Iran Has Put a Satellite Into Orbit 923
Dekortage writes "'Dear Iranian nation, your children have placed the first indigenous satellite into orbit,' announced Iran's President Ahmadinejad yesterday. The satellite, named Omid ('hope'), was launched to coincide with the 30th anniversary of the Islamic revolution. Video shown on Iranian television shows a Safir-2 rocket rising into the sky, as a follow-up to a test firing last August."
Dear Iranian nation (Score:2, Insightful)
If this is true and the satellite reached escape velocity you have just demonstrated that Iran can drop a warhead on any city worldwide.
Super happy fun times to come, good job on easing tensions.
Re:Dear Iranian nation (Score:5, Insightful)
Racist Piece Of Garbage (Score:0, Insightful)
Number of wars started by Iran in the past couple hundred years: 0
Number of wars started by Israel...
Hopefully this advancement will help protect Iran from future acts of Israeli terrorism.
So? (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't recall Iran invaded any other country in recent history so I don't feel frightened by their satellites or missiles, nuclear or not. And before anyone starts hysterical comments on what this or that Iranian politician said (on USA, Israel, ...) , lets not forget what other politicians said and did to Iran (including supporting Saddam's attempt to invading Iran, open military threats by Bush, Obama, Sarko, ...).
Re:"With god's help" (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, space is there, and we're going to climb it, and the moon and the planets are there, and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there. And, therefore, as we set sail we ask God's blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked.
Thank you.
John F. Kennedy - September 12, 1962
well i recall it (Score:5, Insightful)
iran doesnt invade any country actively, but they invade them through the religious terorrist organizations they fund. hezbollah, hamas, ibda-c, numerous groups trying to invade pakistan, afghanistan are just a few.
much more annoying and dangerous.
Omid (Score:2, Insightful)
The satellite, named Omid ("hope")
Omid for peace.
Take them at face value. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd take Iran at face value for everything they say. They are going to get a nuclear capability. They are going to get a delivery system. They are going to act to expand their values world wide. Israel is only the beginning.
We should not be surprised with this. The Western nations have been at odds with Islamic nations for 1500 years, and with Persia for nearly 3000. That Persia now Iran is acting up again is hardly a surprise. One might surmise that in the grand scheme of things, this is just a conflict between ideologies and peoples and no one side is right, but the thing is, since most of us are westerners, we would prefer that our side prevail.
To that end, I suppose that those who would argue that strategic missile defense cannot be built, or that militarization of space should be avoided, or that Iran is not a threat, need to rethink that. And similarly, those that would advocate war with Iran, might need to rethink that as well. This now a game where tens of millions of people might get killed, not just thousands.
Your stereotypes? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or maybe your stereotypes are wrong? What one thing is not like the others? I don't see why India can launch a satellite in 1980, but Iran cannot 30 years later.
Congratulations (Score:5, Insightful)
The mark of a civilised mind would be to celebrate this achievement. Those gripped by tribal paranoia, searching for ways to disparage the Iranians should take a good look at themselves (I'm mainly looking at you now Americans). Relax, I've played football with some Iranian guys seen for myself in the shower, their dicks are not significantly bigger than the average Western male.
Re:Dear Iranian nation (Score:5, Insightful)
I think there's probably a big difference between making a rocket which can reach escape velocity and being able to target a specific location thousands of miles away.
There is. In reality, this is more akin to Sputnik than an ICBM.
Nevertheless, we and the Soviets started like this, and it didn't take many years before both we and they had intercontinental capability in weapons delivery. Furthermore, the Iranians (and everyone else interested in near-space) have the advantage of knowing what can be accomplished. We and the Russians did not, and spent a lot of time and money figuring that out.
They also don't have to come up with anything akin to a Saturn V or Energia heavy-lift booster to become a real threat, if they want to be. Why they'd want to be on the U.S. and Soviet target list is beyond me though. Being a nuclear power today (even a nuclear superpower) is risky business, no matter how you slice it.
Honestly, I'm not really all that worried about this: a cruise missile is a lot cheaper to develop and deploy than an ICBM, and damn near as deadly.
Re:"With god's help" (Score:3, Insightful)
I was hoping that someone would bring up an example like this, so that I could point out that America asks for blessings from their deity on their endeavours, whereas others choose to credit the deity with part or all of the achievement.
Re:Citation Needed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dear Iranian nation (Score:2, Insightful)
I think there's probably a big difference between making a rocket which can reach escape velocity and launch a satellite into orbit and being able to target a specific location thousands of miles away.
No, not really.
ZOMG BE AFRAID! (Score:1, Insightful)
Whatever you do, don't you DARE go to sleep at night feeling unafraid! That just wouldn't me American of you!
FEAR the terr'ists!
FEAR peanutbutter!
FEAR powdered milk!
FEAR barrack obama's muslim faith!
FEAR a friggin arabic TV satellite...
Once someone accepts that iran/usa/china/$dickwad/uganda could get anything small enough to fit on the back of a pickup truck to pretty much anywhere in the world if they -really- put their mind too it, it's a lot easier to not give a shit about this sort of thing.
Re:Dear Iranian nation (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, I don't feel too good about the US, or any other state, for that matter, having this capability, but AFAIK I've never possessed the impertinence to tell you guys you couldn't have that technology.
Re:Dear Iranian nation (Score:4, Insightful)
"I think there's probably a big difference between making a rocket which can reach escape velocity and being able to target a specific location thousands of miles away."
Are you suggesting that the autopilot is the difficult part here? Apollo 11 ran on an insanely sucky chip, and I don't think that Iranian mathematicians are magically incompetent. Thrusters are thrusters, wing surfaces are wing surfaces. It's not a very difficult engineering problem.
Wake up call (Score:3, Insightful)
The next 50 years or so are going to be a serious wake up call to the west and the US in particular I think. We have enjoyed a technological advantage over the rest of the world for a good while now but it is being eroded at a fantastic rate. That advantage has allowed us to push the rest of the world and I fear that will come back to haunt us. Back when the west was first launching things into space the knowledge, skill and equipment needed to build such machines was exceedingly difficult to come by. It's still not easy to launch a payload into space but the equipment required to build a launch vehicle is no longer hard to come by and the knowledge and skill can be fairly easily "bought".
Re:well i recall it (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, much like the US funded the Afghan war against Russia... One wonders where all those terrorists got their ideas from...
....With a Return Address (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Citation Needed? (Score:4, Insightful)
Here in the States, we spend our resources on making sure that everyone can get TV reception and we spend money on lawsuits so that "Intelligent Design" can be taught in science class. In developing countries, science, engineering and medicine are a kid's dream career. Here, it's being famous for some reason - usually for getting drunk and doing outrageous things.
Iran isn't the only country doing this.
Re:"With god's help" (Score:3, Insightful)
I was hoping someone will go over both statements word-for-word until irrefutable prove of our "civilization" moral superiority is found.
Re:Racist Piece Of Garbage (Score:5, Insightful)
I just hope the intelligent, calm, undiscriminating folk on slashdot can give Iran a chance. Both of them.
Re:Dear Iranian nation (Score:5, Insightful)
Iraq: Invaded another country, didn't have powerful friends.
North Korea: Hasn't invaded another country since the 1950s, has powerful friends in Russia and China, and has enough conventional artillary already positioned to flatten Seoul within an hour.
Nukes aren't the only reason for the current situation.
Re:Take them at face value. (Score:2, Insightful)
The idea that the US had a working Missile Defense System helped bring Soviet Russia down.
It doesn't matter if it physically works or not. If the people who want to attack you with missiles believe it works, then they're not going to attack you with missiles.
Hey, look. The missile defense just prevented a missile attack.
Re:Take them at face value. (Score:4, Insightful)
I understand your request for mobilization, I understand that the Western world is in great peril. Please be assured of my everlasting support to your cause against these 1500 years (or 3000 years or something...) old enemies. I would be glad to help but I am currently too busy digging some trenches to protect me from our neighbors. See, my nation is fighting since 1000 years (or 2000 or whatever) against the Germanic people. Our feud is so old that I think reconciliation may prove impossible. All we can do is arm for war.
Please be assured of my deepest sympathy
A French guy.
Re:Citation Needed? (Score:1, Insightful)
If it's as simple as all that, why is there a list equally as long, of countries that were unsuccessful? I think calling it routine is naive.
Many countries don't care enough to spend 50 billion dollars on the problem. Iran does.
Look at all the civilians competing for the X-prize [wikipedia.org].
More importantly, why would a country develop a domestic launch capability? A few reasons:
1. National prestige.
2. To put satellites in orbit.
3. To build rockets powerful enough to drop bombs anywhere in the world.
For #2, there are many commercial services that already exist.
Given the many public statements of the Iranian government, most people suspect #3 is the reason.
Re:Take them at face value. (Score:2, Insightful)
The Western nations have been at odds with Islamic nations for 1500 years, and with Persia for nearly 3000. That Persia now Iran is acting up again is hardly a surprise. One might surmise that in the grand scheme of things, this is just a conflict between ideologies and peoples and no one side is right, but the thing is, since most of us are westerners, we would prefer that our side prevail.
Well, for what it's worth we've prevailed more often than not. Persian aggression was what united the Greek city-states and arguably lead to the birth of Western civilization. Even when western civilization has been on the decline we've generally managed to hold [wikipedia.org] the line [wikipedia.org]. Every time they've had a chance to beat Western civilization they've failed.
To that end, I suppose that those who would argue that strategic missile defense cannot be built, or that militarization of space should be avoided, or that Iran is not a threat, need to rethink that.
If Iran demonstrates a workable launch system then it would seem to me to be the height of irresponsibility not to build a missile defense system. They aren't there yet and they still have to develop a miniaturized nuclear weapon (no small feat) but I hope that people are looking at missile defense differently now.
And similarly, those that would advocate war with Iran, might need to rethink that as well
I don't think people would be advocating war with Iran if Iran was a responsible member of the international community. They could demonstrate this by ending their support of terrorist organizations and toning down the anti-Israeli rhetoric. I doubt they are inclined to do this so we'll see what the next move on the chessboard winds up being.....
Re:Wake up from what? (Score:2, Insightful)
That the US and the "west" isn't so special? That smart humans exist in other parts of the world? Yes, let us wake up indeed.
You can forgive us forgetting that nations that subscribe to Sharia law and treat women and opposing points of view the way Iran does might be medieval in other aspects of their "civilization" as well.
I wouldn't have wanted to see Saladin, Richard III, or Oliver Cromwell get nuclear capability. Similarly, I don't want to see Ahmadinejad with it.
Other terrorist organizations (Score:3, Insightful)
They also constantly invade their neighbors with other religious terrorist organizations they fund: settlers, Mossad and IDF.
Oh, wait, that's Israel, and they have a huge lobby here. Nevermind, strike that.
Re:Take them at face value. (Score:3, Insightful)
Our feud is so old that I think reconciliation may prove impossible
The GP didn't say reconciliation is impossible. The GP said that the Western world has a history of clashing with the Islamic/Middle Eastern World. I see nothing in human history to suggest that this will change soon -- if anything it's going to get worse as the competition for limited resources heats up.
Mind you, it won't start with bullets -- it will start with economics.
Rocket scientists (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a very difficult engineering problem.
Riiiight... That's why the term "rocket scientist" is used as a synonym for intelligence - because the engineering is so easy anyone can do it...
Oh wait, it requires expertise in (per wikipedia) fluid mechanics, structural mechanics, orbital mechanics, flight dynamics, physics, mathematics, control engineering, materials science, aeroelasticity, avionics, reliability engineering, noise control, and flight testing among other domains. Yeah, real easy.
Re:Dear Iranian nation (Score:2, Insightful)
Being a nuclear power today (even a nuclear superpower) is risky business, no matter how you slice it.
There's only one problem with this:
According to a number of sources, President Mahmoud "Untreatable-Psychotic" Ahmadinejad of Iran firmly believes that Allah will aid him in wiping out the infidels of the world. Therefore, if he were to start a nuclear war that wiped out the entire planet, Iran would be safe amid piles of smoking rubble covering the rest of the planet.
I don't know how much truth there is in this, as it could be at least partially manufactured propaganda by the political/media elite on our side, but I wouldn't want to bet my life on that, especially considering the behaviour of some others in the region.
Re:Dear Iranian nation (Score:5, Insightful)
that hasn't made threats to wipe neighbors off the map, allowed criminals within it's own population to overrun foreign embassies and supplied terrorist groups with financial support/weapons.
Just to be clear, are you talking about Iran or the US here?
Recall that is came out that Nixon was buying weapons in China and sending them through Russia to Afghani "freedom fighters". The same guys we call "insurgants" today. And that was 30 years ago. It didnt stop happening, they just cover it up better these days. Cept for Col. North who got caught.
Re:Congratulations (Score:1, Insightful)
Unless you're playing football with the leaders of Iran, the personalities and attitudes of their subjects just don't matter that much.
That is where you are wrong, and where our entire history of Iranian foreign policy is wrong. When we took down their democratic government and reinstalled a monarch, we were just thinking about the leaders. We removed a potentially unfriendly leader and replaced it with one we could count on. What happened next? The people revolted, kicked the monarch out and brought about the hostile, paranoid, radical Iran we see today.
We can't afford to make this mistake again. Any efforts in Iran must start and end with the people. If you win them over, their leadership will soon reflect it as well.
There is still some reason to hope. The president has essentially declared an end to the War on Terror (on an Arab news network even). When you kill one terrorist, ten more spring up. But when you make terrorism irrelevant, they just disappear.
Re:Take them at face value. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why mess with a launch and guidance system able to withstand launch and reentry stresses when you could just build a Fat Man and put it in the back of a van?
Because the former can go from "mere deterrent" to "enemy city exploding" in an hour, can't be countered without even more advanced technology, and gives you deterrence value for decades. The latter can go from "act of war that we'd better hope nobody discovers" to "enemy port city exploding" in days, doesn't work well if the enemy is on heightened enough alert to search or blockade approaching vans and ships, can't be demonstrated without actually committing an act of war, and so is relatively useless as a deterrent. Vans may be the delivery system of choice for terrorists planning surprise attacks, but nations hoping to commit other acts of war without reprisal are going to want nuclear weapons that can be effectively brandished without being used.
Not that I'm accusing Iran of plotting wars; the same deterrence tactics for a nation that wants to get away with an invasion apply even more strongly one that is just afraid of being invaded.
Re:Dear Iranian nation (Score:4, Insightful)
He's talking about Canada.
Re:Dear Iranian nation (Score:3, Insightful)
I think there's probably a big difference between making a rocket which can reach escape velocity and being able to target a specific location thousands of miles away.
They might just take the Israeli approach and point it in the general direction of some civilians, a hospital or a UN compund.
Re:Respect (Score:5, Insightful)
We had a policy to stay out of European affairs but we damn sure had an army. We changed that policy after being dragged into two world wars and seeing the tragic loss of life they caused.
Sure, we do have a lot of bases worldwide but many of them are because of defensive treaties. For example our bases in Japan are there for defensive purposes and were used for reconstruction of Japan after the war, same with Germany.
Also, a lot of them are holdovers from the cold war in which we prevented the soviets from taking over Europe. Or do all you Europeans want to be praising the soviet motherland?
Re:Rocket scientists (Score:5, Insightful)
"Riiiight... That's why the term "rocket scientist" is used as a synonym for intelligence - because the engineering is so easy anyone can do it...
Oh wait, it requires expertise in (per wikipedia) fluid mechanics, structural mechanics, orbital mechanics, flight dynamics, physics, mathematics, control engineering, materials science, aeroelasticity, avionics, reliability engineering, noise control, and flight testing among other domains. Yeah, real easy."
When I said that it was only the autopilot that one could be assuming was a hard barrier to an IBCM, the closely attentive observer will clearly read this in the context that Iran, in successfully launching a satellite, has already demonstrated competence at everything you list above. That leaves the autopilot to bring it down (since going up to a stable orbit clearly worked). So I'm not sure why you think the additional work is particularly hard for the same nation state's scientists that originally put the satellite up.
Re:Take them at face value. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Rocket scientists (Score:5, Insightful)
...plus OUR "rocket scientists" have already done all of the hard
work. 99% of the relevant necessary information is probably
available from the USPTO and various academic journals.
HELL, our entire stealth program is based on an article from a
Russian academic paper from the 60s.
Re:Dear Iranian nation (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm Canadian, and I feel the same way about GW.
Maybe we should just go with "Politicians of any form should not be allowed to control weapons of any form."
Re:Dear Iranian nation (Score:5, Insightful)
It explains why the US didn't invade North Vietnam, or bomb China in the 50s, or make a real attempt at invading Cuba. It's why neither side pushed too far in 1973.
To quote Mr. Slade again:
When a country first acquires nuclear weapons it does so out of a very accurate perception that possession of nukes fundamentally changes it relationships with other powers. What nuclear weapons buy for a New Nuclear Power (NNP) is the fact that once the country in question has nuclear weapons, it cannot be beaten. It can be defeated, that is it can be prevented from achieving certain goals or stopped from following certain courses of action, but it cannot be beaten. It will never have enemy tanks moving down the streets of its capital, it will never have its national treasures looted and its citizens forced into servitude. The enemy will be destroyed by nuclear attack first. A potential enemy knows that so will not push the situation to the point where our NNP is on the verge of being beaten. In effect, the effect of acquiring nuclear weapons is that the owning country has set limits on any conflict in which it is involved. This is such an immensely attractive option that states find it irresistible.
Only later do they realize the problem. Nuclear weapons are so immensely destructive that they mean a country can be totally destroyed by their use. Although our NNP cannot be beaten by an enemy it can be destroyed by that enemy. Although a beaten country can pick itself up and recover, the chances of a country devastated by nuclear strikes doing the same are virtually non-existant. [This needs some elaboration. Given the likely scale and effects of a nuclear attack, its most unlikely that the everybody will be killed. There will be survivors and they will rebuild a society but it will have nothing in common with what was there before. So, to all intents and purposes, once a society initiates a nuclear exchange its gone forever]. Once this basic factor has been absorbed, the NNP makes a fundamental realization that will influence every move it makes from this point onwards. If it does nothing, its effectively invincible. If, however, it does something, there is a serious risk that it will initiate a chain of events that will eventually lead to a nuclear holocaust. The result of that terrifying realization is strategic paralysis.
With that appreciation of strategic paralysis comes an even worse problem. A non-nuclear country has a wide range of options for its forces. Although its actions may incur a risk of being beaten they do not court destruction. Thus, a non-nuclear nation can afford to take risks of a calculated nature. However, a nuclear-equipped nation has to consider the risk that actions by its conventional forces will lead to a situation where it may have to use its nuclear forces with the resulting holocaust. Therefore, not only are its strategic nuclear options restricted by its possession of nuclear weapons, so are its tactical and operational options. So we add tactical and operational paralysis to the strategic variety. This is why we see such a tremendous emphasis on the mechanics of decision making in nuclear powers. Every decision has to be thought through, not for one step or the step after but for six, seven or eight steps down the line.
We can see this in the events of the 1960s and 1970s, especially surrounding the Vietnam War. Every so often, the question gets asked "How could the US have won in Vietnam?" with a series of replies that include invading the North, extending the bombing to China and other dramatic escalations of the conflict. Now, it should be obvious why such suggestions could not, in the real world, be contemplated. The risk of ending up in a nuclear war was too great. For another example, note how the presence of nuclear weapons restricted and limited the tactical and operational options available to both sides in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. In effect neither side could push the war to a final conclusion because to do so would bring down nuclear
Re:Take them at face value. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think people would be advocating war with Iran if Iran was a responsible member of the international community. They could demonstrate this by ending their support of terrorist organizations and toning down the anti-Israeli rhetoric. I doubt they are inclined to do this so we'll see what the next move on the chessboard winds up being.....
That's just the thing. If Iran quit funding Hamas and Hizbollah and trying to destroy Israel, the USA would be buying authentic Persian rugs left and right. Iran has -something- of a democracy to work with, an educated people with a cultural heritage that is very much intertwined with that of the West, and its like, they have to be dicks. And Israel isn't even like a threat to Iran. It's just crazy.
there's nothing wrong with iranians (Score:1, Insightful)
its their government thats the problem
concern about a theocracy having nuclear weapons is a perfectly valid concern
yes, many who are concerned about iran are blindly ethnocentric, or religiously bigotted
but its also possible to be concerned about a theocracy with nukes, without being pro or anti muslim, or pro or anti western, or pro or anti anything
that iran is muslim is not the problem
that iran hates israel is not the problem
that iran hates the west is not the problem
that iran is full of persians is not the problem
that iran is a THEOCRACY with NUCLEAR weapons is what bothers me
that doesn't bother you?
Re:Take them at face value. (Score:3, Insightful)
That wooshing sound you just heard was not a Persian bullet.
Re:Take them at face value. (Score:3, Insightful)
There is another value, and that is at the negotiating table. If you have a very good defense (which we are no way near), you basically discount the military value of the other guy's weapon, which can give you an edge in negotiations. Unfortunately, the amount of coverage necessary to protect every target might make the cost hugely preventative, unless you can put the defense near the launch point, which is probably unlikely in the case of defending against Iranian nukes.
Re:Respect (Score:5, Insightful)
Respect. The USA does not treat countries without nukes with the same kind of respect as they do otherwise.
US:"Iraq, you have nukes and we must stop you immediately."
Iraq:"No we don't. Look, inspect all you like."
[Iraq is invaded]
US:"North Korea, you have nukes and we must stop you immediately."
North Korea:"Damned right we do. What are you going to do about it?"
[North Korea is ignored]
Engineering is not a sub domain of math (Score:5, Insightful)
That list is so redudant, A) every thing on the list is a subset of mathematics
I am an engineer and if you think engineering is nothing more than a subset of mathematics you don't understand engineering. There are many aspects to engineering that have nothing whatsoever to do with mathematics. With a little poetic license math could rightly be called the language of engineering but that does not make engineering a sub domain of mathematics. Math is indispensable to the study and practice of science and engineering but don't ever confuse the the tool with the discipline.
Re:Racist Piece Of Garbage (Score:2, Insightful)
Euhm ? The Iran-Iraq war ? The many incursions into Afghanistan ? The Pakistan border issues ? The hezbollah-Israel war ? The hamas-Israel war ?
All these were started by Iran. In the last 30 years no less.
Which war, exactly, was started by Israel ? It was involved in many wars, but always acted in self-defense. All the wars Israel was involved in were wars that had as an explicit goal to exterminate all Jews.
In other words, they were all racist wars directed against Jews, and Jews always won when they fought.
And they always restrained their response. They were multiple times in a position to take over Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, and they never did.
You're either stupid or a racist lyer. Not that it matters.
Re:Respect (Score:5, Insightful)
how many new countries have we annexed in the past couple of decades
Nicaraugua, Panama, and in 03 the CIA tried to overthrow Chavez./p>
Ok, that brings the count to zero. Got any more? (Oddly enough, this list [wikipedia.org] doesn't include any of your suggestions.)
This for a country that had no army before WWII.
LOL. Seeing nonsense like this modded up to +5 really turns me off to reading slashdot comments anymore. Metamods, are you reading this?
Re:Racist Piece Of Garbage (Score:3, Insightful)
[Citation needed].
Re:Respect (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Respect (Score:5, Insightful)
So how did we fight world war one? How did we fight the civil war? How did we fight all those wars before then?
By drafting civilians into a temporary army for a specific war, as opposed to hiring them for a government career in a standing army.
Re:Respect (Score:3, Insightful)
"Respect. No nation treats countries without nukes with the same kind of respect as they do otherwise."
Fixed.
This isn't a phenomenon that only occurs with the bad, big, evil United States. Look at India and Pakistan after obtaining nuclear weapons. Kashmir doesn't seem to be worth more than a few sappers these days. For all of its drawbacks, M.A.D. has, at least for the time, worked.
Re:Engineering is not a sub domain of math (Score:5, Insightful)
My point was just that it's redundant saying it requires engineering AND mathematics, you can't possibly be an engineer without knowing maths.
Sure you can. Not a very good engineer perhaps but it certainly is possible to do real engineering without math and in fact it happens all the time. I can design and create all sorts of things without using so much as a single equation and that is real engineering. Not very sophisticated granted but engineering nonetheless. Engineering is applied science, not applied mathematics. Math can help a lot but isn't always required.
Re:Racist Piece Of Garbage (Score:3, Insightful)
WTF? Are you serious? No offense man, but that's retarded. You may as well say that Winston Churchills denouncements of the Nazis were equivalent to Hitlers genocidal rants. There's simply no comparison. In order to confuse the two you either need to be profoundly ignorant, or have some sort of ideological bias.
On that we can definitely agree. Although I think it's a bit unfair to imply that both of those nations are equally fanatical about their religions. Both sides have their share of zealots, but in Israel they tend to be poorly represented in government whereas in Iran they ARE the government.
Re:Respect (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, I think North Korea wasn't ignored - they got extra aid as a result of their successful nuke programme (iirc).
Re:suspicion of iran (Score:3, Insightful)
I feel the need to quote "The Abyss"
Look, he's operating on his own,
he's cut off from his chain of command,
he's showing signs of pressure-induced psychosis...
and he's got a nuclear weapon.
Re:Respect (Score:2, Insightful)
Let me fix that for you...
US: "Iraq, you have WMDs and must permit inspections."
Iraq (to US): "No we don't, so stay out!"
Iraq (to Iran): "Yes, we do, so stay out!"
Iraq (to UN): "We are evicting your WMD inspectors!"
[Iraq is invaded]
US (to China): "Can we invade the buffer between your army and ours?"
China (to US): "No!"
North Korea: "Pay attention to me!"
[North Korea is ignored]
Re:....With a Return Address (Score:5, Insightful)
Fortunately, most of the Muslims in any part of the world, including Iraq, are not extremist. The 20% or so here in the USA are not extremist, and most other countries are not fully populated by extremist Muslims either.
Arguing that a country which gains nuclear power is immediately going to find an extremist subset of their population and put them in charge of launching their military's most prized weapon is just utter nonsense and scaremongering.
By your logic, the US military command is populated with key leaders from The Army of God, Aryan Nations, Christian Patriots, and the Ku Klux Klan.
Re:Take them at face value. (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is a good thing - because the greatest threat lies along that vector.
What, you don't think there's a reason why Iran is chasing both nuclear and rocketry capability? You don't think it's the same reason North Korea is doing the same? Not to mention Pakistan and India.
The problem is, that solution is only of value to terrorists - its has no deterrent effect and provides zero political or diplomatic value. No country is going to spend billions of dollars on a program with essentially zero return, especially since the potential political, diplomatic, and economic costs of such a program are so high.
Re:Respect (Score:4, Insightful)
right. the 'local people' set up a new government. We routinely enter other countries... often orchestrating the coup in the first place... so "local people" can be completely free. We have no stake in the governments that arise, of course. Just the "local people" rising up to freedom from our kind, benevolent hand.
right?
Re:Racist Piece Of Garbage (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Respect (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, a lot of them are holdovers from the cold war in which we prevented the soviets from taking over Europe. Or do all you Europeans want to be praising the soviet motherland?
You're making it sound like the American military presence in Western Europe during the Cold War sound was a purely altruistic act.
Nah, that can't be right. After all, you most likely do live in a country with a decent pulic school system, and naturally you paid attention in history class... right?
Re:suspicion of iran (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Respect (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah right....ok, how many new countries have we annexed in the past couple of decades
Nicaraugua, Panama,
If those have been annexed and are now States, why didn't we see their election results on TV this election? Did they vote for Obama or McCain?
Oh, that's right. They aren't states. We aren't even occupying them. You just have nothing to back up your point, and so spew non sequiturs.
03 the CIA tried to overthrow Chavez.
How many US troops did the CIA invade with? Oh, that's right. None. They simply helped groups more friendly to the US in an effort to influence politics there. Sort of like if China were to give large amounts of money to Democrats to influence US elections and policies. Or if Russia were to knowingly and deliberately supply arms and funding to kill US troops in an active conflict. Not that *that* would ever happen, no sir!
The US has 186 military bases in 150 countries.
Gee, then we're doing well! How many bases do other countries like Russia and China have in other countries around the world? Or is that different? Do you think they don't have more bases and haven't annexed more territory because they wouldn't if they could?
Go watch the documentary "Why we fight" It's a great eye opener on the American military culture. Its on youtube and archive.org.
Oh noes! You mean to tell me when the people of another country are freed from oppression & poverty and enter into open trade with the world, the US gets a piece of the opportunities for trade along with all the other nations that trade in the world markets (and that typically didn't help or actively opposed that very action) after sacrificing US blood and treasure? How horrible! Everyone in the whole world should be equally poor and equally oppressed. It's only fair.
I do agree that the corruption and bilking of taxpayers for payoffs and all the other corruption involved in military contracts of all sorts is criminal. The US isn't perfect and has gotten itself involved in situations where it might have been best to choose another path. Hindsight is 20/20 however.
That being said, I don't feel the US should feel guilty at all for being the most powerful nation on the planet either economically or militarily, although we are in imminent danger of losing that status. Every other nation on the planet is striving for that position and is more than willing to go much, much further than the US is and has in that pursuit.
The world is not a friendly place. Every single nation throughout history that has achieved "most powerful" status has done very bad things, far greater than the US has in its' history. The world *will* be dominated by *someone*. Which nation do you think would be the best to have dominate the world with its' policies and military power? China? Russia? Iran? N. Korea?
I shudder to think of a world dominated by the policies and military might of any of those nations. If you live long enough to see it happen, you'll be praying for a return to the "good old days" of US might. But not too loudly. Otherwise your family may get an unexpected bill for a bullet. Or a few micrograms of polonium.
If there is ever a time when all people of every nation everywhere become saints without greed, ambition, or hunger for power and everyone plays nice, it is so far in the future and require such a dramatic change to the entire species as to be disconnected from reality to treat it as nearly-there, right around the corner...if only the bad old US would lay down it's arms and stop making countries like Iran, China, and Russia mad by refusing to roll over and play dead.
On-topic now:
The news that Iran now has a rocket capable of achieving escape velocity coupled with their ambition to have nuclear capability should worry every thinking person on the planet. Someone in a post above said in effect; "But they don't have the tech to accurately-target a missile to a specific city.". I think they'd be happy with a nuclear bomb exp
Re:Respect (Score:5, Insightful)
No army before WW2 eh? So how did we fight world war one? How did we fight the civil war? How did we fight all those wars before then? We had a policy to stay out of European affairs but we damn sure had an army. We changed that policy after being dragged into two world wars and seeing the tragic loss of life they caused. Sure, we do have a lot of bases worldwide but many of them are because of defensive treaties. For example our bases in Japan are there for defensive purposes and were used for reconstruction of Japan after the war, same with Germany. Also, a lot of them are holdovers from the cold war in which we prevented the soviets from taking over Europe. Or do all you Europeans want to be praising the soviet motherland?
What gp meant was we had no large standing army. At the end of each conflict before the Second World War, units were disbanded back to a peacetime force level. After the Second World War we did not continue this routine, but built up forces in Europe and Asia to maintain deterrence against the Soviets - even though we were in peacetime. Eisenhower had the foresight to warn against the rising Military-Industrial complex forming in the US, but we didn't care because the Commies were going to come get us in our sleep and we had to be ready. Since the Soviets don't exist to produce that fear anymore, we had to scramble for something else to hang on to. Towelheads and terrorists are now the reason for a large standing army and continuous military operations to feed the machine. And they're all going to get nukes and make us all Muslims and kill us. Thus we extend our military influence further abroad. Whether we claim to own the territories we are in or not is irrelevant, we have military presence that allows us to influence other nations to our will. Do me a favor and try to point out the nearest foreign military base on US soil. When your military is extended throughout the world but the rest of the world is not extended in your own nation, you are an empire, whether you have territorial claims or not.
Re:Dear Iranian nation (Score:5, Insightful)
Do we really have to turn this into a discussion of nuclear weapons? Can't we just accept this at face value -- a very difficult technical achievement made all the more impressive for occurring in a country that's under international sanctions designed to prevent, among other things, advancements in the field of rocketry?
Yes, nuclear missile technology is closely related to satellite launch technology. Yes, future iterations of this could potentially be adapted into payload delivery systems. Yes, Iran has been provocative in the past. But they're not doing offensive missile tests. They're not doing war games. They're not trying to be provocative here -- they launched a satellite, not a bomb. A satellite called Hope. This isn't a message to the world screaming, "Fear Us!". This is a message to the world asking, "Respect Us."
Re:Respect (Score:2, Insightful)
"...it isn't like we rule other countries."
You dumbass. I live in the UK where for no reason obvious to most of the citizens here we still have a couple of dozen US military and intelligence bases. Our independent nuclear deterrent is manufactured in the US and we depend on the US for maintenance of those arms.
Many of our senior politicians studied or worked in the US. It's no accident that both Brown and Blair spent years over there.
That's just the UK. The US has armed forces through Europe, and around the world, more troops in more countries than any other nation. They are deployed around the edge of Russia and it is mark of the stupidity of you and others like you that you cannot see how that might just be a tad provocative.
The senior executives and politicians around the new European countries reek of US influence. Many of them lived and worked in the US before taking over the country they now live in.
The largest US embassy in the world is now located in Baghdad - larger than a small town - and the crooks you handed the country over to are ready for their orders. It took the deaths of several hundred thousand civilians to achieve it, but Iraq has been turned into a servant state. Just watch Obama take advantage of it now the bad man has gone.
I have met many wonderful Americans, but God save us from your military and your government.
i'm scared of iran (Score:2, Insightful)
there is this common belief that any motivation based on fear is wrong. but there really is nothing wrong with the emotion of fear. fear keeps you alive. fear based on IRRATIONAL beliefs is of course wrong. but my fear of iran is based on a RATIONAL determination: a theocracy with nuclear weapons is the last thing this world needs
seriously, if you are not scared of a theocracy of nuclear weapons, what are you scared of? i would go so far as to say that if you are not scared of a theocracy with nukes, there is something wrong with you
this doesn't validate all of the irrational fears people have in this world. but even for the most rational of persons, there exists a subset of considerations for which the emotion of fear is a completely valid response
there is something very wrong with someone who is afraid of irrational things. equally so, there is something very wrong with someone isn't afraid of anything. it's like not feeling pain: at first glance, not feeling any pain seems to have nothing but upside. until you consider the scenarios of picking up a hot skillet, or cutting yourself with a chainsaw: pain keeps you alive. likewise, having no fear seems like a good thing, until you consider all of the scenarios where fear keeps you alive
someone who goes through life afraid a lion is going to jump out of the shadows at any moment and attack them is not defensible. but being afraid when an actual genuine lion is actually jumping out at you is perfectly appropriate, valid, and preferable
the emotion of fear is not the problem, fear of irrational things is the problem, and the two concepts are different
Re:Respect (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh gosh, you're so clever! Got him there, dintcha? The answer to your boobish rhetorical questions, in every case, is "by raising an army". Grandparent clearly meant a standing army; the US has a rule against maintaining standing armies in peacetime, remember? Of course, there hasn't *been* any peactime since WW2, so (much like our laws about torture) we don't follow that rule anymore.
Re:Respect (Score:3, Insightful)
The United States was more blatantly imperialistic in the 1800s than it is currently. Manifest Destiny is an example of that. However you are right in that we are just as imperialistic now as we ever were. The difference is mostly in PR. We no longer take over territories outright, add new states, or absorb entire nations. We do however meddle in the affairs of other nations behind the scenes to ensure that those in power have our best interests at heart. In some cases, this goes to such an extreme that the ruling party/people are actually just puppets of the US government. In some cases in order to achieve these goals, military action is taken. In others, financial aid given to a rebellion or coup. And in some cases, it's just a case of rigging an election or 10.
In some cases, US interests have gone counter to the interests of the people of the nations we seek to control. The US backing the Shah of Iran is a good example of that. The US support of Batista's government in Cuba is another good example. The US's refusal to allow Democratic elections in Vietnam in the 1950s is another good example.
So while the US Government's official position may be to always claim that they support democracy, the reality is far different. Nor is it consistent. In some cases, the US will support a particular government or group believing it to be in the interest of national security. In other cases, it is simply to ensure lucrative business deals for US based businesses. Unfortunately, there isn't a surefire way to know what justification was used when. Attempting to ascertain which justification is used when is, of course, the source of many an argument.
War as a game? for you maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, grow up. War isn't a game.
I think it is maybe perceived more so by the USA as the majority of their citizens have not experienced a modern war on their own mainland territory. For many people in other countries the experience of war is more direct and people are less likely to be so gung-ho about it. Mainland USA was untouched in the major conflicts of the twentieth century. While terrible events were unfolding the lights were on in Main Street, small town America and you could walk down that street eating ice cream as if nothing was happening. I honestly believe this has given Americans a profoundly different idea of what a war is from the majority of the rest of the world.
Don't talk lightly of wars, they are certainly not games.
Re:Dear Iranian nation (Score:4, Insightful)
The Sandinista regime in Nicaragua was aligned with Moscow and Havana which was unacceptable to most people in the US.
So what? I mean really, if one wanted to encase American Arrogance in amber and preserve it for posterity one could hardly do better than this statement.
There's this concept called "national sovereignty" that says the internal affairs of one nation are no business of any other. It is frequently violated in this crazy world of ours, and never so often as by the United States.
That anyone would put forward "this was unacceptable to many Americans" as if it were any kind of justification for the deliberate destablization of a sovereign power by funding murderous brigands is terrifying.
The root of the problem is evident in your post (Score:5, Insightful)
This notion that we must intervene in any government we don't like is exactly why we're in the position we're in now with the Middle East.
We don't like Mossadeq, we intervene to overthrow him, despite his being democratically elected. Khomeini replaces our hand-picked Shah, so we support Saddam Hussein in his ridiculously unjust war against Iran.
This is the most obvious example; but we've been through this in a half-dozen South American countries as well. We have no sense of time in this country. We don't take the long view of anything, anything at all.
And by the way, I do remember the Cold War. I've done a duck and cover drill. I've been afraid of the Russians. We acted with more measure and reason when we worried about the killing the planet. As it is now, we'll do anything if it just involves killing regionally.
Re:Dear Iranian nation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Respect (Score:4, Insightful)
Except, you know, all that territory we took from Indian nations. And from Mexico. And from the Kingdom of Hawaii, though that was covert activity backed up by U.S. military forces rather than all-out war.
But you don't have to make an area a state: you can make it a U.S. territory, like we did in the Philippines, though we decided they were more trouble then they were worth. We still have the territories of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Mariana Islands.
Generally, though, we're preferred the neocolonial approach: you can run your own affairs so long as your governance is compatible with U.S. economic interests. You get in the way, you get toppled. A lot less trouble than running things directly.
Re:Respect (Score:4, Insightful)
and especially for doing things like buying and building long range missiles, right up until the invasion?
We were either really really good at destroying everything during the invasion, or perhaps this is like all the other things we said they had.
You know, I was doing the google thing to kind of compare the Presidential inaugural speeches of Bush and Obama.. I was not looking for any more "conspiracy theories", kind of hope that's all behind us.. But what I found was that in Bush's inaugural speech he was already laying the groundwork of going after WMD's because he said then, before 911, that he was going to go after them.. So this newbie (at the time) President, with no "faulty" intelligence to blame, had already decided that he was going to invade Iraq...If you believe for a second, that Iraq was any kind of threat, you'll believe anything.
The previous administration has also painted this picture of Iran, in hopes to do the same things there.. but let me tell you.. I am more worried about Pakistan (our supposed allies) than I am Iran.. and Pakistan HAS nukes.
Re:i'm scared of iran (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm scared if Iran as well. I'm not sure it is the "theocracy" part that is the root of my concern. I'd say it is more like the fact their leaders would think nothing of nuking Israel even if it meant the deaths of 3/4ths of their populations.
MAD doesn't apply when the leaders don't give a crap about the people under them. Our entire strategy for keeping leaders with nuclear weapons in check is the utter certainty that their countries would suffer terrible retribution. I don't believe Iran is affected by this at all. I am equally unsure that North Korea's leaders care about the civilian population. It isn't like in either case there is a chance the civilian population is going to rise up in outrage and displace their government.
The fact that the religion behind the Iranian leaders preaches "death to infidels" isn't exactly comforting but without nuclear weapons they don't stand a chance of implementing that plan. And they seem to know it.
Re:Dear Iranian nation (Score:3, Insightful)
huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
"If Theocracies are so bad, why aren't you worried about Tibet?"
tibet as sovereign entity doesn't exist, and its theocratic structure has been outlawed by the chinese. but were tibet an independent theocracy with nukes, i would be equally worried about it as i am about iran. conversely, if iran were still a theocracy, but didn't have nukes, i wouldn't be nearly as worried about iran as i am
"Seriously, bigotry is the problem, not Theocracy"
this is like saying cancer is a problem, not heart attacks. they are both fatal problems
"While I think that there are better methods of administration, the types of democracy that we have in most western countries are not participatory nor representative... it is effectively a mediaocracy."
this is called self-disenfranchisement. your belief merely supports your own lack of accountability, and has no value when applied to the society you live in (assuming you live in a western country). you are projecting self-referential psychology like a teenager onto those aroud you. no, those around you are perfectly capable of believing and seeing the realit yof their vote mattering, and their opinion tyo be independent. this may not be true of you, but it is true of plenty in your society. i just voted for barack obama 3 months ago. where is my lack of participation or representation?
and what the heck is a "mediaocracy"? ultimate power rests in an editorial news room? a meaningless buzzword
in the west, i can choose to consume any media i like. this includes al jazeera [aljazeera.net] or iran's mouthpiece [tehrantimes.com], if i choose to. now, if i lived in iran, meanwhile, and i clicked on those links, and they pointed to the bbc or the new york times, i would be blocked, and perhaps even reported for unislamic activities, for not sticking with the governing parties official media. is that the "mediaocracy" you are talking about?
"Knowledge and culture sharing are a better solution that trying to stop nukes"
yes, and world war ii would have never happened if hitler and tojo were given hugs and kisses. pffft. man i need some of what you are smoking
"The whole clash of cultures idea is also patently absurd"
in some subsaharan cultures, they perform clitorectomies on female children. do you have a problem with that? congratulations, you are engaging in a clash of cultures
"it's clash of money and oil interests in the upper echelons of both so-called empires at the expense of their own peoples that is the real problem."
how did you get to work or school today? did you ride a car or bus? do you have a job or do you pay for school? in either case, you have money and oil interests. but you have this absurd idea that only the "upper echelons" are the ones gobbling up money and oil just because its cool in a hollywood bad guy sort of way. or, perhaps, governments are concerned with access to resources and the flow of capital, for the rightful reason of the well-being of their citizens. could that be it? nah...
"I, for one extend my hand of congratulations to the Iranian people and look very suspiciously at those who would tell them what to do/think/go to war over."
i agree with you 100%. i am glad you are finally ready to stand with me and condemn the ayatollahs and their constant war propagandizing of the iranian people
"Ditto applies to the American administration (and anyone else who is spineless enough not to sign the nuclear disarmament treaty),"
absolutely, we need to engage in nuclear disarmament. how does belief in that allow for iran getting nukes? iran should get nukes because the usa has them? ok, you can believe that if you want
but now you are expressing belief in nuclear proliferation. make up your mind, but you can't believe in nuclear disarmament and iran getting nukes at the same time. either you insist iran not get nukes and the usa get rid of them, or that the usa keep its nukes and iran get them too. but saying the usa
Re:Respect (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it was the opposite. We wanted to keep the newly minted Chinese Red Army out of Japan. The Chinese had no problem fighting proxy wars with us (Korea), but they weren't about to invade a country directly that was under our protection. Japan was our Eastern flank in the Cold War.
Re:Dear Iranian nation (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, because it's applicable technology (as you later admit).
Given Iran's recent history of sabre-rattling, I don't see why we can't be skeptical.
I don't really see what the name of the satellite has to do with the fact that Iran has proven it is fast approaching the capability to launch payloads. Whether those payloads will be for peaceful or wartime purposes remains to be seen. However, given President Ahmadinejad's statements over the last couple of years, I think it's important to take this demonstration and its purpose with a healthy dose of suspicion.
Re:Dear Iranian nation (Score:2, Insightful)
> Given Iran's recent history of sabre-rattling, I don't see why we can't be skeptical.
I'm sorry but I can't let this slide. Iran's history of sabre-rattling? It seems like every few weeks either the US and/or Israel keep making threats against Iran ("no option is off the table"). And please don't raise the whole "wipe Israel off the map" thing as that has been proven to be a complete beat up (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm).
As for Iran's belligirent attitude towards the US, that is amply explained by the US' sorry history of intervention in that country (overthrowing the democratically elected Mossadegh and installing the tyrant Shah). If that happened to your country, you might feel just slightly miffed towards the country that caused that to happen.
Re:Dear Iranian nation (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course you can't let it slide, because I'm certain you believe everything they do is exclusively for peaceful purposes. Just like other launches [time.com] they've done.
I don't recall mentioning Israel in my post. Odd.
It would be fantastic if my point would have been taken at face value. Iran's President has been making a variety of strong statements for quite some time now, and I'm not going to enumerate through a healthy list when Google can provide more than enough articles to illustrate my point. The simple truth to the matter is that Iran's strong words and sabre-rattling imply that we need to take the purposes of this launch with a healthy dose of skepticism. Is that too much to ask?
I wasn't debating what bearing the US' history has had on Iran's statements as of late. I'm simply pointing out that their statements are indicative of ulterior motives with regards to demonstrations like this launch.
did you ever stop to consider (Score:2, Insightful)
that you are the propagandized one? that you are the one who is blind and prejudiced?
i went to great pains to validate my comments as neither pro-western nor anti-western, that the concerns i am raising are equally apparent in beijing, or moscow, or caracas, or toronto. i repeated this sentiment multiple times
and, completely tone deaf, all you can think about is my apparent western bias
really? what if i actually have no such bias in my words here? and the only bias is yours, your complete inability to appreciate my words as completely without regional favoritism
you may attack my concerns about theocracy from a universal global humanist level of concern, please, i welcome that sort of criticism
but you may not, if you wish to retain a grasp on any sort of intellectual coherence, attack me on my so-called phantom western bias, that you perceive in me, some sort of secret insight in to my thinking, when i am completely aware of the concept of regional bias, and went to great pains to scrub out of my comments. but you still see it there huh? you're some sort of paranoid schizophrenic secret code reader then?
there is no bias in my words. really. it was scrubbed of regional bias. it was said as an appeal to universal human concerns. get over YOUR bias, your inability to appreciate an intellectual point based on principles and absolutely free and clear of regional favoritism
Re:Dear Iranian nation (Score:5, Insightful)
> Of course you can't let it slide, because I'm certain you believe everything they do is exclusively for peaceful purposes.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth. Let me clarify, I don't believe everything they do is for peaceful purposes, just like I don't believe everything WE do is for peaceful purposes.
> I'm not going to enumerate through a healthy list when Google can provide more than enough articles to illustrate my point
I would like you to actually point me to the text of any speech of Ahmadinejad's where he threatens any state with military action. Just one. Most of the articles you speak of are basically recycling the whole "Iran is evil/wipe us off the mat" meme and most of it based not on Ahmadinejad's rhetoric, but on our politician's rhetoric. i.e. no different to the whole "US is evil" meme that pervades most of the rest of the world (and with a similar level of evidence to back it up).
How different are Ahmadinejad's speeches regarding the US from say, Reagan's speech about the "evil empire" (USSR)?
> their statements are indicative of ulterior motives
Indeed. Same applies to our guys too.
you don't have to like israel (Score:2, Insightful)
but germany's nonreligious ruling party is called the christian democrats, the usa with its separation of church and state starts with "in god we trust", despotic north korea is officially called the democratic people's republic, and ultracapitalist china is ruled by a communist party
all of which goes to show that surface symbolism has nothing to do with substantative reality
if you showed me how israeli candidates were first vetted by a rabbinical council, you'd have a point. but no, sorry, israel is not a theocracy
again, please, by all means, despie israel if you want to. but do it for real reasons, not made up ones
Re:you don't have to like israel (Score:4, Insightful)
Since you mention candidates for office...
Israel did import a million Jews from Russia to ensure a few more decades of Jewish majority in their ostensibly democratic government.
Theocracy? Not as such... Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Jewish settlers stream into the West Bank, towards the "substantive reality" manifest within "surface symbolism."
The difficulty in getting a (representatively diverse) rabbinical council to agree on anything is testament to the tolerance for diversity within Jewish opinion. In other words, it is not the theocracy, per se, which concerns us about Iran, it is the narrow-minded outlook of theocratic leadership.
Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush are both devout Christians...
For the record I oppose any religious state, be it symbolically or substantively so, largely on "slippery slope" grounds -- and I think Israel has slid a fair bit since her inception.
Re:Dear Iranian nation (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever looked at how much of our electricity is generated from oil? A tiny percentage. Why? Because oil is very expensive per unit energy. It's always better to sell it and make your power another way. It'd probably be cheaper for them to sell their oil and import coal from halfway around the world than to burn the oil (certainly last summer it would have been; not so sure now).
That's not to say that Iran *doesn't* want to have nuclear weapons. But there's a completely rational explanation to not want to burn oil for power. If gold burned, would you suggest that gold-rich nations burn their gold for power?