Iran Launches Payload into Space 698
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."
Confusion? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
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:Heh (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. That most certainly would start the fast spiral into a world war.
Don't sell the USA short, we can destabilize the entire world in the next couple of years... And just wait for the next incompetent idiots we get in the white house after that!
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: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)?
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:Heh (Score:2, Informative)
You need a history lesson. Google 'Sykes-Picot' and the fall of the Ottoman empire.
Jews bought the land for pennies an acre. The local Arab inhabitants (Ottoman subjects nicknamed 'Palestinian' because this was supposedly the Biblical land of 'Philistine') thought the land worthless.
After the kibbutz es started reaping the harvest, and the hydroelectric brought power...then the so-called 'Palestinians' realized the inherent value of the land and wanted it back. Of course, the Jews who bought it and worked to transform the land thought this utter bullshit.
So the 'Palestinians' (again, a nickname, not a real culture) agreed to the Egyptian and Jordanian overtures to ally with them an invade Israel. They tried twice and lost horribly both times.
That's right, they started wars and lost them...hence the 'occupied territories'.
What's curious is that the Jordanians and Egyptians won't give the 'Palestinian' refugees harbor, but keep them in camps and have done so for almost 50 years.
What does that tell you about these backstabbing, culture less, savages?
And I have to read idiots like you who got their history from the back of a matchbook or some anti-US/anti-Israel history prof or news reporter.
Read up and come back when you have a clue.
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?
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: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, 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:1, Informative)
You ignorance of history from pre-WWII through today is astounding. Go read a history book or two and take a look at what really happened; not you want to pretend happened. The 3rd Reich, lead by Hitler, slaughtered MILLIONS of people; Jews, Gypsies, Pole's, anybody who wasn't Arian. Even worse, Stalin was responsible for even more death. Go remove the entire populations of LA and NY and you'll start getting close to the damage they did. Comparing their actions to the current president shows how truly ignorant you are.let me do you a favour. To keep you from making a further fool of yourself, I'll invoke Godwin's law on you.
I'll guarantee I get modded down because people can't stand being told the truth of history. And as to Iraq, I notice we haven't been attacked since we stood up and showed the world that we aren't the Paper Tigers they thought we were. Oh, why did they think we were so weak? Carter and Clinton's cowardly actions seem to come to mind. Don't believe me? Bin Laden himself stated it was Carter's cowardly-pleading to Iran to return our citizens, and Clinton's Cut-n-run technique after we got our nose bloodied.
So I'll tell ya what, I'll go in the woods and shoot myself right after you head to the same place and abort yourself.
Re:In what is that a danger? (Score:1, Informative)
What partition plan are you referring to? The Oslo accords? The palestinians never lived up to their end.
Hamas refuses to live with Israel under all circumstances, and refuses negotiations under all circumstances. Hamas chooses violence, and only violence. It's in the Hamas charter. Go read it yourself.
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:Iranian HIV prevention: better than cure ? (Score:3, Informative)
Indeed Iran's position is clear, but Americans and Israelis have done their best to muddy the waters. Ahmadinejad has stated quite correctly that the Zionist regime should end, and this is reported in the West as saying that Israel and all Jews should be exterminated with nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, has repeatedly confirmed Iran's support for the Arab League's position on Israel-Palestine, that calls for peace and normalisation of relations with Israel. This is not generally reported.
Re:I dunno... (Score:3, Informative)
In fact, in 1947, the UN set up a commission to determine whether the UN had the authority to partition the PALESTINIAN MANDATE (which is what you appear to be referring to) - and concluded that it was illegal for the UN to partition PALESTINE into a Palestinian state and an Israeli state.
Which the UN Security Council then ignored and went ahead and did it anyway because the British basically said, "We wash our hands of the whole thing" - because the Zionists were killing British soldiers and civilians by TERRORISM.
Whereupon the Zionists provoked a war with the Arab countries, and proceeded to drive out 700,000 Palestinians and seize their lands - which have never been returned, nor have the Palestinians driven out been allowed to return.
Not to mention that Israel has IGNORED all but one of the NUMEROUS subsequent UN resolutions requiring Israel to return lands captured in the 1967 war - and numerous other aggressions against the Palestinians.
The UN should revisit its 1947 partitioning plan, and require the original PALESTINIAN MANDATE to be enforced. "Israel" should be renamed "Palestine", all Palestinian lands should be returned to the Palestinians (where legally feasible and records exist proving ownership), and the Israeli state should be dissolved. All Israeli nuclear weapons should be eliminated, the Israeli military disarmed, and anybody who wants to leave the now-Palestinian-majority country should be allowed to leave with compensation for personal and business expense.
The binational (single) state solution is the only workable solution to the Middle East problem. And if that results is mass emigration of Israelis to other countries - well, if they hadn't been aggressively trying to expand two thousand years ago - until they ran into the Romans who were really GOOD at that sort of thing - they wouldn't have been driven out in the first place. And BEING driven out was the best thing that ever happened to Judaism, since it meant it would never die out and is now worldwide.
Judaism's worst defeat was in fact Zionism's best goal - the safety of Jews. And the Holocaust doesn't change that historical fact.
And in any event, Christianity was responsible for the persecution of Jews in the first place - based on the nonsense that Jesus Christ was anything other than a good Jew who had no intention of founding a new religion - let alone one that would persecute his own people for his death for two thousand years after...
Chimpanzees.
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:I dunno... (Score:3, Informative)
You know, this is such a shit argument. Wiretaps are, and have always been, legal in the US. The government can even wiretap for a limited period in a time-sensitive situation, before a warrant has been granted.
Circumventing the law and the system that was in place has nothing to do with national security. If the President believes that the law is too restrictive, he can appeal to Congress to amend it. That is his ONLY recourse - the President does not get to decide which laws he obeys.
The FISA was passed to protect us from government corruption. You can argue about whether it is too restrictive, but claiming that we "can't listen in on the phone call" is dishonest.
You wouldn't be so sure if Hillary were using a bogus legal argument to disregard the law. Strengthening presidential power only seems like a good idea when you like the person in charge. The ability of a single individual - or small group of individuals - to determine who should and should not be spied upon, in secret and without oversight - is a dangerous thing.
And, yes, the Democrats are absolutely guilty for doing this as well.