Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Iran Launches Payload into Space

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the he-said-load dept.

Space 698

An anonymous reader writes "BBC is reporting that Iran has launched its first space rocket carrying a payload. Britain's former ambassador to Iran, Sir Richard Dalton, told the BBC that, if confirmed, such a move could destabilise the Middle East: "It is a matter of concern. Iran's potential nuclear military programme, combined with an advanced missile capability, would destabilise the region, and of course if there were a bomb that could be placed on the end of this missile, it would in breach of Iran's obligations under the non-proliferation treaty." From the article: Iranian TV broke the news of the reported test saying :"The first space rocket has been successfully launched into space. It quoted the head of Iran's aerospace research centre, Mohsen Bahrami, as saying that "the rocket was carrying material intended for research created by the ministries of science and defence". In 2005, Iran's Russian-made satellite was put into orbit by a Russian rocket. But shortly afterwards Iranian military officials said they were preparing a satellite launch vehicle of their own and last month, they announced they were ready to test it soon."

cancel ×

698 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

So... (2, Interesting)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143060)

"Iranian media" said this?

No pictures of the reported launch have been shown on Iranian state TV, and no Western countries have confirmed tracking any such test-firing.

While they're at it, where's that cure for AIDS?

Excuse me if I'm not impressed by this posturing.

Iran: too cool for peer review (-1, Troll)

SlappyBastard (961143) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143172)

Peer review is how the Jews keep Islamic science out of the mainstream.

Re:So... (0)

jfengel (409917) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143196)

You're mixing up your Axis of Evil countries. The good old Iraqi Information Minister was a classic, and I would assume the exact opposite of anything that officially came out of North Korea. I think it was the North Koreans who claimed to have a cure for AIDS.

But Iran is, believe it or not, a considerably more open society. They're prone to under-playing their capabilities, not exaggerating them. The article didn't say it was a Shahab-4, but it's been known for a while that they've been working on it, and they're known to have the Shahab-3 and Fajr-3, with ranges of over a thousand kilometers.

So I suspect we'll have confirmation of this soon enough.

It was Iran.. (4, Interesting)

slashmojo (818930) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143250)

They did claim recently to have a cure for aids..

TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- After 7 long years of arduous work, Iranian scientists here on Saturday introduced a herbal medicine which cures Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=851114 0239 [farsnews.com]

Re:So... (4, Informative)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143344)

No, I'm not mixing anything up. Earlier this month, Iran claimed it had a cure for AIDS [ynetnews.com] , with no proof (naturally).

But then, so had North Korea [reuters.com] .

I'm surprised you haven't noticed this kind of behavior from Iran under Ahmadinejad.

Mod parent disinformative (1)

abionnnn (758579) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143612)

If you read your own article it claims that DPRK has been successful in containing AIDS, not a very impressive feat considering the police state that they all like under.

Re:So... (0)

jfengel (409917) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143710)

Whoops. I'd forgotten about that one. Thanks.

Re:So... (5, Insightful)

Bob Gelumph (715872) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143200)

Why is this such a big deal?
Why can't Iran do all the things that the U.S. do all the time?
What is the problem with Iran investing in nuclear research and space technologies?
The U.S. has said that they basically don't give a shit about international treaties about the militarisation of space, and all Iran has done is launch a satellite and this is some big event?
The U.S. is still the only country to use a nuclear weapon on another country, so I'd highly recommend they stop their own "posturing" until they get some credibility.

I dunno... (5, Insightful)

FatSean (18753) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143252)

Probably because Iran has supported coups in other nations...no...US does that too..

Probably because Iran ignores the Geneva Conventions with regard to prisoners...no..US does that too...

Probably because Iran makes veiled threats to use Nuclear weapons if diplomatic demands are not met...no...US does that too...

I guess you're right!

Re:So... (5, Informative)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143354)

Why can't Iran do all the things that the U.S. do all the time?

Because the NPT, of which Iran is a signatory, puts different restrictions on different countries. To wit, the US, Britain, and the other original nuclear powers must work to reduce their nuclear weapons stockpiles (which they are doing), and every other signatory must not undertake to obtain nuclear weapons.

What is the problem with Iran investing in nuclear research and space technologies?

Nuclear (power) research - good
space technology - good
possible nuclear weapons research - bad.
The IAEA and the UN are not satisfied as to Iran's intentions vis a vis nuclear weapons research.

The U.S. has said...

You do realize "U.S." does not appear anywhere in the article. This is a comment from a former British ambassador. If you look carefully, you may realize that no one else on the planet wants Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, not just the US.

Re:So... (4, Informative)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143544)

You do realize "U.S." does not appear anywhere in the article.

That doesn't matter. Iran knows that this kind of provocative behavior and claims such as this (even if they're false) will successfully shift the debate to the US, in effect, further shifting or solidifying opinion against the US among groups of people both inside and outside of the US, even though the US hasn't done anything at all, and indeed, the only "action" of any kind taken, by anyone, has been by Iran.

It's a really brilliant strategic move on Iran's part, actually. They can deflect attention from themselves, and shift the focus to what US reaction might or should be, even though the focus should remain on the fact that Iran shouldn't be allowed to proceed down this path, as has repeatedly been reiterated by UN and the rest of the international community. How long until revisionist history forgets that fact, and pretends it was "only the US" that had these feelings on Iran (which is ironic, since the US is probably one of the most silent nations on Iran right now, and has intentionally restricted any rhetoric on the Iran issue)?

I'm not satisfied either (4, Insightful)

MarkusQ (450076) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143608)

The IAEA and the UN are not satisfied as to Iran's intentions vis a vis nuclear weapons research.

Perhaps. They aren't all that satisfied with the bogus "intelligence" the US has been feeding them [latimes.com] , that's for sure.

Although international concern is growing about Iran's nuclear program and its regional ambitions, diplomats here say most U.S. intelligence shared with the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency has proved inaccurate and none has led to significant discoveries inside Iran. [...] "Since 2002, pretty much all the intelligence that's come to us has proved to be wrong," a senior diplomat at the IAEA said. Another official here described the agency's intelligence stream as "very cold now" because "so little panned out."

If I had to guess, the Iranian's claim to have a viable space program and the US claim that the Iranians have a viable weapons program are both about as reliable as the previous claims about Iraq and the smoking guns that were going to be mushroom clouds. I suppose I'm slightly more skeptical of the weapons programs claims, if only because Dick "never right about anything" Cheney has weighed in in support of the story.

--MarkusQ

Here, let's look at international reaction (5, Informative)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143462)

This isn't just about the "US". No one wants Iran to have this capability (except, of course, Iran). Of course, if anyone ever actually has to do anything about Iran, I'm sure everyone will conveniently forget. I'd say you'd be first in line to forget, but you can't forget something you never knew.

You might want to read this [un.org] . It's something that will be coming up again. The thing about UN resolutions is that there's only one kind that has teeth, and allows UN members to respond with force in the event of noncompliance. They're called Chapter VII UN Security Council resolutions. This is one of those resolutions. Everyone agreed.

International Official Reaction to IAEA Report on Iran
FEA20070223094786 - OSC Feature - International -- OSC Summary 23 Feb 07

IAEA Board of Governors in Vienna (IAEA.org)

On 22 February the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] issued a report to the organization's 35-nation board of governors declaring Iran has failed to suspend its enrichment related activities. Full report

This product compiles official global reaction to the IAEA's report monitored by OSC as of 1630 GMT on 23 February.

IRAN

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad:

"If we show weakness in front of the enemies, their expectations will increase, but if we stand against them, because of our resistance, they will retreat." Full report

"Fairness requires that those who want to conduct talks with us also close their fuel cycle programs" so "we can conduct a dialogue in a fair atmosphere." Full report

Iranian Expediency Council chief Hashemi Rafsanjani:

"They will not reach anywhere through this path . . . the only way is to stop this bullying and stop this preconditioning so that we can all sit at the negotiation table." Full report

MIDDLE EAST

Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal:

It is "too soon to adopt drastic measures. We continue to aspire to a peaceful solution." Full report

RUSSIA

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov:

Lavrov "intends to carefully study the report by the head of the IAEA Muhammad al-Baradi'i on Iran's nuclear dossier." Full report
Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Vitaliy Churkin:

The UNSC's goal should not be "to adopt a new resolution on Iran or introduce sanctions against Tehran, but a political regulation of the Iranian nuclear problem." Full report

EUROPE

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy:

"We think that is now necessary to draft a new resolution, as quickly as possible, the six of us, the three Europeans, in particular, but also the Russians, the Chinese, and the Americans. It is necessary that this resolution go a little further than the one we already voted for unanimously on 23 December. It is only with unity and firmness on the part of the international community that we will create what is just beginning to stir in Iran today, namely a debate about the validity of President Ahmadinezhad's policy." Full report

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier:

"What was confirmed today was to be expected, that Iran has failed to meet the expectations of the international community." Referring Iran to the UNSC is "one of the options" for handling the situation. Full report

UK Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett:

"Iran has so far failed to take this positive path and comply with Security Council requirements . . . we will therefore work for the adoption of further Security Council measures, which will lead to the further isolation of Iran internationally . . . we remain determined to prevent Iran acquiring the means to develop nuclear weapons." Full report

Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel:

Iran must understand that "the international community is united and firm" on the nuclear issue and that "dialogue must continue . . . diplomacy is never finished." Full report

ASIA

Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing:

China maintanis a "principled stance to peacefully resolve the nuclear issue of Iran through diplomatic efforts." Full report

Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso:

"It has not been decided at this stage what Japan will do next, what sanctions Japan might take." Japan will have to "see how other nations act" in response to the IAEA report, but Tokyo will "not take policies tolerating Iran's nuclear capability just to secure oil." Full report

-----

AFP: IAEA Report Says Iran Fails To Suspend Enrichment
EUP20070222102001 Paris AFP (North European Service) in English 1558 GMT 22 Feb 07

["Iran fails to suspend enrichment: IAEA" -- AFP headline]

VIENNA, Feb 22, 2007 (AFP) - Iran has failed to comply with a UN Security Council demand to halt its uranium enrichment activities, according to a UN atomic agency report issued Thursday.

"Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities," the International Atomic Energy Agency said in a report being filed to the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors and the UN Security Council.

A UN Security Council resolution passed December 23, imposed limited sanctions on Iran to get it to freeze enrichment, which makes fuel for civilian reactors but can also produce atom bomb material.

The IAEA report said Iran has failed to provide cooperation on crucial outstanding issues, such as handing over a 15-page document outlining the plan for making the core of atom bombs.

The IAEA is also asking for Iran to allow key monitoring cameras at a huge underground enrichment site being built in Natanz in the center of the country.

Iran insists its programme is only to provide fuel for nuclear power plants, but the United States charges that Tehran is secretly developing atomic weapons.

"We have recently received the report. We are disappointed that Iran has not complied with resolution 1737," said White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe.

Iran is enriching uranium above-ground in Natanz and has installed four 164-centrifuge cascade production lines at the underground site there, the IAEA report said.

Iran is enriching uranium at a level "below 5 percent U-235" -- far below the 90 percent refinement for the U-235 isotope needed to make weapons, it added.

The amount of feedstock uranium gas fed into the pilot plant was 66 kilograms, a small amount useful only for research.

At the underground facility, heavily bunkered against possible air strikes, Iran is already operating two of the cascades, but "under vacuum" and not with the feedstock uranium gas needed for enrichment, the report said, adding that its information was current as of February 17.

Iran has blocked IAEA inspectors from installing cameras to monitor the hall where the centrifuges are located and the report said the agency had requested the cameras be fixed in place during its next visit to Natanz, scheduled for March 3-5.

Iran had told the IAEA in January that it wanted to "continue progressively with the installation of 18 cascades" and to bring them gradually into operation by May."

A senior UN official said it was clear that Iran was increasing rather than freezing uranium enrichment operations.

A diplomat close to the IAEA said that Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani had clearly told IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei at a meeting in Vienna Tuesday that sanctions would not work against Iran and that Tehran would not stop enrichment or enrichment-related activities under pressure.

[The IAEA website on 22 February reports that IAEA Secretary General Mohamed ElBaradei's report "Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and Relevant Provisions of Security Council Resolution 1737 (2006) in the Islamic Republic of Iran" has been submitted to the IAEA Board of Governors and the UN Security Council, but notes that it is restricted and will not be released to the public. It will be considered at the next meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors in Vienna on 5 March]

Re:So... (0)

Das Modell (969371) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143480)

Using nukes is not inherently wrong, so the argument that the US is the only country to have used nukes is completely meaningless. Iran's government is off the deep end, that's why they can't be allowed to have nukes.

Re:So... (1)

enharmonix (988983) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143628)

Why is this such a big deal?
Why can't Iran do all the things that the U.S. do all the time?
What is the problem with Iran investing in nuclear research and space technologies?
The big deal is that Mutually Assured Destruction does not work with the country that designed, engineered, and implemented suicide bombing. MAD should scare the crap out of people anybody who realizes that the US and Iran are both diametrically opposed countries whose foreign policy is heavily influenced (and at times, controlled) by religious fundamentalists. The US already has nuclear weapons. If Iran gets them, you can almost guarantee the US and Iran will eventually use them against each other (I'd say completely guarantee, but there's the very real possibility that Israel will beat us to the punch when it comes to a nuclear engagement with Iran).

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18143356)

It wouldn't surprise me at all if they really did this. Russia has been helping them with their rocket science for many years. Iran is rich and Russia whores itself for cash to anyone. 20 mil gets you transportation to and a week on ISS, so what would $1 billion in oil cash buy?

Heh (2, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143064)

Iran's potential nuclear military programme, combined with an advanced missile capability, would destabilise the region

      The US has already done a good job at destabilizing the region. I doubt it could get much worse.

Re:Heh (1)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143100)

The US has already done a good job at destabilizing the region. I doubt it could get much worse.

Looks like Iran has done a good job, again shifting the discourse from whether it should be continuing to develop its nuclear program against the will of the UN and most of the international community - no, not just the US; you might want to take a look at what the UN has been doing and stating consistently on Iran lately - to what the US has done (or will do) wrong.

I considered mentioning this in my previous post [slashdot.org] , but though that most people could distinguish this (alleged) action by Iran from other things. But since the very second response to this article already failed to make the distinction, I guess I was wrong.

It's brilliant on the part of Iran, I'll give it that. Continue aggressively pursuing your nuclear program and posturing with intent to provoke reactions, knowing full well the debate will be shifted to the US.

Re:Heh (2, Interesting)

swelke (252267) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143340)

It's brilliant on the part of Iran, I'll give it that. Continue aggressively pursuing your nuclear program and posturing with intent to provoke reactions, knowing full well the debate will be shifted to the US.

Not only that; they must have known darn well that Russia and China would never vote for particularly strong sanctions. Therefore, they knew they could get away with it for a certain amount of time. If this is confirmed, and if they can repeat (ie they didn't just buy a functional rocket from Russia or something), then they are in a much stronger position now than they were. The amount of fear that the idea of even a small, half-assed nuke dropping in their favorite city will put in the hearts of every American means no invasions for Iran any time soon.

That aside, the condition of the world oil market right now means that every oil importing country will think twice before annoying the Iranians too much with (sanctions/missile strikes/pick your provocation). It's widely suspected that no OPEC country has the capacity to increase production right now, so if somebody (Iran) decides to stop exporting for a few months, we'll all (Americans) be paying $5 a gallon for gas by June (worse in places with gas taxes high enough to provide a disincentive to SUVs). I don't know whether Bush can whip up enough fear among Americans to get them to stand for that.

Re:Heh (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143402)

The amount of fear that the idea of even a small, half-assed nuke dropping in their favorite city will put in the hearts of every American means no invasions for Iran any time soon.

In reality, hitting a particular city long range is a non-trivial exercise. Accurate IRBM (Iran->Europe) or ICBM (Iran->US) is not all that easy. The US and Russia have decades of practice hitting things at long range. Add in the technology to build a nuke warhead tough enough and small enough to fit on a missile, and Iran is years away from building such.
However, they shouldn't be on that road in the first place.

Re:Heh (4, Insightful)

lbrandy (923907) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143102)

The US has already done a good job at destabilizing the region. I doubt it could get much worse.

I know this is slashdot so anti-US trolling is par for the course, but it can. It can get much worse.

Re:Heh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18143308)

you got to consider that the GP is just a troll and in most likeliness has never known really bad times. he's among the crowd that is ignorant of the past, he considers himself somehow insightful about the situation today. he's dead wrong. maybe someday he'll see situations that will make him realize that what's going on today is minor in the grand scheme of things.

Re:Heh (1)

WingedEarth (958581) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143502)

Yes, the MIddle East will get much worse if Israel succeeds in getting its puppets, Bush and Blair, to attack Iran.

Re:Heh (1)

izprince (1065036) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143104)

Actually, the regimes we threw out were genocidal religious maniacs, if you want to call them "stable", I'd hate to see how we made things any worse.

Re:Heh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18143314)


Actually, the regimes we threw out were genocidal religious maniacs, if you want to call them "stable", I'd hate to see how we made things any worse.


By replacing genocidal religious maniacs with a firm grip on power with genocidal religious maniacs + anarchy.

Re:Heh (1)

aproposofwhat (1019098) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143534)

Actually, only one of the regimes you threw out were genocidal religious maniacs - the Baath party in Iraq were genocidal secular maniacs.

Having siad that, the US has no business screwing up the Middle East anyway, other than being Israel's bitch.

If the US really wanted to promote regional stability, it would be better to isolate Israel, and cut off subsidy for that state of land thieves until they get their fundamentalist maniac settlers out of the occupied territories and pay full reparations to the victims of their ethnic cleansing in 1948. Then we might see the chance of real peace, since none of their neigbours would have anything left to bitch about (excepting the Lebanese who Israel so disgracefully bombed last summer, but full reparations should be paid by Israel for that too).

Maybe the Iranians possessing long-range missile technology will make that chimp in the Whitehouse think twice before acting as Israel's proxy - that can only be a good thing.

Re:Heh (1)

izprince (1065036) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143678)

Actually, there is no such thing as "Palestine", and Israel merely took back SOME ofthe land that was theirs to begin with.

Re:Heh (1)

swelke (252267) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143540)

Actually, the regimes we threw out were genocidal religious maniacs, if you want to call them "stable", I'd hate to see how we made things any worse.

Actually the regime (singular) that was thrown out of Iraq was genocidal SECULAR maniacs. It's the Taliban (in Afghanistan, a completely different country which doesn't even share a border) who were the religious zealots. And yes, Saddam's regime WAS stable. He was in control for (thirty-something? I've forgotten the exact number) years. (Note, stable != good, they're different concepts)

Re:Heh (1)

02bunced (846144) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143550)

"Actually, the regimes we threw out were genocidal religious maniacs, if you want to call them "stable", I'd hate to see how we made things any worse." You'll find Iraq between Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia - it'll be the place where sectarian violence has gone up from 500 attacks a month in August 2003 to 36 000 in July 2006, where 655 000 civilians have been killed since May 2003 and where 137,862 Iraqis have been displaced, and countless other atrocities. [Source: BBC News [bbc.co.uk] ]. Then there was Abu Ghraib scandal and countless other reports of abuse by both American and British soldiers. Yeah, I'd agree you really didn't make things worse there. Good job we found all those weapons of mass destruction to make all that loss of blood worthwhile.

Re:Heh (1)

izprince (1065036) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143708)

So this excuses Saddam's regime from gassing the Kurds?

Re:Heh (1)

Robocoastie (777066) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143162)

you know I have absolutely no love for that whole nutty region of the world anymore but I actually agree with you. If I was a military leader there I'd be arming myself to the teeth too right now. The problem though is Iran is on record for not wanting to defend itself against the US but to be offensive toward Israel. If they made the comments they've made about Israel to any other country it would be seen as a declaration of war and they'd already be nuked off the planet. But when you remove the racist and religious rhetoric from Iran's claims they are correct. The land was stolen after WW2, declared a Jewish state and the Jews moved there. The babble has been proven wrong countless times, they have zero claim to the land and the Jews have more in common with Gypsies than they do any of the mid-east region. Unfortunately there's nothing that can be done about it now. Personally I saw screw 'em and get the F out of there. They can keep their oil and just sell to China and the Russians. Maybe then those two countries will be forced to finally have to deal with them instead of letting US spend our money trying to stabilize and babysit the fruitcakes. In the meantime we can take the money saved from being on the offensive by putting up a real defense instead and pour money into R&D, build a working mass transit system nationwide and once and finally create the alternative fuel. And no it won't cause Israel to collapse at all because once the main customer of oil becomes China and Russia they'll be forced to step in and stabilize the area as well and they know it'll look awful if they let Israel fall.

Re:Heh (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143226)

They consider the US and Israel basically one entity since they are strongly allied.

Selling oil to Russia is like selling fridges to penguins. Russia is the second largest exporter of oil in the world. However, Russia is a major supplier of military equipment for these countries.

Re:Heh (4, Funny)

Das Modell (969371) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143464)

The land was stolen after WW2, declared a Jewish state and the Jews moved there. The babble has been proven wrong countless times, they have zero claim to the land and the Jews have more in common with Gypsies than they do any of the mid-east region.

Or so some people claim. The entire issue is so incredibly and mind-bogglingly convoluted that I've stopped caring. All I know is that Israel deserves the land, while the Palestinians do not.

Re:Heh (0, Flamebait)

limecat4eva (1055464) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143726)

Israel deserves the land? Because it kills more civilians than Palestinians do? Because its foundations are based on religious exclusion, unlike the constitution of the PA?

If you're going to profess ignorance, then at least do others the courtesy of refraining from commenting at all.

Re:Heh (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18143614)

Saying something with a strong tone of conviction does not make it true.

The land called Palestine was deolate for centuries, save for a few tens of thousand of nomads. The Jews started moving into this barren waste during the 1800s, and began building and reinvigorating the land. Seeing as how it was becoming prosperous, many Arabs from neighboring areas began migrating to this once deserted, forgotten, place. A very sizeable chunk of the so called Palestinian refugees have an ancestry that goes back to neighboring Arab countries only 60-70 years ago... they most certainly haven't been living their for centuries.

On top of that, the Jews were a *constructive* force. They came in and began building, and planting and breathing life into the waste. By the time the British moved out the Jews had 95% of a state and were ready to go autonomic. Contrast that to the Palestinians, the very epitome of a *destructive* force. Instead of building their lands (such as the Gaza strip) and readying them for the day they are granted a country, they prefer to mop around and constantly whine at their ill fate, all the while suffereing disease and poverty due to their own inability to get off their collective arses and actually create the rudiments of a state.

Stop whining and crying, and start creating.

Re:Heh (4, Insightful)

lixee (863589) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143208)

The US has already done a good job at destabilizing the region. I doubt it could get much worse.
I agree with the first part of your statement but saying that it couldn't get any worse is very naive. In fact, the recent deployment of an aircraft carrier in the Persian gulf and other allegations of Iraqi insurgents getting weapons from Iran show that the worst is yet to come.

Think about it. Bush included Iran in his (in)famous "axis of evil" speech. Washington turned down Teheran's 2003 offer to open negociations. The US is cornering the Iranian regime and putting it in an impossible situation. Iranian reformists and moderates are extremely unhappy with the American attitude as it only radicalizes the regime in place. Everything indicates an imminent attack.

On the 21st of February 2007, the same day the UN deadline to suspend nuclear activities expired, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made the following statement: "If they say that we should close down our fuel production facilities to resume talks, we say fine, but those who enter talks with us should also close down their nuclear fuel production activities". The white house's spokesperson Tony Snow rejected the offer. Think about it: the US is asking Iran to close its nuclear facilities before they agree to discuss closing down Iran's nuclear facilities. Let me reiterate: The US wants them to give up the very thing they want them to give up before considering negociating with them about that thing.

Mad world.

Re:Heh (4, Insightful)

swelke (252267) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143478)

Let me reiterate: The US wants them to give up the very thing they want them to give up before considering negotiating with them about that thing.

In other words, the administration doesn't want to negotiate with Iran, but they also don't want average dumb Americans to realize that. Americans hear "We'll negotiate as soon as (blah blah blah)", but most Americans don't know enough backstory to realize that the (blah blah blah) is an unreasonable precondition to negotiating.

Re:Heh (4, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143702)

allegations of Iraqi insurgents getting weapons from Iran

So, the hardware with the Iranian manufacturer's markings all over it is just an elaborate ruse? Fine. The actual Iranian operatives romping around in the country? Ah... they're part of the clever plan we have that includes actually running the Iranian government in secret, right? These aren't allegations, it's long history. Obviously, when Saddam attacked Iran, he certainly didn't do anything to make Iran less inclined to establish regular covert (and not so covert) forrays into that country to erode the Sunni-ness of the place.

Bush included Iran in his (in)famous "axis of evil" speech

Exactly. Because Iran was then, and still is busy funding and arming some of the worst terrorist groups in the world. They openly and proudly finance and support organizations that do seek to destabilize the middle east and throw it back into a medieval environment. They did and do still speak in terms of wiping Israel off the map. So, that makes them more like Canada, maybe? If you had to name a couple of countries most on the "evil" list, in terms of trafficking in weapons and daily support for Really Bad People, Iran and North Korea definitely are at the top, especially in the context of extremist Islamic militancy.

The US is cornering the Iranian regime and putting it in an impossible situation. Iranian reformists and moderates are extremely unhappy with the American attitude as it only radicalizes the regime in place.

Do you not even WATCH press coverage of Europe? The US has been bending over backwards to allow Europe, the UN, and the IAEA to do what the EU has been insisting they be allowed to do: talk this to death, and use sanctions to make Iran somehow magically not want to have nuclear weapons while at the same time talking up the pending demise of its most hated regional enemy. The people establishing the "impossible situation" are the whole of the UN security council. European big-wigs are the ones standing up and saying the same things: this can't be allowed, sanctions will be needed, etc. Just because the US says the same thing, that makes it all a US-based issue? Why?

Iranian reformists and moderates are extremely unhappy with the American attitude as it only radicalizes the regime in place.

So, accommodating that same radical, crazy regime, and sending them the message that indeed, arming up with nukes, stoking a religious civil war in Iraq, wiping Israel off the map - these are all good, reasonable things... that serves the reformers how?

The US wants them to give up the very thing they want them to give up before considering negociating with them about that thing.

How does ceasing to expand an existing weapons program as a precurser to negotiations equal "giving up" on it? The point is that they (Iran) are unwilling, as expected, to demonstrate any interest whatsoever actually not producing nukes. Why even bother sitting through pointless and empty negotiations if the very first step - which includes them doing something to show they even have an interest - is something they're already saying they won't do? It just saves everyone a lot of time. There doesn't need to be any negotiation because they don't intend to carry them out or abide by them anyway. It's hardly a mystery. Do you really wonder if the same guy that says he's just cured AIDS is going to negotiate in good faith to give up something he's already said he'll never give up... and says those things in the context of his promises to see the US and her allies destroyed?

Re:Heh (1)

mochan_s (536939) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143278)

Wouldn't all of this (Iran's nuclear and missile capabilities) stabilize the region?

US and USSR never in war because of MAD. Same with India and Pakistan.

Of course, people say the Iranians are crazy and not rational and so on. Yeah, right.

Oh ye of little faith (1)

slashmojo (818930) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143292)

I doubt it could get much worse.

It's the middle east - it always gets worse.

Re:Heh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18143326)

[Shrug]
You aren't using your imagination.

It is worse, because it isn't just generic instability in the region, it specifically favors Iran's situation, and the US has done more for that in the last few years than anyone could ever have imagined unless they planned it that way. Historically, Iran and Iraq have always been competitors vying for dominance in the area around the Persian Gulf. With Iraq mired in its own internal quagmire (thanks to the US completely messing up the planning and implementation of the post-Saddam era), Iran has nearly free reign to influence the area all it likes, and could end up effectively controlling the southern half of Iraq by proxy. Its main competitor was removed with no significant effort or risk on its part, and the US is regarded as an international pariah now, and would be even more so, if it ever moved against Iran (the whole region would explode with opposition). The whole thing is like a gigantic, expensive birthday present from Cheney and Bush to Iran's fanatical leaders. On top of that, the effort in Iraq dragged resources away from Afganistan, where there are also signs of significant problems.

The effort in Iraq is shaping up to be the biggest tactical *and* strategic blunder of the last 50 years or so, maybe longer.

The only hope I see is for the Iranian people to force change in their country. There is a fledgling democratic movement there, but, unfortunately, everything the US has done to antagonize Iran in the last few years has simply handed more power to the political extremists in that country, who can then crack down on it.

The exact nature of this missile doesn't really matter. Iran is ascendent in the region, largely thanks to the US. For what they've done so far, the Bush regime will be judged by history after its passing, but don't sell them short: they've got almost 2 years to mess up the situation even more! The more Bush et al. rattle their sabres regarding Iran, the easier it is for Iran's fanatical leaders to consolidate their power. Heaven forbid if the US tried anything miltarily.

So, yes, it definitely could get much worse. Two land wars in Asia not enough? Why, obviously Bush et al. should open another front. Then it'll be one continuous mess from Iraq, though Iran, and right into Afganistan. Think of how much it would simplify things.

Re:Heh (2, Informative)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143430)

The US has already done a good job at destabilizing the region. I doubt it could get much worse.

Oh Ye of little faith. There is a LOT more we can do to make things much worse. The flaming Idiot we have as a Vice president is calling for attacks on Iran. That most certainly would start the fast spiral into a world war.

Don't sell the USA short, we can destabilize the entire world in the next couple of years... And just wait for the next incompetent idiots we get in the white house after that!

Embrace. Extend. Extinguish. (0, Offtopic)

RealGrouchy (943109) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143076)

Can we send Microsoft over there to "help" them with their program?

- RG>

Re:Embrace. Extend. Extinguish. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18143426)

Oh shut up you moron!

What the hell does this story have to do with MS?

Can't you get you're brain working on a different track, or do you keep on chanting your little anti-MS mantra while rocking back and forth and dribbling?

I'm not exactly pro-MS myself, but FFS, keep it on topic!

Confusion? (4, Informative)

Renfield Spiffioso (982789) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143080)

Reuters, amoungst others, is reporting this is a sub-orbital Research rocket [reuters.co.uk] , not a space missile.

Re:Confusion? (1)

grumbel (592662) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143150)

Isn't the official definition of space something like 100km above earth? This missile reached 150km, a good bit above that. Still along way to make it into a stable orbit, but it is still 'space'.

Re:Confusion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18143522)


Isn't the official definition of space something like 100km above earth?


Bzzzzzzt.

That was a fiction, invented to pretend that SpaceShipOne did something special. Nope, there is nothing magic about 100km and in both altitude and velocity, they were a long way from anything other than throwing a rock "really high."

Re:Confusion? (1)

Sibko (1036168) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143236)

If the missile can carry a scientific payload into space, it can carry explosives; the warhead just replaces the normal payload.

Personally, I find this story to be good news. We can't very well hold back every nation on the Earth for fear that they'll use their new found power to attack us. If Iran chooses to use a nuclear weapon on another country, they'll reap the consequences. But telling a country they can't start a space program because they might use it for ill deeds is far from fair.

Re:Confusion? (4, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143318)

We can't very well hold back every nation on the Earth for fear that they'll use their new found power to attack us.

But it just so happens that Iran is *in fact* on the verge of developing nuclear weapons. What are the chances these two are connected? Very good. These rockets *could* be used by Iran to lob scientific and communications satellites into space, but what are the chances that instead, they will first be used for nuke missiles? Be realistic, now.

If Iran chooses to use a nuclear weapon on another country, they'll reap the consequences.

And so will everyone else on the planet. It would be a disaster for the human race. I think it's scary you could even say such a thing as if Iran dropped a nuke on Israel, it would be a matter that simply concerned Israel and Iran. Who ever drops the next nuke bomb, it signals the end of the human race.

Re:Confusion? (2, Insightful)

abionnnn (758579) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143398)

Who ever drops the next nuke bomb, it signals the end of the human race.

I'm going to have to disagree. It may very well escalate into a nuclear war amongst superpowers, but a single nuclear bomb (likely to be dropped on Iran by the US, considering their own rhetoric) on a non-superpower may illicit a large conventional response on key infrastructure. Or a limited nuclear retaliation.

Either way, a small nuclear attack will definitely not signal the end of the human race. You would need a large first strike which illicit a second strike and so on for that to occur. That would never happen due to Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Nuclear doomsday scenarios are so overrated.

Re:Confusion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18143436)

Don't be an ASS.

Re:Confusion? (0, Offtopic)

abionnnn (758579) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143472)

uh? I'll try not to be? kthxbi.

Re:Confusion? (2, Interesting)

swelke (252267) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143676)

Who ever drops the next nuke bomb, it signals the end of the human race.

Not necessarily. I'm not saying nuclear war is good, but if there were a nuclear exchange that didn't involve either th US or former Soviet Union, it's quite possible (not certain, but possible) that it wouldn't escalate to a full scale nuclear world war. We might all survive and just get cancer from the fallout.

And even the rather scary folks in charge of Iran know this. If they start a nuclear war, at the very least Iran will get blasted with several hundred megatons. That's not what they want (I think). They'd much rather have a long range nuke to hold over the heads of their enemies.

What this does do, however, is to give Iran a certain amount of credibility as a leader among Islamic countries. Don't think that's a small thing. Right now, the apparently most powerful Islamic country is Saudi Arabia, who are arm-in-arm with the Bush administration (when they feel like it). If Iran appears to be militarily on par with the western powers (which is how every anti-western media outlet will spin it) that will really change the dynamic of the whole region (and Islamic countries outside the region). I don't know what the result of THAT will be, but I don't think I'll like it.

Re:Confusion? (2, Interesting)

Sibko (1036168) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143712)

And so will everyone else on the planet. It would be a disaster for the human race. I think it's scary you could even say such a thing as if Iran dropped a nuke on Israel, it would be a matter that simply concerned Israel and Iran. Who ever drops the next nuke bomb, it signals the end of the human race.
The U.S. alone has conducted 1,054 nuclear tests according to this wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_tests [wikipedia.org]

We're not grotesque super-mutants, [Yet. ;P] so I'd find it difficult to believe that any kind of nuclear attack performed by Iran would actually cause some kind of global catastrophe, as you propose. Certainly, Iran has nowhere near enough nuclear weapons and the necessary technologies to kill even one percent of Earth's population. Even a massive full scale nuclear war between superpowers would have a hard time wiping all of us humans off the planet.

Am I worried that Iran might nuke someone? No. That'd be suicide for them. What would they have to gain? A giant radioactive hole where their country used to be? What I am, is overjoyed to see yet another nation joining the space club. The more the merrier in my eyes, things have kinda stalled since those lunar landings.

Re:Confusion? (1)

zanderredux (564003) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143374)

Regardless of the altitude it reached, given that the technology for both uses is deemed similar by experts, I belive that the caption to a picture found on an old article [middle-east-online.com] says it all:

"Why develop a Rolls Royce to only deliver pizza?"

We launched the space rocket.... (1)

izprince (1065036) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143094)

Get this.....into SPACE. Pay no attention to that man behind the mirror.

Don't forget.. Iran also cured AIDS. (2, Insightful)

brxndxn (461473) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143106)

Iran cured AIDS, but the evil US is preventing the world from getting the cure.

Iran also cured cancer, saved the world's starving population, and their nuclear agenda is for peace.

It takes more than Iranian media for me to believe anything they say.

Re:Don't forget.. Iran also cured AIDS. (1)

pbailey (225135) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143158)

But you believe everything you read in the American media - lol

Obligatory (2, Funny)

Philomathie (937829) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143116)

In Nuclear Iran, continent destabilise you! and sorry for my lack of self control ;)

"Space" rocket? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18143132)

A bit misleading. Yes, technically (if correct), it entered space for a brief period because it went higher than 60 miles. But it is essentially a missile shot. And my guess is that Russia supplied most of the brains to get this done.

I realize Russia may think they're being tricky by challenging the United States in this way, but it's a fool's game. Russia is actually within range of Iran. We're on the other side of the world. Putin really is an asshat.

Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18143136)

Why the hell would they bother putting it into space, I just wipe my payload with an old sock.

Consume with several grains of salt (1)

SlappyBastard (961143) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143154)

The Iranians haven't released any photos. I have a nagging suspicion this is the North Korea nuke test all over again. There are a lot of knowledgeable people who think that was a fake (yielded under 1 megaton). And this fits the pattern: desperate, weird country claims major technological achievement but refuses to provide visual evidence.

Re:Consume with several grains of salt (1)

Sibko (1036168) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143302)

I have a nagging suspicion this is the North Korea nuke test all over again. There are a lot of knowledgeable people who think that was a fake (yielded under 1 megaton). And this fits the pattern: desperate, weird country claims major technological achievement but refuses to provide visual evidence.
I think you should ask these 'knowledgeable' people some more questions...

By Jeff Bliss Oct. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Radioactivity found in air samples has verified North Korea's claims that it conducted an underground nuclear test on Oct. 9, according to the top U.S. intelligence agency. ``Analysis of air samples collected Oct. 11, 2006, detected radioactive debris which confirms North Korea conducted an underground nuclear explosion,'' said a statement from the office of Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte. U.S. intelligence officials estimate that the explosion was less than a kiloton, according to the statement. The detonation took place near P'unggye, in the northeast of the country, according to the agency. While the U.S. had notified South Korea officials on Oct. 14 that it had detected evidence of radioactivity, the conclusions were preliminary.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&si d=aO7kW.RjqqaE&refer=japan [bloomberg.com]

Doesn't sound like North Korea was making everything up.

Re:Consume with several grains of salt (1)

SlappyBastard (961143) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143376)

You'll accept my apologies if at this stage I'd like to see a third party besides the US gov't verifying these things. After all, these are the same people who said Iraq had a nuke program in 2002.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6040494. stm

The neighbors don't seem so sure as the US ever was. Sorry, I'm not sold the North Koreans did anything. Especially if the Chinese and Japanese are unwilling to say they did.

Re:Consume with several grains of salt (1)

abionnnn (758579) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143428)

... but the Russians [bbc.co.uk] did as well?

Russia had previously been the only country to confirm the test, saying within only a few hours of North Korea's announcement that it was "100% certain" a nuclear test had been carried out.

Re:Consume with several grains of salt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18143378)

Iran is not North Korea. As any country with oil, it's far from being desperate. It is also making a lot of progress in their military abilities. If we don't stop Iran now, there's a big chance Israel will lose its control over the region.

Re:Consume with several grains of salt (0)

limecat4eva (1055464) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143584)

"If we don't stop Iran now, there's a big chance Israel will lose its control over the region."

Would that really be such a bad thing? Iran isn't some country of kooks and crazies. Its leaders aren't idiots. Iran isn't about to start dropping nukes or smuggling them out of the country for underground militias to use. Frankly, after all the unbridled aggression Israel's shown in the last thirty years, maybe we should welcome a little bit of nuclear détente in the Middle East.

Re:Consume with several grains of salt (1)

micronicos (344307) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143512)

Actually the Fars News Agency does have a release in Farsi, though not in English.

http://www.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8512060435 [farsnews.com]

Google Translation (heh, heh) here .... from Arabic-BETA!

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F %2Fwww.farsnews.com%2Fnewstext.php%3Fnn%3D85120604 35&langpair=ar%7Cen&hl=en&safe=off&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF -8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools [google.com]

Hey! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18143156)

Incoming!

MMmmmmm.... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18143176)

Neocon trollbait articles in the morning. Tastyeee. Oh yeah. WHAT ABOUT ISRAEL'S NUCLEAR WEAPONS? So much for a nuclear free region. Iran needs nuclear weapons because it's the only deterrent that US/Israeli imperialistic fascists respect. Just ask North Korea.

Re:MMmmmmm.... (1)

Das Modell (969371) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143506)

What about them? Is there reason to think that Israel would suddenly launch nukes into neighboring countries for no reason?

How fucking predictable that this got +1 Insightful.

Sheesh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18143552)

Is it really that hard to understand the difference between a democratic, sane, country such as Israel holding nuclear weapons (and claiming they will never be the first to use them) and a crazed, totalitarian-run state such as Iran, constantly claiming they want to wipe out their neighbors as soon as they can, holding nuclear weapons?

Are people like you simply saying these things to 1. annoy, just for the heck of it (read: "I need some attention and this is the easiest way I know how to get it", 2. out of some pathological need to always side against the mainstream (read: "I desperately need to feel different and special, no matter what"), or 3. because your IQ is low and your analytical reasoning and logic centers are FUBARed?

What we really need to worry about.. (-1, Troll)

bigattichouse (527527) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143184)

Before we worry about Iran, we need to worry about someone coming in and wiping out a sectarian country led by a minority governemnt that holds a tenuous peace through fear and intimidation. Pulling a large country, such as Iraq, apart would SERIOUSLY destabilize the region and mark the aggressor as a modern age imperiallist.. oh, nevermind.. I can't even make it through the rest of my planned post. We've ALREADY destabilized the region, no sense blaming it on a country trying to fill the vacuum of power. Sure they might be nuts and whatever, but tigers do what tigers do. *SOMEONE* always fills a power vacuum. We're obviously not doing it (and in my opinion, shouldn't).

Re:What we really need to worry about.. (1)

tkrotchko (124118) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143206)

"but tigers do what tigers do"

I get your point, but Iran as a tiger? I was thinking more like a Raven that picks over the bones of a dead animal.

Re:What we really need to worry about.. (1)

bigattichouse (527527) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143298)

It was more a comment about hegemony than specific to Iran.. Yeah, I think raven or crow or vulture would be a more specific description.

Black Kettles (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143218)

Sir Richard Dalton, told the BBC that, if confirmed, such a move could destabilise the Middle East

Because the Middle East is so stable right now. And who is mostly responsible for this wild stability? Iran?

Re:Black Kettles (1)

dean.collins (862044) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143332)

when are americans going to realise they dont own the whole freaking world.

who are they to say iranians shouldn't have satellites as well.

when the usa leads by example and disables all their nuclear weapons is the day I vote for a USA president.

Cheers,
Dean Collins
www.Collins.net.pr/blog

Re:Black Kettles (1)

Beyond_GoodandEvil (769135) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143630)

when the usa leads by example and disables all their nuclear weapons is the day I vote for a USA president.
I, as a member of the US electorate, would like to thank you for making the wise choice of not bothering to remove your head from your ass and abstaining from voting for the US president. Should you ever realize that military strenght deincentivises wars of convience, feel free to join the US electorate and vote. Thanks.

Re: Black Kettles (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143586)

> > Sir Richard Dalton, told the BBC that, if confirmed, such a move could destabilise the Middle East

> Because the Middle East is so stable right now.

And because a long history of western interventions has done so much to help.

Big deal.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18143232)

I do this every night...

State of the Middle East (0, Redundant)

Richard Frost (18848) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143282)

Britain's former ambassador to Iran, Sir Richard Dalton, told the BBC that, if confirmed, such a move could destabilise the Middle East.

Aw, shit. And the region was so calm and quiet before. Damn you Iran!

Re:State of the Middle East (1)

abionnnn (758579) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143454)

Oh my god, you destablised the middle east with your comment, we were all sleeping until you said that. Damn you! Didn't you know, we're the peace capital of the universe!?

Iranian Space Program (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18143284)

Iranians open falafel shop on moon.

is there a treaty which says they shouldn't? (3, Interesting)

fantomas (94850) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143322)

Serious question. Is there an international treaty that says they don't have the right to attempt to get a satellite up into space?

Mind you I think we need to wait for independent confirmation, could just be political bluffing. The Iranian government knows that if they can get something into orbit and a successful nuclear weapons test done then the USA will back away from hawkish talk of using 'whatever means necessary' and suddenly become all friendly and overlook any issues to get round a table and trade for future oil supplies.

We all know the number one reason any nation tries to get a satellite into orbit is so the rest of the world knows that they can drop a bomb onto anybody else's doorstep / president's country retreat if they feel they need to.

Care to explain (1)

junglee_iitk (651040) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143342)

Sir Richard Dalton, how come launching a rocket destabilise the region?

Is it like, placing military everywhere on every part of the planet?

Have you ever noticed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18143682)

...that it seems most people in almost all countries in the world really just want peace and to go about their daily lives, while the leadership and a very vocal minority seem dead set on imposing their will (belief system, morals, economic policies) on everyone else.

If tommorow, the occupant at 1600 Penn. Ave walked out to get his morning paper, and decided "screw this, I'm going to recall every last US soldier to the US, formally apologize to to world for my mistake, and ask everyone to for give us" I suspect you'd probably get better than 80% support, and actual forgiveness, from even those populations which have suffered the most. And then their leaders would whip up a frenzy. You know it's true - Bush did it over 9/11, and managed to fan the flames enough that many americans believe that we went into Iraq because of 9/11. Sad, but true.

I think Rodney King was on to something.

Re:Care to explain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18143686)

What...? The US has troops in Japan, and clearly Japan is horribly unstable as a result.

Iraq is another story, of course, but "every part of the planet" is quite a stretch. Overthrowing a government can destabilized a region; establishing a military presence may cause some unease, but not destabilization of the region.

I'm not a fan of the current US administration or its actions in regards Iraq, but such exaggerations only lead to more unnecessary conflict.

But don't worry (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143382)

Between Iran and America, America is the "real" theocracy, right ? ... or at least that what many idiots here want you to believe.

Re:But don't worry (4, Insightful)

lxt518052 (720422) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143714)

Man, can you please stop viewing the world in black and white only for a second?

It's not a dead-or-alive game and nobody is forcing you to choose side...

Oh, wait a minute, somebody in USofA seemed to having said:
You're either with us, or against us.

Sorry, I'm mistaken. #-

Iran doesnt scare me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18143438)

It is America and what they have in orbit that scares me. That and Israeli Zionists and MOSSAD's manipulation, they are probably the worlds most powerful and influencal intelligence organisation (more so than the CIA).

In what is that a danger? (2, Interesting)

kkkalf (853313) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143448)

Why is Iran's technological advancements systematically tagged as a danger to the rest of the world?

> if there were a bomb that could be placed on the end of this missile, it would in breach of Iran's obligations under the non-proliferation treaty

Sir Richard Dalton's declaration is nothing more than propaganda. Basically he is saying that IF those rockets were armed with nuclear heads, then it would be a breach of the non-proliferation treaty. So Iran's space program is in nothing a breach to any treaty. Then why would it be tagged as dangerous to us western countries?

Re:In what is that a danger? (1)

WingedEarth (958581) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143564)

It's more of the same, from the people who wanted you to believe that Iraq was an imminent threat to the world. Yes, its the same people who butcher men, women, and children on a daily basis, shoot missiles at crowded cities, drop thousands of cluster bombs into foreign nations, and then play the victim when their enemies fight back with rocks and home-made pipe bombs.

Moo (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143452)

See Muslims in space!

We're Muslims out in space
We're zooming along, protecting the Iranian race
We're Muslims out in space
If trouble appears, we'll put it right back in its place

When infidels attack us
We'll give 'em a smack, we'll slap 'em right back in the the face

We're Muslims out in space
We're zooming along, protecting the Iranian race!

Sovereignty (1)

Lisandro (799651) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143530)

Not to play devils' advocate here, but why is he throwing a hissyfit over Iran launching payload into space (if that's even true... the details are scarse, to say the least). Have they even broke a treaty here? Oh, but "if a bomb were on the end of this missile, it would in breach of Iran's obligations". Meh.

It's the same crap with their nuclear program, all over again. Let it be. It's not like the first world has a monopoly on technology that might be put to military use. Frankly, nowadays i worry more about North Korea.

Re: Sovereignty (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143574)

> Not to play devils' advocate here, but why is he throwing a hissyfit over Iran launching payload into space (if that's even true... the details are scarse, to say the least).

Because Certain People need an excuse to start another war.

Re:Sovereignty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18143664)

It's not like the first world has a monopoly on technology that might be put to military use.

You must be new here.

Space space spacity space (4, Funny)

Legion303 (97901) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143556)

"Iranian TV broke the news of the reported test saying: 'The first space rocket has been successfully launched into space.'"

This report brought to you by the Iranian TV department of redundancy department in Iran, via TV reporting.

Iran terrorists? Then how come... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18143640)

That over the past 300 years Iran has made no attempt to expand its borders in a forcefull way? It didn't start any massive wars with neighbors nor has it been positioning itself as an agressor.

Iran + Nuclujar power = bad Because: they got oil

And ofcourse, being an Islamistic country automaticly means that they don't have the intelligence to understand that while they do have oil supplies now those won't actually last forever. So its best to start looking for alternatives while the choise is still yours to make.

This is also why, unknown to many people, many Iranian researchers have investigated several other means of energy generating. From the windmills in Holland right to a experimental farm in Germany where a whole village basicly lives on the cow doo-doo which is recycled and used in a collective heating.

And IMO the same applies to this new research. Yes, its probably best to keep our eyes on them but lets not overdo things. And I certainly do hope that the number one moron in the US doesn't "liberate" the Iranian people as he did the Iraqi people. I don't think those people really need the kind of "freedom" which the US has to offer.

Help me please... (1)

supaneko (1019638) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143716)

Could someone explain a few things to me please? For the past year or so I have been rather confused on what the harm is in Iran having weapons. Why is it so bad or "illegal" for Iran (or North Korea even) to have a nuclear arms program? Why is it bad for these countries to also develop their own weapons? Why is it that the United States and its allies are the only countries in the world that can develop weapons of mass destruction without having everyone else step in and say "hey, don't do that?" I'm just curious. Thanks.

They want a nuclear weapon? (1)

crovira (10242) | more than 7 years ago | (#18143728)

I say lets truck one in to every middle eastern capital, embed it in a huge block of concrete in the center of town, put the triggers in the hands on the leaders in the region with a half hour delay to STOP the bombs from going off.

As long as everybody there to stop the trigger, everything's fine.

The moment some country stops reporting in, boom, they ALL go off.

Case closed. M.A.D. on a small scale.

We stop worrying about any one leader suddenly deciding to blow up his neighbor.

It also makes space based weapons unnecessary.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>