12.

Technically all UK Prime Ministers are 'appointed' by her Majesty, but only after they are democratically (loose term) elected - it's the same in Iran and just about every other country with a Constitutional Monarchy and Parliament, or equivalent.

It's not really that different in the US from what I understand - it's not as if your single vote actually contributes to electing the Pres, it only sways your state one way or the other - the state then decides who to vote for based loosely on the votes of the constituents.

Fucking poor excuses of Democracy that we put up with for the sake of expediency.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

But unfortunately, a convenient target.

One thing some of the older Chinese people who remember the 1930's and before have said that I remember; Out of all the colonial powers, the Americans were the best. And it wasn't that they just held less guns to people's heads; no. The Americans in China were there to help Chinese people. They built universities and hospitals. Of course not because of charity, but based on the idea that if we prosper, then we can *afford* to buy American goods and bilateral trade will strengthen. This was all in opposition to British colonial policy, which was, 'Let's invent some cheap drugs (opium) and make them buy that instead!'

A lesson from history.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[interval1066]

No. You're confusing the willingness to arbitrarily use power in service of one's own goals with the right to do so, which can only come from consent of the governed, which the US most assuredly did not get from Iranians, or pretty much anyone else it has interfered with. Please stop doing that.

No. Your confusing national will with the reality of the geopolitical situation, which to a certain extent is dictated by the reality of the situation, not the players, per se.

Please stop doing that.

For example, what would have been the real outcome of Neville Chamberlain's claim that he had obtained "Peace in our time" if he had instead proclaimed "Hitler is a rabid mongrel bent on world destruction?" A world war that had started a year earlier. In other words, the same outcome.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[interval1066]

What about France, Portugal, Belgium, UK, and on and on that just decided to carve up land and people and force them to like it??

Would never have happened, none of those countries had the political will or ability to do any of those things. Try to bare in mind I'm not describing what's morally right, just what the actual reality of the situation was. I would put forth that had the US not acted as it did, most of Europe would be under Soviet domination now. The US didn't create Stalin,the Russian Empire did.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[interval1066]

Germany had plenty of colonial territory in Africa. That wasn't the problem. For a real mind trip do research on the battle of Sudan in the 1870's and how that coloured France's attitude in the treaty of Versailles, and in turn created the atmosphere that allowed Hitler to thrive. Then read about Vietnam and Dien Bien Phu. Its really interesting how French attitude really is a catalyst for a lot of the evil that has happened in the last 150 years.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why the countries that opposed military intervention in Iraq (mostly because their leaders were being bribed by Saddam Hussein) all said, "Yes, they have WMDs, but lets give sanctions more time."

Cute story. Got any links to back it up? I was alive at that time and within days of Powell's speech, every point he'd made had been shown to be false. Like the poster said, Powell has finally admitted it, so please. Drop the fantasy.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Princeofcups]

As proof I offer history as well as the outcome of the cuban missle crisis. Can you imagine the soviet ships turning back had Stalin still been in power? The cold war for the west was a response to a very diseased, paranoid mind armed with nukes, that's all. The US is not blameless, but less blameful than you seem to think.

The Cuban missile crisis can be summarized as:
1 - The US puts missiles in Turkey, aimed at the Soviets
2 - The Soviets retaliate by shipping equivalent missile to Cuba, a simple parity move
3 - Kennedy decides to play hardball by threatening Kruchev with nuclear war
4 - Kruchev realizes that Kennedy is totally nuts, and decides to live with the Turkey missiles in order to avoid nuclear war

At least that's my take on it. The US is not as blameless as you want to think.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hard to know when it comes to middle-eastern tyrannies - maybe they hate each other to death, or maybe they hate each other only so much, and reach a mutually agreeable stalemate. The Sunni/Shia antipathy isn't so black and white that they can't come to an agreement about killing jews and other infidels for a while. Worse, the Sunni/Shia thing isn't the only complicated relationship going on down there that makes predicting what happens next utterly impossible.

It would have been infinitely better if no one had discovered all that oil, and the Arabs would have plenty of empty sand to wander around in to their heart's content. We would be over here, and they would be over there, and maybe everyone would have other crap to worry about.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[MightyMartian]

I never said any such thing. Restoring the Shah was a horrific error that stunted Iran's attempt to become a democratic state. I'm not defending the US's activities; it's mindless support of the Shah, what I'm saying is that the Shah was a tyrant who believed the end justified the means. It's just that the end; a modern secykar Iranian state with a substantial, well-educated and productive middle class was a good goal, but that Khomeini's goal was far worse.

To my mind the Shah and Khomeini were pretty much equally vile repugnant men. But the Shah's vision, no matter how toxic it was rendered by his methods, itself was a good one. Khomeini's vison of a theocratic state backed by a core Revolutionary Guard, the Basij militia groups and a secret police force no different than the Shah's Savek in its methods, is a repugnant one. So if we have two equally evil men, one who aspires, no matter how vainly for a better nation, and one who aspires for a nation dominated by unquestionable religious and political dictates, I'll go with the Shah.

But the coup that reinstalled the Shah as the political head of state was a catastrophe, and one that undermined the Shah's own vision for his nation. So no, I do not approve of the coup.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[MightyMartian]

I'm not ignoring it. I'm comparing the Shah to Khomeini. I'm not comparing the Shah to Mosaddegh..

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[MightyMartian]

I don't recall the Shah's vision being everyone abandoning the cities. His goals were laudable. His methods were evil. He is the perfect example of how a leader's path can be paved with good intentions and still end up leading straight to Hell.

And what exactly did Khomeini and his heirs accomplish? A broken Iran that frittered away its oil wealth on religious and ideological navel-gazing, that allowed its infrastructure to crumble as much of its learned and professional class fled the country so they're children wouldn't have to live under the dictates of men who believed they received authority and advice directly from God. A nation that even now, as it spends vast amounts trying to indemnify itself against invasion, and likely mass insurrection, by pouring its riches into nuclear and military programs even as industry still falters. A regime whose secret police are only different from Savak in the names they call their masters by.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

Since Adobe products can't be exported to Iran, it probably wasn't done with Photoshop.

Possibly GIMP. I hear the Iranians are big on OSS.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

you're a jingoistic idiot.

Modded interesting only for the fact that people can't resist being interested in roadkill, your diatribe being the intellectual equivalent...

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[mattack2]

Yeah, a country that wants to completely obliterate another country is oh so respectful of copyright infringement and export laws.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Jerslan]

As opposed to the Western Expansion and Manifest Destiny just over a century earlier that lead to the near complete destruction of several unique and indigenous cultures?

It was more heinous than that? Really?

American History is no more bloody or filled with acts we would now call "criminal" than any other country to have ever existed. Does that make our past actions right? Hell no, but they happened and there's not really a lot we can do about many of them now. Stop playing the blame game. How this fight started. Who started this fight. If you wanted to you could probably link all of it to the Crusades or Roman Expansion.... None of that should matter more than what we do going forward.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Dave Emami]

The Religious folks thought of Khomeini much as you might think of Bishop Tutu in Africa, someone who happened to be religious who was fighting against injustice. What they didn't realize was that his solution was to make Iran a theocracy.

They found that out rather quickly. I have a family member who voted in the "should Iran be an Islamic Republic or not?" referendum in 1979. Voters were given a two-color ballot, half green (yes) and half red (no). You tore it in half and put the appropriate half in the ballot box -- in full view of pro-Khomeini guys holding rifles. Naturally, this tended to... sway the decisions of people who had intended to vote "no." Especially when the nightly news was regularly showing pictures of folks fresh from the firing squad.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Dave Emami]

You totally ignore the fact that Iran had modern democratic republic before the Shah was installed by the US/British. Everything else since then has been blowback [wikipedia.org] to the detriment of both the Iranians and the west:

That's a common claim, and it may be true to some extent, but it's hardly the primary cause. The mullahs in Iran supported the coup at the time. What really got Khomeini and his ilk upset was the "White Revolution" in 1963, which among other things undercut the power of the clergy (via secularizing the judiciary) and reduced their income from rent-based tithes. This is when Khomeini first gained major prominence, especially the secularization part: "The Ministry of Justice has made clear its opposition to the ordinances of Islam by various measures like the abolition of the requirement that judges be Muslim and male; henceforth, Jews, Christians, and the enemies of Islam and the Muslims are to decide on affairs concerning the honor and person of the Muslims." Mossadeq would almost certainly, if anything, been more offensive to the mullahs in these areas.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Runaway1956]

If you'll read all of my posts on this subject, you'll realize that I'm absolutely NOT defending the Ayatollah. He was two steps down from the Shah. The Shah pushed his country backward in time. The Ayatollah did more of the same.

The democracy that the United States destroyed had a good legal and justice system. They had everything that demarks a modern society that cared about it's citizens. When I say the Shah took his country backward in time, those are the things I'm talking about. Not technological wonders, not position on the geopolitical stage, not military power. If those are the things that you consider important, then you might make an argument (a very weak argument) that the Shah did some good for his country.

Look at the democratic government that the Shah replaced, then consider the evil that we did in that country.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Runaway1956]

More heinous, in that we had first hand knowledge of what the same attitudes toward indigenous people, both from our own history, and from the two wars that we had recently fought.

For all our "enlightenment", we closed our eyes on what history was trying so hard to teach us, for the sake of the price of oil.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Stickerboy]

Did that fear really stop George W. Bush and co. from invading? Not really...

The above is precisely why Iran feels the need to develop actual nuclear weapons -- because a nuclear deterrent is the only sure way to keep the US from invading Iran.

While on a gut level that makes sense to the layperson, it makes no sense from a military perspective. If Iran had a few crude nuclear devices, the military impetus for either Israel or the US (if they believe nonproliferation is an important enough goal) is to strike now, rather than later. A few crude nuclear devices means that Iran has not had the capability to test and vet delivery vehicles, and the nuclear devices are likely to be fission rather than fission/fusion combinations. Which makes the situation on the ground this: Iran is nuclear-armed, but is either unable to deploy those devices effectively or likely at short range, such as within their own country. A conventional war with Iran in such a state is actually possible; Israel and/or the US is able to strike Iran likely with impunity with nuclear weapons if provoked. Israel/the US would have air superiority versus Iran making simpler bomb-delivered munitions from Iran insecure. Ballistic short- and medium-range missile defense is getting much better. Iran on the other hand is severely limited in its capabilities to use their weapons in a first strike defensively except in a scorched earth strategy that would hurt Iran more in the long run.

The reason why North Korea is untouchable is not that it has crude nuclear weapons. The reason why North Korea is untouchable is because it has 50,000 conventional artillery pieces aimed at Seoul with the intention of obliterating its civilian population of millions if war ever breaks out again.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[MightyMartian]

It's pointless to imagine what Mossadegh's government would have accomplished if it had lived out its natural span. It could very well be that it would have suffered the same fate as the Shah's, or maybe Iran would be a flourishing nation today. I suppose that's the sad part of the death of anything before its time; it gets judged more by the hopes of the day and regrets of later years than by what it had actually accomplished.

And let us always remember the duplicity of the Ayatollahs in all of this. They worked against Mossadegh's government in 1952-1953 and then hypocritically made the coup part of the anti-American anti-Shah rallying cry in 1979.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Jerslan]

Correction, we did it because the British wanted to protect BP and misled us with misinformation indicating that Iran's government was unstable and about to go Communist (playing off the ridiculously strong anti-Communist sentiment in the US at the time) and give all those "valuable oil resources" over to the USSR.

We were played as pawns in someone else's game. Not the other way around. Doesn't make what we did right, but that is the truth of the ordeal.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

The burden of proof lies with the positive assertion. It's your job to show there is a God. It's not his job to show that there isn't.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Sique]

Not plenty, compared with other colonial empires, but that's beside the point. Germany lost all its colonies in 1918, so for nearly a century now, Germany doesn't have any colonies at all, which really influences the attitude to colonies in general.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[V for Vendetta]

Bullshit.

Google: "Joschka Fischer" "I am not convinced": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtLwo--n2AA

Joschka Fischer = German Foreign Minister at that time.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a really good example of why sometimes being the middle of the road on every discussion is the epitome of idiocy.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[TheCarp]

All checks out, very true. I just assumed the GP remembered better than I did what group it was, I only remembered their name and the story (which, I always found quite amusing).

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Attila Dimedici]

You are correct that Joschka Fischer told Donald Rumsfeld that he was not convinced that war with Iraq was the correct thing to do. Right after he had said that Saddam Hussein was a horrible dictator who had weapons of mass destruction.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

Except they are not bragging about their nuclear weapons. In fact they do the opposite they tell people truthfully that they don't have any.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

... so they're children wouldn't have to live under the dictates of men who believed they received authority and advice directly from God.

If you are a citizen of the USA this is the height of hypocrisy. GWB thought 'god' had told him to invade Iraq. very little difference to that which you describe.

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

WFT?

photochop?

ffs, get a brain, get a grip, then learn WTF you're actually talking about. My 5yo has better grammar and spelling than you..way to look uncredible and a total moron. =P

captcha: meanings LOL

Re:Well, at least they have artists in Iran

[MightyMartian]

I am not an American, but you will note that he only lead the US for eight years, that his party suffered mightily for his hawkish foreign policy, and ultimately left office peacefully and in accordance with constitutional requirements.

The Supreme Leader of Iran has only one effective check; the Guardian Council, and any potential enemies there have been effectively neutralized. The Supreme Leader essentially controls every aspect of iran's political and military infrastructure and succession is through a council of ayatollahs, specifically designed to be insulated and superior to any other institution in Iran.

As bad as Bush is, to compare him to Khameini is bizarre. To compare the political system which Bush was part of to iran's system is even worse .

This reminds me of...

[sudden.zero]

...the Chinese fighter jet that turned out to be a clip from Top Gun. People are so ignorant. How does this thought process start. Iranian01: "Hey, we need some of those fancy drone things like the USA." Iranian02: "Yeah, I know but how can we get them?" Iranian01: "You have a cracked copy of Photoshop right?" Iranian02: "Works for me!"

Re:This reminds me of...

[fatphil]

Yeah, the Top Gun ones were funny! The level of gullability of some people is incredible.

But my favourites are the NASA moon landing ones! To all intensive purposes, that's never been bettered.

Re:This reminds me of...

[Anonymous Coward]

intensive purposes you say

Re:This reminds me of...

[Anonymous Coward]

Intents and purposes.

Re:This reminds me of...

[hazah]

But my favourites are the NASA moon landing ones! To all intensive purposes, that's never been bettered.

Care to elaborate?

Re:This reminds me of...

[ericloewe]

"intensive purposes" is capable of inducing intensive pain in my eyes.

Re:This reminds me of...

[fatphil]

Ah, you're probably too young to have encountered the Young-Hammond-Baker Theory. Just google for "YHBT", and you should find all you need to know about it.

Re:This reminds me of...

[CrimsonAvenger]

To all intensive purposes, that's never been bettered.

"Intents and purposes"....

Re:This reminds me of...

[fatphil]

Odd that you don't take issue with the absurdity that came before that.

Whatever, a bite's a bite.

Re:This reminds me of...

[Anonymous Coward]

It took a good 30 seconds for me to realise this one... 30 seconds too long :(

Iran and China, Best Buds for Life

[Revotron]

Nonsense, that photo isn't doctored. I heard that in building their new drone, Iran licensed the same technology that China used to build levitating engineers.

I call BS

[slashmydots]

Pics or it didn't happen! Oh wait...

So they don't want to show the "real thing" ?

[dryriver]

Iran's press service was probably given instructions to report on a new VTOL drone, without having been given actual images of said drone. So the press agency went online, found a drone image it liked, photoshopped out some wind turbines in the image, and ran the story that way... The "digital deed" in question may even be the handywork of a young intern at Iran's press agency, told to illustrate a story for which no real images exist. ---- Either way, I don't see why this is "big news" in any way. Its not as if the U.S. releases pictures of all its new military toys. Like the mysterious stealth chopper that crashed during the Abbottabad raid...

Re:So they don't want to show the "real thing" ?

[dotancohen]

Iran's press service was probably given instructions to report on a new VTOL drone, without having been given actual images of said drone.

This is exactly what happened. The Chinese did the same thing with their use of Top Gun footage in promoting some propaganda recently.

In fact, your breakfast cereal provider does this, McDonalds does this, anybody who puts out promotion materials includes photos "for demonstration only, may not represent actual product". Do you think that's milk and not glue in the cereal on the box cover?

Re:So they don't want to show the "real thing" ?

[Revotron]

It's well known that product photos are usually a mock-up, but this is completely different. The big idea there is that they start from a finished product and recreate it in a more predictable, yet still visually accurate way.

How many times did you buy a box of Fruit Loops, only to open the box to find a bag full of Raisin Bran?

I'd say this is more akin to a fast food restaurant taking a picture of the actual food, and then when you order one, they serve you a plastic mock-up cheeseburger covered in Armor-All.

Re:So they don't want to show the "real thing" ?

[Jason Levine]

In fact, your breakfast cereal provider does this, McDonalds does this, anybody who puts out promotion materials includes photos "for demonstration only, may not represent actual product". Do you think that's milk and not glue in the cereal on the box cover?

So the next time my kids ask for their cereal to be made just like on the box....

Re:So they don't want to show the "real thing" ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The USSR bluffed up its military by having dramatic parades of missile launchers (where the parade was just long enough that it could circle around 4 times to impress the spies in the crowd).

Iran bluffs up it military with photoshop.

North Korea skips the whole idea of bluffing up the military, but the Dear Leader is an excellent dancer.

China bluffs down their military, because some of them actually read "The Art of War." (makes sense, their ancestors wrote it)

The USA bluffs up, down and sideways its military without any effort by telling various press and blog factions "I am unable to confirm or deny that claim."

Japan just builds the giant robots "for peaceful purposes only."

Re:So they don't want to show the "real thing" ?

[imikem]

Yum. Where can I find this cheeseburger? This gives new meaning to the term, "slider."

Re:So they don't want to show the "real thing" ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where can I find this cheeseburger?

White Castle.

Re:So they don't want to show the "real thing" ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exception is that everyone has seen the USA miltiary machine and knows the bluffing is minimal.

Re:So they don't want to show the "real thing" ?

[jjsimp]

Try one of the burgers the US Airlines use.

in soviet russia they did stuff like that by hand

[Joe_Dragon]

in soviet russia they did stuff like that by hand

DUH GIMP IS TEH AWESOME!

[Anonymous Coward]

At least they didn't "Gimp" the picture. *shudder*

When are they going to learn

[Anonymous Coward]

They get caught doing this every time. No one believes any of their "achievements" inside or outside of the country.

What is the point? They get caught doing this so frequently that all of their announcements are automatically suspect

Re:When are they going to learn

[Anonymous Coward]

They're the laughing stock of the international community. They've got nothing to lose.

Re:When are they going to learn

[Anonymous Coward]

So they're the Middle East's version of the United States?

Re:When are they going to learn

[bobbied]

Hardly.. They are the middle east version of Iran. Not to be confused with the US version of Iran.

They routinely Photoshop things and act as rough and tough as possible. Most of it is just propaganda, but there is enough truth mixed in to keep the average person guessing. Their whole point is to make it clear they are not to be trifled with, or at least make it seem likely would have a bad bite to go with the barking. But they know they are playing chicken on foot with a semi.

There is no doubt that Iran would not be easily defeated in a full on conflict. There is also NO chance they would prevail in a conflict with any US allies in the region unless the US decided to let them. The question really is how far will they be allowed to go before they get put back into their place. Right now, I don't think anybody has a clue, which is very dangerous.

As it stands, Iran is rapidly going to start looking more and more like North Korea and it's leaders are going to get more and more desperate to get the UN sanctions lifted. Caged animals are dangerous things.

Re:When are they going to learn

[V for Vendetta]

They get caught doing this so frequently that all of their announcements are automatically suspect

Well, that's actually their plot. It's so obvious that sooner or later noone bothers to check anymore ... that'll be the time the things are for really. Brilliant, don't you think? ;-)

Re:When are they going to learn

[Anonymous Coward]

You assume that the spirit of the US is not broken and that the US would support a war. The military industrial complex may be happy for one. But the soldiers and people are not. Drafts would result in riots, people would probably actively rebell against any military industry stateside. This is why we are being pushed further and further into welfare and socialism and our freedoms are being eroded one by one. It is the only safeguard against our dissent. Unfortunately it can only soften any revolution never will it stop, it will slow the inevitable but not provide a solution to the problems at hand.

This would greatly increase the USs chance of failure and even invasion here. I would argue that if it came to invasion we would quicly find our will to fight restored. This might be in the power elites best interest...

This coming from someone who served stateside during the 2cnd Iraq war. We are morally bankrupt at this point. No one really believes we should be waging a war of agression and dominance until we fix things stateside. Our culture has deteriorated to the point were more then half the population is disenfranchised. The only reason to fight is out of fear. We may be disenfranchised but we are not cowards and wont participate in such an action. I worked along side soldiers who spent 3+ years in iraq. They were unhappy. They were saddened by the loss of their friends and the civilian deaths oversease. All for a ruling power structure that didnt let them or their families support themselves or truly own property. (corrupt banks, corporations are citizens with more power then you or I, corrupt RnD and Big Power, Oil, tax avoidance by international megacorps, and a welfare state at home etc...) Hell you can add to this list a corrupt healthcare industry, and ever decreasing freedoms and constitutional decay. If you dont believe we have gotten to this point fine, but I garantee you millions of ex-soldiers feel this way. I had a staff seargent who was going to be a career officer talk to me in depth because they did not want to spend 6 more years oversease because of all this. I had another seargent break down into tears and cry with me because of the terrible shit they had been through with their squad. They were severly depressed. Not because of failures in tactics or strategy, but because they thought all the losses were a total waste.

Most soldiers were extremely unhappy with the TSA and the new "Department of Homeland Security" ... well were. God knows what has happened since 2010 as suicide rates skyrocketed and people were bleeding from the military left and right... of course theres plenty of young kids and poor who buy the propaganda being spewed so theres no lack of fresh recruits to be brainwashed for our current occupation. But thats only because were not actively engaged in an extremely bloody conflict with Iran.

The Iranian people have been geared up to fight an invasion on their home turf since before the soviets. Its a cultural mentality of theirs and the photoshoping of the drones is just part of this. They have been invaded by the Iraqi's and the Soviets and suffered heavy casualties both times, and boht times they repelled these invasions. They are tired of being bullied. Iranians really believe that any government they have is better then letting anyone invade their country. The Iranians acknowledge how corrupt their politics are yet they would staunchly defend it from US.

TinEye

[MyLongNickName]

So, basically the secret to uncovering this is http://www.tineye.com/

Re:TinEye

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know google has a reverse image search now, right?

Re:TinEye

[MyLongNickName]

Yup, it does. Tineye was around before Google, though, so I tend to still use it.

Re:TinEye

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlike Google, TinEye is more trustworthy, I would never upload sensitive images to Google as an image search.

Re:TinEye

[SleazyRidr]

Is there some reason to use google for everything and never consider alternatives?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Hardly the first time

[Bieeanda]

Don't tell me no-one else remembers the doctored artillery rocket photos the Iranians released back in 2008? They sparked a lot of (intentionally, this time) funny copycats.

Re:Hardly the first time

[Extremus]

These? http://www.freakingnews.com/Iranian-Missiles-Pictures---2029.asp

No Big Deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wait till they get a load of our latest military footage after Spielberg finishes "borrowing" it for his Transformers movies ;)

Re:in soviet russia they did stuff like that by ha

[Joe_Dragon]

http://englishrussia.com/2012/04/30/photoshop-of-the-soviet-time/

Re:in soviet russia they did stuff like that by ha

[Sulphur]

in soviet russia they did stuff like that by hand

And they were good at it. There were pictures of people standing next to Stalin who were later Sovietshopped out.

Anybody have a link to the press release?

[Jmc23]

Honestly I'm not one to take anything a journalist says at it's face value. Even within the article linked it never specifically says the picture was purposefully meant as an illustration of what they built. Nor does it say anything about any claims that it is an Iranian design, all it says is Iran built it's first VTOL drone.

You know how sometimes people say here's what I'm building and show you the photo from the model car box?

Just seems like more of the same stupid propaganda that's always going on, haha, look how dumb and evil all our enemies are.

Lets not forget the fondant cake.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/12/downed-us-drone-looks-pretty-intact-iranian-tv/45935/

Why give real info to the international press

[Anonymous Coward]

For a country like Iran, it probably may make sense to give fake pictures of (possibly) real achievements to keep morale high and provide a measure of transparency to the people, while not revealing too much information to the international press and western governments (from whom they must be trying to hide the R&D for these pretty hard)

I mean, don't get me wrong, it would also make sense to give fake pictures of fake achievements..

Im surprised.

[Anonymous Coward]

That the iranians could even build something not made from mud and sticks, let alone even know what photoshop is.

No quite different

[Sycraft-fu]

When the US has a military toy they want to talk about and advertise, there are all kinds of pictures of it. Take the F-22A for example. You can find pictures n' video n' all sorts of stuff from the government itself and from other sources. They couldn't shut up about the thing and how cool they thought it was.

Then on the other side there is something like this chopper. Not only did they never release any pictures, they never even said they had such a thing. It was completely secret. Even after the fact they still haven't said or released shit. They'll let people speculate but won't say a word.

So if Iran had a secret drone, the thing to do would be quiet about it. Say nothing, release nothing. If they have a drone that they want to show off, well then the thing to do is to show it off. Show pictures and video of it doing its thing, real ones.

If they fake shit up, people are going to call bullshit, as has happened.

Also I'm trying to figure out why a quad copter is supposed to be impressive. They will, literally, sell me one at the Verizon store. You have something that can do VTOL. Wow, good thing I can't get a toy that does that...

Re:No quite different

[91degrees]

The US is an arms exporter though. The companies behind the planes are very good at PR and they have the infrastructure in place to get pictures to the media.

The main reason I think this could be true is because of the point you make. Its not that impressive. Iran does have a technology sector. They make planes (which are mostly copies of American aircraft, but it demonstrates they have the manufacturing technology at least). They also have rockets and robots. UAVs aren't all that difficult to make. The main attraction is that they're cheap.

Another possibility is that they want to dissuade the west from attacking by announcing their technology but don't want to give too close look in case the west realises just how useless it is.

in power/war/politics

[schlachter]

there's no such thing as the right to do something; its about whether you can or can not do it.
nearly every country that's ever been formed, was do so at the expense of those that came before it.

Probably for internal consumption.

[ananthap]

Its probably for internal consumption within Iran. OK