Slashdot Log In
Iran Launches Payload into Space
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Sun Feb 25, 2007 10:18 AM
from the he-said-load dept.
from the he-said-load dept.
An anonymous reader writes "BBC is reporting that Iran has launched its first space rocket carrying a payload. Britain's former ambassador to Iran, Sir Richard Dalton, told the BBC that, if confirmed, such a move could destabilise the Middle East:
"It is a matter of concern. Iran's potential nuclear military programme, combined with an advanced missile capability, would destabilise the region, and of course if there were a bomb that could be placed on the end of this missile, it would in breach of Iran's obligations under the non-proliferation treaty."
From the article:
Iranian TV broke the news of the reported test saying :"The first space rocket has been successfully launched into space.
It quoted the head of Iran's aerospace research centre, Mohsen Bahrami, as saying that "the rocket was carrying material intended for research created by the ministries of science and defence".
In 2005, Iran's Russian-made satellite was put into orbit by a Russian rocket.
But shortly afterwards Iranian military officials said they were preparing a satellite launch vehicle of their own and last month, they announced they were ready to test it soon."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Confusion? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Confusion? (Score:5, Insightful)
But it just so happens that Iran is *in fact* on the verge of developing nuclear weapons. What are the chances these two are connected? Very good. These rockets *could* be used by Iran to lob scientific and communications satellites into space, but what are the chances that instead, they will first be used for nuke missiles? Be realistic, now.
And so will everyone else on the planet. It would be a disaster for the human race. I think it's scary you could even say such a thing as if Iran dropped a nuke on Israel, it would be a matter that simply concerned Israel and Iran. Who ever drops the next nuke bomb, it signals the end of the human race.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not necessarily. I'm not saying nuclear war is good, but if there were a nuclear exchange that didn't involve either th US or former Soviet Union, it's quite possible (not certain
Don't forget.. Iran also cured AIDS. (Score:3, Insightful)
Iran also cured cancer, saved the world's starving population, and their nuclear agenda is for peace.
It takes more than Iranian media for me to believe anything they say.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
is there a treaty which says they shouldn't? (Score:4, Interesting)
Mind you I think we need to wait for independent confirmation, could just be political bluffing. The Iranian government knows that if they can get something into orbit and a successful nuclear weapons test done then the USA will back away from hawkish talk of using 'whatever means necessary' and suddenly become all friendly and overlook any issues to get round a table and trade for future oil supplies.
We all know the number one reason any nation tries to get a satellite into orbit is so the rest of the world knows that they can drop a bomb onto anybody else's doorstep / president's country retreat if they feel they need to.
Re:is there a treaty which says they shouldn't? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if you accept what Iran says at face value, this was a ballistic missile test. It had nothing to do with space exploration.
Space space spacity space (Score:5, Funny)
This report brought to you by the Iranian TV department of redundancy department in Iran, via TV reporting.
Re:Heh (Score:5, Insightful)
I know this is slashdot so anti-US trolling is par for the course, but it can. It can get much worse.
Re:Heh (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about it. Bush included Iran in his (in)famous "axis of evil" speech. Washington turned down Teheran's 2003 offer to open negociations. The US is cornering the Iranian regime and putting it in an impossible situation. Iranian reformists and moderates are extremely unhappy with the American attitude as it only radicalizes the regime in place. Everything indicates an imminent attack.
On the 21st of February 2007, the same day the UN deadline to suspend nuclear activities expired, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made the following statement: "If they say that we should close down our fuel production facilities to resume talks, we say fine, but those who enter talks with us should also close down their nuclear fuel production activities". The white house's spokesperson Tony Snow rejected the offer. Think about it: the US is asking Iran to close its nuclear facilities before they agree to discuss closing down Iran's nuclear facilities. Let me reiterate: The US wants them to give up the very thing they want them to give up before considering negociating with them about that thing.
Mad world.
Re:Heh (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, the administration doesn't want to negotiate with Iran, but they also don't want average dumb Americans to realize that. Americans hear "We'll negotiate as soon as (blah blah blah)", but most Americans don't know enough backstory to realize that the (blah blah blah) is an unreasonable precondition to negotiating.
Re:Heh (Score:5, Insightful)
So, the hardware with the Iranian manufacturer's markings all over it is just an elaborate ruse? Fine. The actual Iranian operatives romping around in the country? Ah... they're part of the clever plan we have that includes actually running the Iranian government in secret, right? These aren't allegations, it's long history. Obviously, when Saddam attacked Iran, he certainly didn't do anything to make Iran less inclined to establish regular covert (and not so covert) forrays into that country to erode the Sunni-ness of the place.
Bush included Iran in his (in)famous "axis of evil" speech
Exactly. Because Iran was then, and still is busy funding and arming some of the worst terrorist groups in the world. They openly and proudly finance and support organizations that do seek to destabilize the middle east and throw it back into a medieval environment. They did and do still speak in terms of wiping Israel off the map. So, that makes them more like Canada, maybe? If you had to name a couple of countries most on the "evil" list, in terms of trafficking in weapons and daily support for Really Bad People, Iran and North Korea definitely are at the top, especially in the context of extremist Islamic militancy.
The US is cornering the Iranian regime and putting it in an impossible situation. Iranian reformists and moderates are extremely unhappy with the American attitude as it only radicalizes the regime in place.
Do you not even WATCH press coverage of Europe? The US has been bending over backwards to allow Europe, the UN, and the IAEA to do what the EU has been insisting they be allowed to do: talk this to death, and use sanctions to make Iran somehow magically not want to have nuclear weapons while at the same time talking up the pending demise of its most hated regional enemy. The people establishing the "impossible situation" are the whole of the UN security council. European big-wigs are the ones standing up and saying the same things: this can't be allowed, sanctions will be needed, etc. Just because the US says the same thing, that makes it all a US-based issue? Why?
Iranian reformists and moderates are extremely unhappy with the American attitude as it only radicalizes the regime in place.
So, accommodating that same radical, crazy regime, and sending them the message that indeed, arming up with nukes, stoking a religious civil war in Iraq, wiping Israel off the map - these are all good, reasonable things... that serves the reformers how?
The US wants them to give up the very thing they want them to give up before considering negociating with them about that thing.
How does ceasing to expand an existing weapons program as a precurser to negotiations equal "giving up" on it? The point is that they (Iran) are unwilling, as expected, to demonstrate any interest whatsoever actually not producing nukes. Why even bother sitting through pointless and empty negotiations if the very first step - which includes them doing something to show they even have an interest - is something they're already saying they won't do? It just saves everyone a lot of time. There doesn't need to be any negotiation because they don't intend to carry them out or abide by them anyway. It's hardly a mystery. Do you really wonder if the same guy that says he's just cured AIDS is going to negotiate in good faith to give up something he's already said he'll never give up... and says those things in the context of his promises to see the US and her allies destroyed?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh Ye of little faith. There is a LOT more we can do to make things much worse. The flaming Idiot we have as a Vice president is calling for attacks on Iran.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not only that; they must have known darn w
Re:Heh (Score:4, Funny)
Or so some people claim. The entire issue is so incredibly and mind-bogglingly convoluted that I've stopped caring. All I know is that Israel deserves the land, while the Palestinians do not.
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why can't Iran do all the things that the U.S. do all the time?
What is the problem with Iran investing in nuclear research and space technologies?
The U.S. has said that they basically don't give a shit about international treaties about the militarisation of space, and all Iran has done is launch a satellite and this is some big event?
The U.S. is still the only country to use a nuclear weapon on another country, so I'd highly recommend they stop their own "posturing" until they get some credibility.
I dunno... (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably because Iran ignores the Geneva Conventions with regard to prisoners...no..US does that too...
Probably because Iran makes veiled threats to use Nuclear weapons if diplomatic demands are not met...no...US does that too...
I guess you're right!
Re:I dunno... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention that Iran is widely known to fund and train terroristic organisations. Not the kind Bush scared everyone when he needed excuse for Iraq, but the real guys - Hezbollah, Hamas... how'd you feel about one or both of those getting an ICBM with a nuclear warhead at their disposal?
What Ahmadinejad REALLY said (Score:5, Informative)
So what did Ahmadinejad actually say?
"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."
"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time"
Source [thetruthseeker.co.uk]
So how in hell did your post get modded "insightful"? Slashdot isn't turning into Free Republic, is it?
Re:I dunno... (Score:4, Insightful)
There were a lot of groups active against the Soviets, and not all of them were allied. To group them all together shows a serious misunderstanding of the complexities of that war.
Re:I dunno... (Score:4, Informative)
Iran is very, very close to "the bomb", or may already have it. US military intelligence has the exact locations of numerous nuclear facilities, which is why the Stennis aircraft carrier group was just moved withing striking distance.
Let's see:
intolerant idealism -check
racist -check
sworn enemy of neighbor(s) -check
willing to sacrifice entire nation for megalomaniac goals -check
Re:I dunno... (Score:5, Insightful)
And will these weapons of mass destruction actually be found this time ? Or is this just another lie to justify starting a war ? You know, the kind US used to justify attacking Iraq ? Maybe I'm too cynical, but I really don't think that US's claims about a country US has declared to be in the "Axis of Evil" are worth the paper they are written on.
But of course Iran is likely to either have the bomb or be developing it in a desperate race against time; after all, it is pretty obvious they'll be invaded next and their only hope to prevent that is to get a nuclear deterrent. That's why no amount of financial or other kind of pressure will stop them: they either do it or they'll get conquered and decimated, it's a matter of survival.
Yet another briliant strategic move from Bush, worthy of Paula herself. Let's see if the guy can actually start World War 3 before his term runs out. He's trying hard, at the very least...
Re:I dunno... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you implying that the US supported Bin Laden in the '80's? The I would have to imply that you are wrong.
True, the US did support the Moujahadin in the 80's, or at least we helped them knock down a few Russian helicoptors, but we did not support Al Qaeda nor Bin Laden. The people we supported were the same groups that helped us overthrow the Taliban.
Or, would you have had us sit by silently while the Russians slaughtered Afghanis by the thousands?
If Hezbollah or Hamas got an ICBM that could reach the USA, then I'd be concerned. But they don't. They can't even reach Europe right now.
Uh, if Iran just sent a satellite into orbit, then Hezbollah has the ability to strike anywhere in the world. All Iran has to do is conveniently leave the control room unguarded one day and... oops, someone launched something.
More likely, these groups won't need an ICBM. All they would need to do is make a phone call to someone in the US and tell them how they are going to smuggle the bomb in, what their orders are and how to carry them out. (You know, since we can't listen in on the phone call and all)
Re:I dunno... (Score:5, Insightful)
but then you say
Why get involved then if Israel is just another pissant ME country? You don't want to be the world's policeman but then you want to be the world policeman. You have to get your act straight.
Let's assume that you want to be the world's policeman:
Then it is a million times easier to police by _preventing_ the problems. Don't act when the countries already burned themselves to the ground, but stop them from getting the nukes in the first place. Your analogy between thoughcrimes when applied to humans vs. when applied to countries is not valid. In case of a country intelligence can be used to determine what the country is 'thinking'.
Let's assume that you don't want to be the world's policeman:
Then you should not giving a shit whatever happens in ME anyway. Israel gets wiped out - ok. Isreal wipes out the whole ME with nukes - also ok. Only when the nukes start flying towards US you retaliate.
So pick one of the two...
Re:I dunno... (Score:5, Informative)
Firstly, the Farsi word for 'map' ("nagsheh") was never used. Nor was the word 'Isreal'. A more literal translation of one passage would be "Jerusalem must/will vanish from the pages of time".
Another passage means: "The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world,". The difference between Isralies and Zionists is left as an excercise to the student. Hint: It's the same difference as between 'Americans' and 'Neo-Conservatives'.
If you speak some Farsi, feel free to visit the original speech, and read it for yourself:
http://www.president.ir/farsi/ahmadinejad/speeche
Re:I dunno... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a really big difference between the two phrases. More than one, actually.
"Israel" could refer to the entire state, or its citizens. It can be interpreted in genocidal terms. What was actually said, however, was the occupying regime - a very different thing.
And for the verbal portion, "wipe off the map" is an English term that carries a rather violent connotation, again it can even imply genocide. The actual Farsi phrase used has no such connotation, it's more equivelent to the English phrase 'this too shall pass.'
So the bad translation wasn't 'tomeytoe tomahtoe' as you try to paint it, and it wasn't just a bad translation either. It was deliberately misleading. Reading the 'translation' that's been plastered all over our media, you hear violent, possibly genocidal threats against a nation. Read the original, or a decent translation, instead, and what you find is merely disapproval of a particular government, and faith that justice will eventually prevail over it.
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
Because the NPT, of which Iran is a signatory, puts different restrictions on different countries. To wit, the US, Britain, and the other original nuclear powers must work to reduce their nuclear weapons stockpiles (which they are doing), and every other signatory must not undertake to obtain nuclear weapons.
What is the problem with Iran investing in nuclear research and space technologies?
Nuclear (power) research - good
space technology - good
possible nuclear weapons research - bad.
The IAEA and the UN are not satisfied as to Iran's intentions vis a vis nuclear weapons research.
The U.S. has said...
You do realize "U.S." does not appear anywhere in the article. This is a comment from a former British ambassador. If you look carefully, you may realize that no one else on the planet wants Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, not just the US.
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
That doesn't matter. Iran knows that this kind of provocative behavior and claims such as this (even if they're false) will successfully shift the debate to the US, in effect, further shifting or solidifying opinion against the US among groups of people both inside and outside of the US, even though the US hasn't done anything at all, and indeed, the only "action" of any kind taken, by anyone, has been by Iran.
It's a really brilliant strategic move on Iran's part, actually. They can deflect attention from themselves, and shift the focus to what US reaction might or should be, even though the focus should remain on the fact that Iran shouldn't be allowed to proceed down this path, as has repeatedly been reiterated by UN and the rest of the international community. How long until revisionist history forgets that fact, and pretends it was "only the US" that had these feelings on Iran (which is ironic, since the US is probably one of the most silent nations on Iran right now, and has intentionally restricted any rhetoric on the Iran issue)?
I'm not satisfied either (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps. They aren't all that satisfied with the bogus "intelligence" the US has been feeding them [latimes.com], that's for sure.
If I had to guess, the Iranian's claim to have a viable space program and the US claim that the Iranians have a viable weapons program are both about as reliable as the previous claims about Iraq and the smoking guns that were going to be mushroom clouds. I suppose I'm slightly more skeptical of the weapons programs claims, if only because Dick "never right about anything" Cheney has weighed in in support of the story.
--MarkusQ
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Iran has obligations under the NPT to open up its nuclear research program to international inspectors to allow them to confirm what Iran says is taking place, something that even the US and Russia do. Iran has refused to allow inspectors entry into several key facilities, and has refused to turn over information about them, violating their Safeguards agreement, according to the IAEA. Pakistan's refusal to make available A.Q. Khan -- known for stealing from other nations several plans critical for development of his own country's nuclear weapons -- for interviewing by the IAEA even after evidence came to light that he supplied at least some of Iran's nuclear technology has further heightened suspicions as to the nature of the program.
I do see some hope in that Iran's economy -- which Ahmadinejad promised to turn around -- has continued to further tank even as Ahmadinejad has poured what may be billions of dollars into the nuclear program which has done little more than raise tensions with the West even as employment problems worsen. Evidence of support issues within the elite ranks of the clerics has come to light, and it may well be that Ahmadinejad will last only one term (though that means we still have to put up with him for another 2.5 years).
Here, let's look at international reaction (Score:5, Informative)
You might want to read this [un.org]. It's something that will be coming up again. The thing about UN resolutions is that there's only one kind that has teeth, and allows UN members to respond with force in the event of noncompliance. They're called Chapter VII UN Security Council resolutions. This is one of those resolutions. Everyone agreed.
International Official Reaction to IAEA Report on Iran
FEA20070223094786 - OSC Feature - International -- OSC Summary 23 Feb 07
IAEA Board of Governors in Vienna (IAEA.org)
On 22 February the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] issued a report to the organization's 35-nation board of governors declaring Iran has failed to suspend its enrichment related activities. Full report
This product compiles official global reaction to the IAEA's report monitored by OSC as of 1630 GMT on 23 February.
IRAN
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad:
"If we show weakness in front of the enemies, their expectations will increase, but if we stand against them, because of our resistance, they will retreat." Full report
"Fairness requires that those who want to conduct talks with us also close their fuel cycle programs" so "we can conduct a dialogue in a fair atmosphere." Full report
Iranian Expediency Council chief Hashemi Rafsanjani:
"They will not reach anywhere through this path . . . the only way is to stop this bullying and stop this preconditioning so that we can all sit at the negotiation table." Full report
MIDDLE EAST
Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal:
It is "too soon to adopt drastic measures. We continue to aspire to a peaceful solution." Full report
RUSSIA
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov:
Lavrov "intends to carefully study the report by the head of the IAEA Muhammad al-Baradi'i on Iran's nuclear dossier." Full report
Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Vitaliy Churkin:
The UNSC's goal should not be "to adopt a new resolution on Iran or introduce sanctions against Tehran, but a political regulation of the Iranian nuclear problem." Full report
EUROPE
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy:
"We think that is now necessary to draft a new resolution, as quickly as possible, the six of us, the three Europeans, in particular, but also the Russians, the Chinese, and the Americans. It is necessary that this resolution go a little further than the one we already voted for unanimously on 23 December. It is only with unity and firmness on the part of the international community that we will create what is just beginning to stir in Iran today, namely a debate about the validity of President Ahmadinezhad's policy." Full report
German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier:
"What was confirmed today was to be expected, that Iran has failed to meet the expectations of the international community." Referring Iran to the UNSC is "one of the options" for handling the situation. Full report
UK Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett:
"Iran has so far failed to take this positive path and comply with Security Council requirements . . . we will therefore work for the adoption of further Security Council measures, which will lead to the further isolation of Iran internationally . . . we remain determined to prevent Iran acquiring the means to develop nuclear weapons." Full report
Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel:
Iran must understand that "the international community is united and firm" on the nuclear issue and that "dialogue must continue . . . diplomacy is never finished." Full report
ASIA
Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxi
Re:Here, let's look at international reaction (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is that so ? Because there is a belief that it is easier to make US change its behavior than to make it drop its technologies. Currently it is believed to be easier to make Iran drop its technology than to change its international stance but this opinion could very well change in the near future.
The US owns space (Score:5, Informative)
The US miltary always reserves the right to shoot down any satellites it thinks would threaten its security. Plus when the EU wanted to setup Galileo their alternative to GPS, the US wanted a code to be able to shut it down etc..
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
As for the bomb. It has long been considered a bad thing to let other get it. It isn't because they need it to defend themselves or anything. It is more in the opinion that we know we won't use it unless it was used against us but we cannot be certain they won't.
As for the rest, Americas interactions that parralell Iran's have been done in the Best ofr the interest of the united states and it's allies. Even when later it was found to have little positive effects it was considered at the time to be the best thing to do. Unfortunatly, this isn't an ideal world and not everything done has the greatest outcomes and not everything done was the best choice of the time. Although it was thought to have been the best choice. And the people not directly influenced by the positive results only see the negtive results but the key here isn't the results at all, It is who interest the actions were supposed to benifit. Iran's interest as presented presently will be against the interest of the US and some of it's allies.
When you ask a question like that, You have to look at what can come from it, what it is likly to be used for and who it could effect. If it could effect you and it could damage your reletive's property and possibly lives, you tend to want them to stop doing it. Whatever "it" is. And unfortunatly, the intentions could be admirable, the outcome could be non threatening and we end up with something like chernobyl.
As for being the only country to use a nuke. At the time it was used, there wasn't a concept of the damges it caused. It wasn't until after theat we discovered how bad they were. All we knew was an invasion into mainland japan would reult in massive loss of life for the good guys. While the intent of the bomb was only to inflict those losses on the enemy and save the "goodguys" (and yes are the good guys in that war) We unleashed something that couldn't be hidden again. Hilter was trying to find "the bomb" too ubt was unsuccessfull.
So our only instance of using it, we found how bad it was and at the same time, we showed it was possible. This meant that anyone else working on it would have found it too eventualy. To take nukes off the table reagon made a decision that elimintated it's use for the vast majority of wars. Mutualy asured destruction (mad) means that If you use it, we use it and anything you would hope to gain from us will be lost in your lands and possibly more too. The fatal flaw here? the rogue state who doesn't want to invade someone. They want to see them completly destroyed as a clensing process simular to the final solution for the jews. Except countries like Iran have this concept imbeded in their religion wich ultimatly rules the lands. This religious clensing concept is most noticable in the goups labeled as terrorist and etream in the middle east areas.
Yes Iran is more of a therocracy then a democracy or dictatorship. The president of Iran can be overruled at any time by the supreme leader (rahbar) who is a high prist or whatever the muslum position is with the same eeffects. SO lets say that Iran has the bomb and a delivery system that can reach anywere on earth. Now lets say that the extream religios factions infiltrate the churches in Iran and make the whole killing everyone else idea more popular. Now lets sat the Ayatollah is assasinated and his replacment is a follower of this extream belief. Now you will get atomic cleansing of all that disagree's with their religion and they see any retaliation as a test from god to determine how loyal they are. This exact scenario is the reason we are having so much of a problem fighting terrorist. How do you defeate
It was Iran.. (Score:4, Interesting)
They did claim recently to have a cure for aids..
TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- After 7 long years of arduous work, Iranian scientists here on Saturday introduced a herbal medicine which cures Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=851114 0239 [farsnews.com]
Re: It was Iran.. (Score:5, Funny)
One could ask what they've been smoking, but I think the press release gives it away.
Re:So... (Score:4, Informative)
But then, so had North Korea [reuters.com].
I'm surprised you haven't noticed this kind of behavior from Iran under Ahmadinejad.
Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Iran Introduces AIDS Cure [farsnews.com]
And here's one from the Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran's state news agency:
Iran discovers formula to cure AIDS [www.irna.ir]
That good enough for you, or do you want to keep thinking it's a propaganda game against innocent little Iran?
Iranian HIV prevention: better than cure ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Iran actually does have a far more liberal and effective system of HIV prevention that the US. Known Islamist sympathisers like the World Bank and Lancet recently wrote:
"Several factors helped catalyze change and explain Iran's current progressive (HIV prevention) policies: (i) the important role NGOs and civil society played in advocacy and implementation of successful programs that reached vulnerable groups; (ii) the close cooperation and common understanding between the Ministry of Health, the prison department health authorities, and the judiciary authorities and other stakeholders, on drug treatment and HIV/AIDS, leading to increased government support for implementation of evidence-based harm reduction policies; and, (iii) informed advocacy among senior policy-makers paving the way for adoption of harm reduction measures in early 2000. A national harm reduction committee has been established with representatives from various ministries, academic centers and NGOs.
Harm reduction programs are now implemented by both government and non-governmental facilities. A program recognized as a best practice, is the triangular clinic which integrates services for treatment and prevention of STIs, injecting drug use and HIV/AIDS.17 These clinics are set up in prisons and by NGOs to effectively reach IDU communities. A unique model for comprehensive harm reduction is being implemented by the Persepolis NGO. It provides needle exchange, methadone maintenance treatment, general medical care, and referral for voluntary counseling and testing. It runs drop in centers for street-based IDUs as part of a continuum of care, and services extend to the provision of food, clothes and other basic needs."
(HIV/AIDS Prevention among Injecting Drug Users: Learning from Harm Reduction in Iran, World Bank 2006) http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTSAREGTOPHIV
Google for harm reduction and HIV in the US. Judge for yourself where HIV prevention is more effective.
I guess the lesson is this: there is active propaganda campaign being waged by the US and its allies against Iran at the moment. As in the case of the USSR, everything is being painted black. Laughing at "cures for AIDS" is part of this propaganda campaign.
Judging by HIV prevention evidence at least, it is pretty clear where religious fundamentalist nutsos are doing the damage.
Re:Iranian HIV prevention: better than cure ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Iranian HIV prevention: better than cure ? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think this is good. I think having nukes in Iran would do great things for peace in the middle east.
Re:Iranian HIV prevention: better than cure ? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I were Iranian, I'd be pissed off at the Americans too! I'd be sitting there going "They're out to get us! They're terrorists and fascists!" too! I'd be working on getting the only weapon in the world powerful enough to get the US to stay it's hand too!
History: It doesn't repeat, but it does rhyme. If you refuse to learn about history, then you've got no foundation to build solid beliefs upon.
Re:Iranian HIV prevention: better than cure ? (Score:5, Interesting)
As Scott Ritter pointed out recently in an interview, whose statements are more likely to be true?
That of George Bush and Dick Cheney, who demonstratively LIED about EVERYTHING connected to Irag and are continuing to do so with respect to Iran.
Or that of Ayatollah Khamenei who has issued a direct Islamic fatwa proclaiming that nuclear weapons are not consistent with the Muslim religion.
As Ritter pointed out, Khamenei is not a "mad mullah" nmeaning that Khamenei does take his religion seriously. For him to issue a fatwa like that while knowingly pursuing a nuclear weapons program would be LESS likely than the opposite situation.
This is not to say, of course, that religious leaders don't delude themselves or others. I don't trust anything a religious leader - or ANY religious person - says. However, Ritter does have a point.
More importantly, we don't HAVE to rely on Khamenei. The IAEA has repeatedly stated that there is absolutely NO evidence that Iran has ANY nuclear weapons program. The ONLY thing the IAEA is concerned about are some questions about what was done in Iran in the PAST - certain documents that apparently were received by Iran from the A Q Khan network in Pakistan, and certain projects that might have been conducted by the Iranian military - all in the PAST.
I repeat - there is NO evidence WHATSOEVER that Iran HAS or HAD a nuclear weapons program.
None.
Nada.
EVERYTHING the IAEA has actually seen in Iran is legal and permitted under the NPT.
EVERYTHING that Iran IS doing with their civilian nuclear program is under the eyes of the IAEA inspectors.
Furthermore, the notion that even IF Iran HAD a nuclear weapons program - which by the way if they started TODAY, would not be for another ten years - since, as Ritter points out, that's about how long it takes to GET a nuclear weapon - that they could threaten Israel, whhich has an estimated 100-400 nuclear weapons, including nuclear-tipped cruise missiles on submarines - let alone anyone else - is laughable.
No, there is absolutely no doubt in this situation as to what is going on. The US government intends to widen the war in the Middle East by starting one with Iran - as a result of neocon ideology and war profiteering goals.
There are TWO aircraft carrier battle groups and two other Naval strike groups in or near the Gulf now. The USS Reagan is reportedly on its way to join them. The Enterprise could be returned there in a matter of weeks. That makes FOUR aircraft carrier battle groups and two strike groups - plus mine-clearing ships plus thousands of Marines plus newly distributed strike aircraft in the region. An additional "surge" of three additional aircraft carrier battle groups could be performed within a month or so if ordered.
Bush intends to start a war with Iran, most likely in the next ninety days, although of course one can't be sure of the timing. What is nearly certain is that he will start one before he leaves office - and that means probably before the election campaign actually begins in 2008 - which means he will do it this year. And if HE doesn't, the Israelis have basically said they WILL in 2007.
The result will be thousands or even tens of thousands of US soldiers killed, hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of Iraqi and Iranian civilians killed, a ballooning war cost into the trillions, the destruction of the US economy via $150-250/barrel oil and possibly the dumping of the dollar by the Chinese (who will be seriously pissed if they can't get oil from Iran due to the war), massive terrorism against the US and Israel throughout the world - including inside the US (which is MADE for car bombs and suicide bombs) - the complete destabilization of the Middle East, and conceivably the destruction of a major Israeli city by one of ITS OWN nuclear weapons (obviously the best tactic any terrorist could use.)
And your Congress is not prepared to stop it. Witho
Listen to Iran (Score:4, Informative)
Those are both Iranian positions. Ahmadinejad has vowed [bbc.co.uk] to "wipe Israel off the map" - a "glass parking lot" is an obvious way to do so. I am amazed by how so many people pretend to "respect" Jihadists, but refuse to believe what they say.
Re:Iranian HIV prevention: better than cure ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nevertheless, Zionists are one of the most evil organizations on earth, made up of people whose common tie is that they hold to an evil, selfish, ruthless and elitist view of the world.
They're no less deserving of being overthrown than the Mullahs in Afghanistan.
The Prince of Persia is right.
Re:But don't worry (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a dead-or-alive game and nobody is forcing you to choose side...
Oh, wait a minute, somebody in USofA seemed to having said:
You're either with us, or against us.
Sorry, I'm mistaken. #-
Re:In what is that a danger? (Score:5, Informative)
Iran is perhaps the most extreme fundamentalist muslim nation in the world.
They're leader preaches for hate of everything non-muslim, and for the destruction of the western society.
Perhaps you should read some of the latest speeches from Ahmadinijad and about iran:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C2-20070506
http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/international/inde
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/35552.html [hnn.us]
http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RXL2HKEOGw&mode=r
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wkF3Pkup5g&mode=r
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRkQMv-3R2k&mode=r
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6q2h1lKOF0&mode=r
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nMak6VnH4U&mode=r
and many many more... just open your eyes and realize who you're talking about.
Re:In what is that a danger? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: What we really need to worry about.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Yep. And now the Neocons are whining because Iran is filling the power vacuum that we created by knocking off Iraq's government.
For some reason they think the cure is to knock off Iraq's government too.