Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA Contractors Censoring Saturn V Info

Comments Filter:
  • by Opportunist (166417) on Monday July 30, 2007 @04:44AM (#20040121)
    After all, space has been opened for the enterprising public, maybe NASA wants to keep their edge in rocket development.

    Tells you something about R&D if that 'edge' is 40+ years old...
  • by freedom_india (780002) on Monday July 30, 2007 @04:47AM (#20040133) Homepage Journal
    WTF is happening? First it was the availability of mobile coverage that was secretized, and now Saturn V?
    For fu&k's sake, its Saturn V !!! Not the plans to latest Anti-Gravity Cavorite
    And secondly, it has been available in school/college libraries for a long time now?
    So will the SS take down http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_Vtoo [wikipedia.org] ?
    I guess if Rove & Co were living in ancient ages, they would have made sure that any reference to catapults were removed from Library of Alexandria?

    How do you re-secretize something that is in Public Domain???

  • by QuantumG (50515) <qg@biodome.org> on Monday July 30, 2007 @04:52AM (#20040151) Homepage Journal
    It's a damn shame that a nice launch vehicle also happens to make a nice ICBM, but the progress of getting off this rock is a teenie bit more important that keeping foreign countries from spending less than a few million dollars and a few years of research and development to make their own design. Meanwhile, the much harder problem of making a man rated rocket is being done over [spacex.com] and over [armadilloaerospace.com] and over [masten-space.com] again. Talk about duplication of efforts.

  • So why mention it? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by prisoner-of-enigma (535770) on Monday July 30, 2007 @04:54AM (#20040159) Homepage
    No word yet if the assignment of a Karl Rove protege high up in NASA has any connection.

    So why bother mentioning it unless you're trying to establish some sort of political agenda of your own?
  • by MichaelSmith (789609) on Monday July 30, 2007 @05:16AM (#20040253) Homepage Journal

    Talk about duplication of efforts.

    But the Saturn V was an expensive dead end. Ground support costs alone make it impossible to turn it into a commercial prospect. All US manufactured launch vehicles are presumably controlled by ITAR in any event. I am sure Richard Branson is going to have a fine time exporting the tier 2 system to the other countries he wants to launch from.

  • by ResistanceIsIrritati (808817) on Monday July 30, 2007 @05:23AM (#20040285) Homepage
    Aren't they a bit late to stop this information getting out? If it's been in the public domain for years then anyone interested in using it would already have a copy.
  • No worries (Score:4, Insightful)

    by clarkkent09 (1104833) on Monday July 30, 2007 @05:24AM (#20040289)
    Just buy a new one from ebay: http://cgi.ebay.com/Apollo-Saturn-V-Plans-1967-Ama zing-Item_W0QQitemZ230155998873QQihZ013QQcategoryZ 13903QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem [ebay.com]

    Seriously though, this must be some kind of silly bureaucratic mixup, someone overreacting to the new directive from above etc.

    As if someone trying to build a freaking ICBM would not have already picked up every bit of public information (and more) regarding US, Soviet etc rocket technology.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 30, 2007 @05:25AM (#20040293)
    Why bother duplicate Saturn 5 when the Ruskies have much better rockets to duplicate or buy.
  • by jamstar7 (694492) on Monday July 30, 2007 @05:26AM (#20040299)
    It's what they came up with that was buildable in the time allotted. Sure, NASA was working on single stage to orbit designs, but they knew SSTO wouldn't be doable until the 90's, and the challange was to get there before 1970. It was a pure case of 'throw enough money at the problem and you'll get results'. And they did. By today's standards, Apollo was a dinky little deathtrap, the men who rode it were no-foolin' heroes.
  • by Stanislav_J (947290) on Monday July 30, 2007 @05:28AM (#20040307)

    I would think older, simpler rocket designs would be more applicable to the needs of an emerging space power or rogue terrorist group. Why not censor and confiscate information about the older Titans that carried Gemini? Or the Redstone, Atlas, or even Little Joe rockets that propelled the Mercury program? Sure, they don't have the glamour or cachet of the Saturn V (which was, and still is, a beautiful machine), but I'm sure there are a lot of old technical manuals and such about those floating around. (I live in Central Florida, and have been to many estate sales of former NASA employees where there are tons of such material available. And, yes, I have profited quite nicely from them on eBay, thank you.)

    But this is a futile effort -- 40 years of being in the public domain is a bit much to reverse and cover up now. Why do so many people still think that you can rein this stuff in after it's already been so widely disseminated? Especially in the Internet era -- it's like when someone wants something taken down from YouTube or some other site when millions have already viewed and downloaded the file, and copies and copies of copies and copies of copies of copies are multiplying like bunnies through the "tubes." Nowadays, once something is "out there" it's OUT, and you can no more undo the damage than you can "unexplode" a bomb.

  • kdawson, stop (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Winckle (870180) <mark@[ ]ckle.co.uk ['win' in gap]> on Monday July 30, 2007 @05:28AM (#20040311) Homepage
    Seriously, this is not your political blog, I'm no right winger, but even I'm getting sick of it.
  • by iamdrscience (541136) <michaelmtripp.gmail@com> on Monday July 30, 2007 @05:38AM (#20040353) Homepage
    How on earth is the parent poster defending censorship? Nothing was said about his opinion of this censorship, he was questioning the summary's implication that this connected with Jane Cherry (Karl Rove's "protoge").
  • Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)

    by moosesocks (264553) on Monday July 30, 2007 @05:45AM (#20040397) Homepage
    The Saturn V is one of the greatest accomplishments of American Engineering. To shroud it like this is nothing short of disrespectful to those who built it, not to mention a pretty startling reflection of the current status of science in America.

    That all said, anybody who would consider using a Saturn 5 rocket as any sort of weapon is absolutely insane. The Saturn rockets were huge, and designed to deliver massive payloads (all of Skylab was launched via a single Saturn booster). The capacity of a Saturn rocket is just shy of 118 times as massive as the largest nuclear device ever constructed.

    Needless to say, it'd be pretty damn difficult for anybody to hide a rocket that big, along with that much nuclear material.

    Smaller rockets are scarier, because bombs don't need to be particularly heavy in order to cause serious damage, and because they can be easily concealed and launched at sea.
  • by HangingChad (677530) on Monday July 30, 2007 @05:47AM (#20040409) Homepage

    So why bother mentioning it unless you're trying to establish some sort of political agenda of your own?

    If they're actually doing the deed, and it appears they are, what difference does the motivation of the whistle blower make? Why would you defend this heavy handed stupidity under any circumstances?

    Anyone with the wherewithal to develop a launch vehicle can simply purchase one from the Russians...already assembled and working, complete with the ground support crew to service it. If the Russians can't handle the order they could go to the Chinese, India, or Pakistan. They're not going to try duplicating a multi-stage liquid fuel lift vehicle based on 30 year old technology.

    How does that old phrase go? Strain out a gnat and swallow a camel? Something like that.

  • There is no benefit from hiding information about technology. Take the atom bomb as an example. Once you know its possible to build one you are halfway there. The leap wasnt that somebody succeded in building an atom bomb but rather that someone had a rough idea that it might work. Any country hellbent on making a missale can do so over a small period of years. They know its possible and building the knowledge up isnt that hard. Often the basic information (fuels, materials etc) are very well documented, all you need is to work out the kinks IRL. Sadly things like this hurts the US most since their engineers wont learn from previous mistakes and endavours. They have to relearn things over and over from person to person.
  • by arivanov (12034) on Monday July 30, 2007 @05:53AM (#20040443) Homepage
    It is the same level of thinking that tries to remove the nitration chemical reactions out of the chemistry textbooks. Very popular with many governments and many countries.

    It does work after a fashion. Instead of working tireless only that grand bang that will make loads of smoke and noise, kids sit bored staring into the blue screen until they go completely brainnumb. The process produces easily controlled model taxpaying consumer-producers which is what the government wants. Bingo, goal achieved.
  • Re:Of course (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bxwatso (1059160) on Monday July 30, 2007 @06:06AM (#20040519)
    I know the majority of people dislike Karl Rove, but let me assure you, the Government was doing stupid things long before he came along, and that will never change.
  • Re:Ridiculous (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dreamchaser (49529) on Monday July 30, 2007 @06:13AM (#20040559) Homepage Journal
    Primitive nuclear weapons are very large and heavy. The Saturn V would still be overkill probably though.

    Seems like closing the barndoor after the chickens have already flown the coop though.
  • or maybe (Score:3, Insightful)

    by xmodem_and_rommon (884879) on Monday July 30, 2007 @06:27AM (#20040631)
    "How do you re-secretize something that is in Public Domain???"

    The crazy conspiracy theorist in me thinks that it might be a little worse than that. Maybe, they don't care about the Saturn V at all. Maybe its nothing more than a test, a social experiment of sorts. A test, of how effectively they can rewrite history and how much the public will care. And let us hope they are not successful, as if this is true and they are successful, we have much bigger concerns than the preservation of the history of space exploration on our hands.

    Or maybe the crazy conspiracy theorist in me is just a little too crazy and I'm talking out of my ass. But we must watch this.
  • Re:Ridiculous (Score:2, Insightful)

    by fr4nk (1077037) on Monday July 30, 2007 @06:53AM (#20040781)

    The capacity of a Saturn rocket is just shy of 118 times as massive as the largest nuclear device ever constructed.
    Huh? According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], the Saturn V can transport 118 metric tons into LEO.

    Now one of the heaviest (if not the heaviest?) nuclear device ever built was the Sausage device (the first staged hydrogen bomb, exploded in the Ivy Mike test) and weighted some 70 tons with cyrogenic supply equipment.
    I know that this weapon wasn't deliverable at all, but even Fat Man weighted around 4.5 tons.
  • by jon_anderson_ca (705052) on Monday July 30, 2007 @06:53AM (#20040787)

    It's probably because of the new CEV program (which is totally not just an Apollo redux... the CEV program will feature more seats). If terrorists know exactly where the join was between the first and second stages of the booster rocket, they could... uh...

    How about this: we can't say exactly what they could do because it's classified! But trust me, they could totally do stuff.

    Really.

    Would the US government lie to you? Are you calling us liars? Why do you hate freedom?????

  • by spottedkangaroo (451692) * on Monday July 30, 2007 @07:05AM (#20040869) Homepage
    And "Neo Cons"?? Where the hell did this come from??

    I first heard the term in isbn 1400042216 [amazon.com]. Probably comes from Chomsky or something. It's really a fitting term though, when you consider what republics used to stand for compared to what they stand for now...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 30, 2007 @07:06AM (#20040873)
    Simply put, it's because the Bush administration (in itself a sensible working definition of the word "neocon") is the most secretive administration in history. The pointless re-classification of old NASA documents is an example of a pattern that has been going on throughout the executive branch for six years.
  • by NMerriam (15122) <NMerriam@artboy.org> on Monday July 30, 2007 @07:15AM (#20040921) Homepage

    The real reason may be that now there are several countries developing long range missiles. Old Saturn design could well be used for such purpose.


    Yeah, why use any of the Russian designs available when you could spend 1,000 times as much building a Saturn V? At least then you'd have bragging right of being able to nuke the moon when your country goes bankrupt.
  • by crawling_chaos (23007) on Monday July 30, 2007 @07:22AM (#20040961) Homepage

    Even if you can not make it impossible for your enemies to obtain a secret, you can still make it harder -- every step of the way. And making it harder for America's enemies (such as Iran and North Korea) to build their own ICBMs is a good goal.
    And so it goes. Once a great nation was told "we have nothing to fear but fear itself." Now a small one is sold the message of "be afraid, be very afraid, and let the good God-fearing leaders take care of you sheep."

    What happened to my country, and will you cowards please give it back?

  • by Entropius (188861) on Monday July 30, 2007 @07:41AM (#20041113)
    Gee, are we going to see Clinton bashing spin stories once Hillary wins the White House? Or are we going to be seeing stories squashed that are unflattering to Clinton that can't be blamed on Bush?

    Maybe, maybe not. If she does anything worth bashing, then no doubt we will see the stories. All politicians aren't created equal: some are shittier than others, and Bush is one of the bad ones. I think you mistake "bias in favor of common sense" for "liberal bias"; anyone who consistently does stupid shit with my country will draw criticism, no matter their party.

  • by Sciros (986030) on Monday July 30, 2007 @07:51AM (#20041251) Journal
    You know what, I WISH they use old Saturn designs for that purpose. Seriously. The crappier their long range missiles the better. T_T

    If that's "the real reason," then we are *screwed*! No government that thinks it's protecting its citizens by tearing down Saturn V posters is actually protecting its citizens at all.

    Then again, because there is *no good reason at all* to tear down Saturn V posters, I'm willing to believe whatever they say it is. It'll be retarded every which way.
  • Re:Stupid guards (Score:4, Insightful)

    by starless (60879) on Monday July 30, 2007 @07:59AM (#20041323)
    ITAR has no jurisdiction or concern with regard to ownership within the United States.
    No, it governs the nationality of the people who are allowed access to the information. If something is ITAR controlled only US citizens and green card holders can have access to it.
    ITAR applies to almost anything that could plausibly be used to construct a spacecraft or launcher.
    ITAR can make international collaborations very awkward, and even makes it hard to work with US universities with the large number of non-US people working at any major university. Some US universities don't even allow ITAR controlled data on their campuses (presumably to avoid the chance of being prosecuted).

    I don't know whether ITAR is slowing down the development of weapons by foreign governments and terrorist groups. But, in my experience, it certainly is slowing down the development of US science and technology.
  • by ivan256 (17499) on Monday July 30, 2007 @08:00AM (#20041347)
    It didn't sound to me like he was defending anything.. Just condemning the artificial assignment of blame without evidence.

    What is it about the Bush administration that makes ordinary liberals abandon their principals and turn into ordinary hypocrites? As long as they're sticking it to the administration, people are perfectly fine with assigning guilt and punishment first, and finding out what really happened second.
  • by sp3d2orbit (81173) on Monday July 30, 2007 @08:14AM (#20041515)
    Forget the terrorists. Lets focus on our tangible enemies (North Korea and Iran). True, they probably won't use the Saturn V to deliver missles. They don't have to when the Russians have provided them perfectly usable missile systems (SCUD for instance).

    That being said, the Saturn V was a relatively cheap way of delivering payload to space. There is plenty to be learned from old designs, even if they aren't duplicated. If you've kept up with the news the last few years then you've seen North Korea master nuclear technology, but not the missiles to deliver it. While we seem powerless to stop these countries from acquiring nuclear weapons, we don't need to help them develop the technology to deliver those weapons.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 30, 2007 @08:29AM (#20041673)
    No aspect of the Saturn V could be considered to approach a "relatively cheap" or "relatively reliable" ICBM system. Even if you were somehow stuck with liquid rockets for your ICBM (which is a pretty awful compromise in the first place) the design of the Saturn V would be of little use unless your warhead were the size of a locomotive. And building one would be nearly as expensive as your entire nuclear program, and even more difficult to keep secret.
  • Re:private sector (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bastard of Subhumani (827601) on Monday July 30, 2007 @08:31AM (#20041699) Journal

    You have a link to the German details?
    In three words, Werner [wikipedia.org] Von [wikipedia.org] Braun [wikipedia.org].
  • by tgatliff (311583) on Monday July 30, 2007 @08:41AM (#20041815)
    Are you serious? Are you believing the propoganda of North Korea "mastering nuclear technology"? First, atomic weapons are political weapons and are not considered a serious military weapon. Why? Because no matter how crazy you are you realize that if you actually ever use this type of technology in a strike, then you will quickly be hit with a US arsenal with > 550 land based ICBMs (most which are in europe/asia), in addition to several hundreds of Minutemen ICBMs most likely positioned right off your coast. Also, nuclear technologies are very expensive to maintain, which is something India and Pakistan have learned.

    So why do these countries want atomic weapons? Three reasons. First, to convey political power in your region, which is why Iran wants them. Second, to try to get communications lines established with the US. (North Korea) Third, to prevent any potential future invasion. (Iran, North Korea, India, and Pakistan).. Starting to see my point? None of these include using atomic weapons in a miltary stike..

    Also, dont believe the argument of "they could give it to the terrorists and use a dirty bomb". This argument is ignorant as well, because everyone knows that all nuclear base material can always be tracked back to its manufacturing source simply by the way it is purified. If Iran was ever to give some of material to some group that would use it against the US or any of its NATO allies, there is little doubt that it would be the end of Iran as we know it... And Iran knows this. (Note: This is not an arbitrary decision either, but rather is specified in the NATO charter)

    Finally, if you think Iran (ie Persians) are just a bunch of crazy people, then consider this... Name the last time Iran invaded any nation? Go ahead.. Ill wait... (And no the 8 year Iran/Iraq war was not started by Iran)
  • by Marty_Krapturd (817250) on Monday July 30, 2007 @09:07AM (#20042137) Homepage

    tangible enemies (North Korea and Iran)

    Because one of them wags a stick around for food and the other claims that Germany should take responsibility for their own war crimes? WTF? This makes them "tangible enemies"? How, exactly, are either of these nations affecting YOUR life in the least?

    The most "tangible" enemy of the American people at this point in time is the American Government's overreaching power grabs and the American people's consumptive apathy.

    Stop giving up MY freedoms to ease YOUR fear!

  • by Marty_Krapturd (817250) on Monday July 30, 2007 @09:16AM (#20042263) Homepage

    within the last 5 years the US's main enemies have acquired or are quickly acquiring nuclear weapons.

    No, the defense department has had them for a bit longer than 5 years. There were some pretty damned impressive displays of their effect on civilian populations about 62 years ago. That was terrorism on a scale not seen since.

    A foreign policy of "shoot first and don't bother asking questions" is a greater enemy to the US then any sovereign nation ever could be, especially coming from a nation with a track record such as ours.

    Whatever reason there was for the suppression of the Saturn V plans I'm sure it has nothing to do with spreading peace and understanding, nor coming to common ground to work out differences.

  • by mdielmann (514750) on Monday July 30, 2007 @09:16AM (#20042273) Homepage Journal
    This reminds me of a parable I heard once about the difficulty of taking back thoughtless words. The perpetrator of the story was told to take a feather pillow to the top of a hill and pour out the feathers. Then she (yes, it's not politically correct) was told to pick them back up. That's how hard it is to take back thoughtless words.
    I expect in the Internet Age, it would be not unlike pouring the feathers out of a pillow during a hurricane.
  • by tbannist (230135) on Monday July 30, 2007 @09:34AM (#20042523)
    They were confiscating and destroying posters purchased at the gift shop. These aren't technical specs, they're public relations fluff posters with a rough cut-away display of the interior of the rocket.

    So you think it's reasonable in a free and just society for armed men to go into a private company's offices, rip publically available posters of 40+ year old technology off the walls and destroy them in the name of national security?

    Think about this for a second. The Saturn didn't have computers on board, it's older than the computer age. When it was designed, you probably couldn't fit a computer into it's entire cargo area. It doesn't make sense on any level to try to even pretend that the technology should be classified, it's clearly a sign of massive incompetence on the part of the Bush cronies who were recently put in charge at NASA. These people have no relevent education or experience, hell one of the morons was the second in command at FEMA during Katrina and now's he's got a different plush job at NASA where he's screwing up just he did a FEMA.

    It will probably take decades to clean up the mess that Bush is making of the U.S.
  • by tbannist (230135) on Monday July 30, 2007 @09:39AM (#20042589)
    'Where do you see "cowardice" here?'

    I see cowardice whenever someone tries to justify intolerable abuse of power on the basis that maybe it will make it harder for some unknown enemy to strike at us.

    Brave men demand more than vague threats and hand waving before they surrender their basic rights, cowards don't.
  • by sp3d2orbit (81173) on Monday July 30, 2007 @09:48AM (#20042699)
    Comparing terrorists to the founding fathers is completely wrong.

    The founding fathers attempted to work within the existing legal frameworks before declaring independence. "No taxation without representation" was simply a request to vote on issues that affected them. Without a nonviolent mechanism to resolve differences the founding fathers were forced into violence. Today, on the other hand, there are numerous world wide, regional, local, you name it, organizations that can be worked within to resolve problems. Terrorists are not patriots because they went to violence first -- not last.

  • by e-scetic (1003976) * on Monday July 30, 2007 @10:11AM (#20042983)

    I think most people here are completely missing the point.

    Someone in a position of authority, in the United States, insisted that a publicly available poster be taken down and destroyed, then came by with security forces to ensure compliance. Compliance, for whatever reason, was achieved.

    I'm in Canada. I'd fucking laugh at someone who told me to take down and destroy an inoffensive poster. I'd laugh even harder if they came by with a security guard too. In fact, I'm sure the security guard would be laughing too. And then I'd tell my fucking co-workers the tale and we'd all be slapping our knees and shaking our heads. And the poster would still be hanging there, having become a major office conversation piece.

    I wonder what Stanley Milgram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment [wikipedia.org]) would say about this...

  • by argStyopa (232550) on Monday July 30, 2007 @10:40AM (#20043363) Journal
    Personally, I'd love it if some of those darn terrorists decided to spend their time and effort on building ICBMs according to line-drawing plans from POSTERS of the Saturn V.

    1) it would take them forever
    2) when it inevitably exploded on launch, good odds that it would take all of their certainly-rare warheads, it would also likely take out all of their semi-capable scientific minds as well (if the explosion didn't get them, the post-explosion witch hunt for the scapegoat would)

    Building a Saturn V *is* rocket science, you're not getting anything from a poster that's terribly critical anyway.
  • Pogo issue? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Urban Garlic (447282) on Monday July 30, 2007 @10:52AM (#20043509)
    This may be Slashdot Heresy, but isn't the Saturn V design actually kind of buggy? As I recall, the "pogo" issue (high-frequency, high-amplitude variations in thrust) occurred during several launches, was not solved during the program, and was later learned to be extremely serious. There were a few engine shut-downs during launches, which made orbit anyways, because the shut-downs were relatively late in the firing, and there were lots of engines.

    Aha, found a link [wikipedia.org].

    This caused a lot of problems for Apollo 6 and Apollo 13, the latter of which of course later had much more serious problems.

    It's not obvious that you would want to reproduce this, necessarily.
  • by sp3d2orbit (81173) on Monday July 30, 2007 @10:57AM (#20043569)
    So you think it's reasonable in a free and just society for armed men to go into a private company's offices, rip publically available posters of 40+ year old technology off the walls and destroy them in the name of national security?

    No, actually I said that I doubt it would do any good at all. I doubt you could put much useful on a piece of paper that size. Hopefully, along with the posters, they classified the pieces of information that would be useful. Don't be fooled into thinking that just because its old it isn't useful. In fact, I remember a conversation a few years back about scrapping the space shuttle and going back to the Saturn design because it worked so well.

    I take issue with the permeating hatred for the US and its government and everything it does. I can't understand how normally intelligent people can be so quick to categorize everything as evil or a conspiracy. Sometimes people are just doing their job, or the best they can. Personally, I don't see what freedom is getting taken away. There are so many worse things going on this world than you losing your stupid poster.

    It will probably take decades to clean up the mess that Bush is making of the U.S.

    Probably. But bitching about your poster getting taken away is so unproductive in helping clean up that mess. Personally, I find the fact that habeus corpus has been suspended as way more troubling. I'm concerned by the fact the Russia executes journalists that speak out against the government and poisons people with Polonium. I'm horrified that an American could ever treat someone as inhumanely as those pictures from Abu Ghraib. I guess that just me and my messed up priorities. Lets get back to this poster thing.

  • by tbannist (230135) on Monday July 30, 2007 @11:23AM (#20044021)
    The poster thing might seem trivial, but it's all the same thing. Government trampling the rights of people in the name of security. Abu Ghraib, the Russian Journalists, Habeas Corpus. It's all about government exerting it's power to control and manipulate the way people live. Russia's poisionings are just the logical extension of the paranoia that requires posters that the government itself sells to tourists be destroyed to protect national security.

    The suspension of Habeas Corpus was done in the name of national security.
    Torture at Abu Ghraib was condoned and encouraged in the name of national security.
    Public information is being hidden in the name of national security.
    I'm sure the Russians have some national security reason for assassinating journalists.

    This isn't an unrelated incident it's just part of the pattern of abuse, paranoia, and despotism that the U.S. government has been engaged in since 9-11.
  • by SillyNickName4me (760022) <dotslash@bartsplace.net> on Monday July 30, 2007 @11:23AM (#20044023) Homepage
    Honest, I'm surprised you missed the news:

    http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/08/korea [cnn.com]. nuclear.test/index.html


    And I'm not surprised you missed the point...


    You grossly misunderestimate (hehe) our enemies. The Theocracy in charge of Iran is first a religious organization, and second a government. Perhaps you have been lucky enough to never meet anyone religious enough to actually want the apocolypse to happen. I have, and don't put the same trust in their ability to think rationally anymore. Moreover, Iran would be unlikely to attack us so long as their hatred is focused on Israel. Iran's president has said that he will wipe Israel from the map and that all it would take is one nuclear weapon.

    http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/26/news/iran.p hp [iht.com]


    It is well known that that quote is a mistranslation, either deliberate or not.

    Iran's president has said he wants to remove the Israeli administration, not whipe out the country. Doing the later would actually directly conflict with the scripture he so strongly believes in.

    I suggest you go read the various transcripts of his speech and pay close attention to how different that specific piece gets translated depending on the source of the transcript, and those around me who happen to actually understand the language he speaks say without exception that the 'we want to wipe Israel from the planet' translation is wrong.

    Says who? You? Get real. Those may seem like great reasons to you. However you ignore a fourth reason: Iran denies Israel's right to exist. Let me repeat, the Iranian government would love to see every Jew in the middle east dead. Perhaps you missed this development:

    http://www.iranholocaustdenial.com/ [iranholocaustdenial.com]


    Parhaps you read too much propaganda and are absolutely completely clueless as to how the real world looks :)

    Parhaps you should start realizing that whenever someone even suggests wanting to research the truth of some small detail of the holocaust story, they are instantly painted as anti semetic, and maybe this president of Iran made use of that for the serious amount of publicity it would get him? Maybe you also don't realize that Israel (which definitely has a right to exist btw) is partial cause of some major problems in the middle east, and it is easy to make use of that to increase your popularity in the region?

    I'm not sure if you consider yourself intelligent, but I suppose you do. I do consider it a sign of intelligence however when you can actually realize that your opinion on something has little value if it is based on a one sided version of the story.

    You arrogance belies your ignorance. From my memory:
    - Iran supported Hezbollah with money and weapons and people during the Israeli-Lebanon conflict less than a year ago.
    - More recently, Iran crossed into international waters and attacked British troops, taking some hostage. That was in March.
    - US forces have arrested a number of Iranian military units operating illegally within Iraq. Is sending troops into a country and invasion?


    USA supported various groups in southern America that did things like throw over elected governments, torture and dissapear people who didn't agree with them, kill and loot randomly and what not.
    Therefore, the USA and everyone in it are a bunch of bandits who invaded the southern Americas.

    The USA has sent its army into various states there as well over the years btw.

    I suppose you disagree with what I just said, and might think its absured. Well, I definitely agree.
    I do however apply that same standard to others, and find your reasoning about Iran as absurd.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 30, 2007 @11:44AM (#20044355)
    its pretty clear that for all your talk of technology and advantages, you see this as a situation where you (the christian west) needs to fight against them (the muslim east)

    In other words you haven't really progressed beyond the mentality of the crusaders that went off to the holy land to fight a thousand years ago.

    the fact that you are as backward in your thinking as the fundamentalist muslims that fly planes into buildings etc isn't so unusual; after all there are stupid people everywhere.

    the problem is that this 'medieval' lack of sophistication and fearfulness, (and perhaps even religious delusion?) that seems to inform your world-view is very beneficial to people in the business of selling oil and weapons; it allows them to send you and people like you to fight against whatever bogey men they have decided to create, or at the least, can depend upon your support and complicity.

    you, my friend, are a tool, in more ways than one
  • by Carakav (1134761) on Monday July 30, 2007 @04:36PM (#20049037)
    Questioning the political motivations of an article is a signal that the person cares less about the main issue a more about the politics of the poster. So the parent poster doesn't like political implications. If that's the case, then they have every right to ignore it, or ignore me (if they don't like what I'm implying).

Genius is ten percent inspiration and fifty percent capital gains.

Working...