Iran Announces Manned Space Mission Plans 559
Lucas123 writes "After Iran's first attempt to launch a satellite on Sunday fell noticeably short of the Earth's atmosphere (though Iran claimed it made it into orbit), government officials stated they intend to put a man into space within 10 years. The long-range ballistic technology used to put satellites into space can also be used for launching weapons. Iran says it has no intention to use the technology for launching nuclear warheads."
but will they get him back down? (Score:5, Insightful)
uh huh... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:but will they get him back down? (Score:4, Insightful)
Iran: "Yes, we're enriching nuclear material, but we promise it's not to make warheads."
Iran: "Yes, we're employing nuclear scientists, but we promise it's not to make warheads."
Iran: "Yes, we're creating nuclear production facilities, but we promise it's not to make warheads."
Iran: "Yes, we're developing a missle for our space program, but we promise it's not to deliver warheads."
Wouldn't it be poetic justice and just a tad ironic if the US spent all this time and money on the "boogey man in Iraq", then like the boy who cried wolf, is criticized and ignored over Iran?
Re:How is this a threat anymore? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:uh huh... (Score:2, Insightful)
Space X (Score:3, Insightful)
So how did Iran - apparently a country containing only religious nutbags, comic book villains, and the lost apprentices of the former Iraqi Intelligence Ministry, according to the news - manage to successfully launch rocket capable of carrying a satellite while Space-X os 0-for-3?
Maybe we should be a little concerned...
Re:How is this a threat anymore? (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought we neutralized the ICBM boogey man with our missile defense stuff. Isn't that why Russia's pissed at Poland right now?
This is the problem with having a defense that is somewhat effective but not perfect. If you have a system that can shoot down, say, 50% of nuclear missiles, the Russians look at it and see that their nuclear arsenal is only half as effective a threat as it once was, and get annoyed. However, you still don't want to trust your life to something that has become a coin toss (maybe the shield will shoot the missile down, maybe the city will be obliterated, who knows?) The Russians also want to discourage further development of missile defense, because if America ever does manage to get it reliable enough to count on, that leaves them in the same losing position that unilateral disarmament would.
Re:developing technology for a nuclear weapons prg (Score:2, Insightful)
They will never be able to match their arsenal to that of US or UK or France or Russia or Israel
They don't have to match our arsenal. All they need to be able to do is reach a major city in any one of the countries you mentioned. Yeah, we could obliterate them (to borrow a phrase from Hillary Clinton) if they hit us but would we be willing to go to war with them in the first place if it was going to cost us New York City or Washington?
We need a workable missile defense technology.
Re:That's Not "Ironic" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:developing technology for a nuclear weapons prg (Score:5, Insightful)
They will never be able to match their arsenal to that of US or UK or France or Russia or Israel.
They don't care. That is the problem. The doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction [wikipedia.org] (MAD) that kept the peace (at least relatively, proxy wars were still fought in a limited fashion but only up to a point) for nearly fifty (50) years during the Cold War was based upon one simple notion: the other side might no like us but at least they are not crazy OR in the words of our late great President John F. Kennedy,
"For in the final analysis, our most basic common link, is that we all inhabit this small planet, we all breathe the same air, we all cherish our children's futures, and we are all mortal."
Iran is a theocracy officially governed by religion which doesn't cherish the future of its children (instead it glorifies suicide bombing) and believes in immortality with Allah and 70 virgins in heaven. Now you begin to see why allowing such people to have even one bomb is such a concern. There is more than an outside chance that they might choose to use their bomb against Israel or the United States or Europe regardless of the consequences (i.e. in their minds they all die in the retaliatory strike and go to their reward of 70 virgins). Religion and powerful weapons are and have always been a dangerous mix.
Re:How is this a threat anymore? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, it makes Russia's bellyaching all the more appropriate and reasonable. There's no way this system could be used to provide any reasonable sort of defense. It just doesn't work well enough.
So if the US isn't going to use it for defense, then what are they going to use it for? Most likely offense.
Re:developing technology for a nuclear weapons prg (Score:3, Insightful)
Weapons vs. Science (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is it every time Iran is mentioned in the mass media, that 'Nuclear weapons' has to be included?? Seems like we're just awaiting the day that they do something even remotely close to that, so we can say "SEE?? I TOLD YOU SO!"
Jeez. Just let them go to the moon already. Not like we don't have an arsenal of nukes pointed in their direction anyway. Why are we any better? Because we already *have* them?
Russia? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it any wonder that they are doing this? I'm sure this has been in the works, but with what Russia is doing, how many things can the US be a watch dog on? I'm sorry world...but at some point y'all have to be concerned too...can't just rely on the US...and you shouldn't because by evidence of the Iraq War, we aren't always (or even close to) right.
Re:Are they selling bridges too? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:developing technology for a nuclear weapons prg (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, just like how having only a few nuclear weapons had absolutely no benefit to North Korea.
Oh wait ...
Re:That's Not "Ironic" (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh good, it's your day they'll be making. So, we can expect your enlistment...when?
Re:Just remember. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
All of that could true (i'm not going to get into the details of your delusional post)... AND Iran could be up to something that violates the NPT they signed. There was an Iran before Bush, and (just maybe) there will be one after. Just because you hate Bush, doesn't mean that the Iranian gov't doesn't mean us harm. Bush's idiocy and Iran's theocracy seeking WMD are not mutually exclusive.
If Bush did nothing about Iran, and Iran does something bad in 2009... "Bush let Iran build nukes!". Looks like a lose/lose proposition. Act, and he's an evil dolt. Do nothing, calamity strikes, and Bush is still an evil dolt.
Are you an brilliant troll or are you really that blinded by partisanship?
Re:How is this a threat anymore? (Score:5, Insightful)
So if the US isn't going to use it for defense, then what are they going to use it for?
Have you not been paying attention? Its 'use' is simply to be able to award no-bid contracts to defense contractors.
Next question...
Re:Are they selling bridges too? (Score:4, Insightful)
There are a lot of people who recognize this as hypocrisy, but the smarter anti-proliferation (aka sane) people have a more nuanced position than "it's okay for XXX and YYY to have nukes, but not for ZZZ." Instead, the idea is that it's not really okay for XXX, YYY, or ZZZ to have these things, but getting XXX and YYY to drop theirs is a separate problem that will take different problem solving techniques to fix. Most people can agree that ZZZ shouldn't have nukes. If I lived in a non-nuclear nation, I certainly wouldn't want my own military to acquire these weapons (Though I would support efforts to generate nuclear power).
Just like USA, UK, France, Israel, China, India, Pakistan et al then ...
Nobody "SAYS" they will launch a nuclear warhead, they're all to deter the other bunch of crazy bastards from doing it.
So why is is okay for say Israel to have them pointed at Iran, and yet Iran cannot have any "deterrant" ?
And don't say that Iran are crazy religious nuts, because Israel would launch one in 5 seconds if they could get away with it (and probably would too).
Unfortunately there is no "-1 painful truth hurts" moderation.
Re:That's Not "Ironic" (Score:4, Insightful)
Iran has a serious case of "little man" syndrome.
Indeed. They still haven't had much luck in forming a working republic after having their elected leader deposed by the US, suffering under economic sanctions, fighting an over-long brutal war with Iraq, being surrounded by not so friendly Arab states, the nukes in India, the nukes in Pakistan, and now that the US has moved in next door (complementing their previous and continuing efforts elsewhere in the region), they can't seem to win for losing.
And you thought South Central was a bad neighbourhood.
If there's a bright side, it's that their fellow Shia have come to power in Iraq.
Re:That's Not "Ironic" (Score:4, Insightful)
Nonsense. If the U.S. doesn't have a history of meddling in middle eastern affairs, there is no 9/11. This is the explanation given by the terrorists. What reason is there to lie? If China wins more gold medals in the current Olympics, won't they be "PREEMINENT" as well? Once China's economy is bigger than ours, will China suffer terrorist attacks?
Religion and powerful weapons suck! (Score:1, Insightful)
Yep, religion and powerful weapons surely are a bad mix... look at what's done in the name of Jesus by our leaders :'(
Re:developing technology for a nuclear weapons prg (Score:3, Insightful)
Yup. Now combine this with the fact that if Iraq had actually had nuclear-tipped ICMBs, the USA would not have attacked it, and you have
a) a very powerful incentive for Iran to have nuclear missiles for self-preservation
b) less of a self-preservation instinct than other nuclear nations that came before
c) a lot of powerful Iranians who are very pissed at certain segments of the world population
All of this means that there isn't shit anyone can do to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons (short of turning it into a giant glass parking lot), and that Iran will be far more dangerous than Iraq ever was. Thanks, Bush and Co. There are so many things wrong with invading Iraq that that decision alone - regardless of how well anything else turns out - will cement Bush's place in history as worst president ever.
Re:That's Not "Ironic" (Score:3, Insightful)
Take off your tin-foil hat. Call a spade a spade, the American govt. is run by a bunch of criminals, namely the neo-cons, and the face of American govt. is the whack job Bush.
America has a serious case of "big man" syndrome.
See the difference?
Re:That's Not "Ironic" (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think you really know what's going on here.
Cheney and Rumsfeld kept their top-level jobs their whole lives because they were good at it. Sure, they caused catastrophes wherever they went. Sure, their careers cost America vast, often irreparable damage, and many, many lives (and even more of non-Americans). But their bosses made out like bandits. That's not "incompetent". That's highly productive, while not caring who or what they destroy to get what they want.
Re:That's Not "Ironic" (Score:4, Insightful)
re: PREEMINENT
I expect to see the political fallout from this within the next 10-20 years, assuming there isn't fallout of a more physical nature before then. There is something of an unholy alliance between China and the Islamic world, IMHO driven by pragmatism on China's part, and "enemy of my enemy is my friend" on the Islamic part. But at some point the Islamic side will wake up and see just how godless the Chinese can be, and the Chinese will wake up and see just how unsensibly non-pragmatic the Islamic fundamentalists can be, and things will become "interesting", in the Confucian sense.
Re:That's Not "Ironic" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:developing technology for a nuclear weapons prg (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. It is completely different thing to use suicide attacks in warfare or terrorism and to commit a national suicide.
We heard this same crap about Chinese and Russians. You know, they're not real people, they're not thinking like us etc. etc. etc.
The leaders of Iran are very much interested in maximizing their well-being in this world. And filling up their pockets in the process. Most of Iran's theocrats are also businessmen. Christians are not the only hypocrites.
Re:developing technology for a nuclear weapons prg (Score:1, Insightful)
Iran is a theocracy officially governed by religion which doesn't cherish the future of its children
Amazing how such virulent hate for a religion is modded "Insightful". Please mods, mod entire post for its entirety, and not just 50% that you agree with.
My captcha was "goaded". How fitting.
Re:but will they get him back down? (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree with your post for the most part. But, there is the small matter of the Palestinians who had been living there...
The (hypothetical) woman down the hall being beaten by her husband isn't allowed to forcibly evict me from my apartment to get away from him. On the other hand, given rampant antisemitism all over the world, where else could they have chosen to found Israel? I don't know. It's a crappy situation.
Re:developing technology for a nuclear weapons prg (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't be silly. Your argument does not even apply to fundamentalists/extremists (such as the khomenei, bin laden..etc). Why haven't the chief heads of al-qaeda waged an all out suicidal war in the open against the western soldiers? Why hasn't bin laden blown himself up to go to heaven and be with allah and the beautiful virgins forever? Why didn't the Iranians cross over into Iraq and do the same? That is the ultimate goal, right?
If it was as simple as you state, and the Persians think the way you think they do, they would have already attacked the US and Israel. By your logic, they don't need a nuclear bomb, they just want provoke war and die in the consequences, and they can do that very easily.
The truth is they're just talking, because tough talk is what keeps them in power (kind of like over here in the good old USA). Gone are the days of conquest in the name of spreading religion. Now it's mostly madmen who perceive themselves as saviors, unemployed and desperate young men who believe them (terrorist recruits), and dictators trying to stay in power. The muslims right now should be the least of our worries.
Re:but will they get him back down? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure a similar situation exists with Iran and sea-based oil trade in the region, as well as the nation of Israel. It would be harmful to US and other international interests to invade Iran, since a huge portion of Iran's border is on the Persian Gulf body of water, as well as the narrow chokepoint of the Straight of Hormuz. Unfortunately, Iran is heavily involved in fueling both sides of the insurgency in Iraq, in order to kick US influence out of the region and keep the government from being too pro-US, which in turn means anti-Iran. I don't know about Afghanistan, but I'm sure Iran is involved in the same way with the Taliban as they are with various players in Iraq.
I have very mixed feelings about the invasion of Iraq, intended to be a easy operation over quickly but marred by incompetent civilian leadership. It is extremely unfortunate that we simply can't respond to other problem states in the world due to the smaller-scale MAD circumstances that exist.
Re:but will they get him back down? (Score:3, Insightful)
it was supposed to be a small piece of land where they could feel safe
If that was the goal, it's a failure. It hasn't made them safer, it's made them less safe.
Re:but will they get him back down? (Score:3, Insightful)
I knew damn well that the actually dangerous countries, Iran and North Korea, would be left more or less alone while the weak and harmless one was going to be invaded.
After looking at the U.S. military rolling into Iraq, what strategic calculation could a smaller nation make? How does a little country hold up against a superpower who doesn't hold back from using conventional military options? If they weren't going nuclear before, it must look at lot more attractive later - even if it only serves as a bargining chip in some future diplomatic deal. Yet another reason why invading Iraq was a monumentally dumb move.
Re:developing technology for a nuclear weapons prg (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not even going to argue with your characterization of Muslims. There are certainly some that more or less fit your description, and while I may think they are an extremely small percentage, that isn't the point.
The point is, no matter how crazy and suicidal you imagine the average Iranian, their leaders certainly are neither. Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, and all the ruling clerics didn't go to the trouble to acquire all that power just to lose it in a nuclear blast over Tehran. Like all politicians, whether superficially religious or not, they're after power and control not a glorious death. Who is it that you think goes on the suicide bombing missions? It ain't the leaders, it's the grunts. The leaders want to stay home and be safe and gain more wealth and power. Promises of virgins are for the ones who don't have anything better to look forward to in this life.
So what I'm saying is, MAD will work, just like it worked against the Russians. Iran's leaders aren't crazy, and they're actually quite intelligent. Losing the Islamic Republic is not acceptable to them. They will not launch a preemptive nuclear strike, because they know that no matter what they accomplished in that strike they would be annihilated, Iran would be destroyed, and all their plans and schemes would be for naught. So unless our or Israeli nukes are in the air, or tanks are rolling over the border, then they aren't going to use their bomb.
No, the fact is that MAD will work, and that's why Iran wants the bomb. Because MAD works both ways, and once they have the bomb then they get to join the Nobody Fucks With You Country Club. Those neo-con dreams of invading Iran would be out the window, permanently. And at that point, they can work on whatever their regional ambitions for their non-nuclear neighbors are, and not have to worry about a U.S. or other world power response more severe than our response to Russia in Georgia.
That's plenty of reason to not want Iran to go nuclear. You don't need to imagine a mushroom cloud in NYC or Tel Aviv (which won't happen) to be concerned.
It is to laugh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:but will they get him back down? (Score:1, Insightful)
Uh, hello! 5, Interesting!?! Did we forget that establishing this "small piece of land where they could feel safe" involved forcefully removing the people who were living there?
No one is objecting to a Jewish state, but to the fact that two wrongs don't make a right. What happens in 50 years from now if the Iranian government establishes a Palestinian state in say, Texas, because the Palestinians have endured a century of persecution at the hands of the Jews and Christians. Would that be okay too?
And as for the Holy Land, when you use your "universal truth" to justify actions that would otherwise be objectionable, don't be surprised when those who don't share your beliefs object. Perhaps it's better to stick to truths that far more people agree with, such as "killing is wrong", and the sovereignty of existing states and international borders.
Re:developing technology for a nuclear weapons prg (Score:3, Insightful)
The leaders do not want to die. And they have convinced many young (often no to educated) to die for them. That way they get to continuing to spread the word and recruit more people to die for them.
Re:That's Not "Ironic" (Score:4, Insightful)
2. After Musharraf and the Pakistan military co-operated with the US to crack down on Islamic extremism, there is a virtual civil war going on in Pakistan. On one side is the corrupt military that controls most of the country by force. Scarily, those are the 'good' guys. The other side are the religous mullahs. They aren't the moderate muslim leaders we have over here. They are pro-bin laden jihadists who we really wouldn't like to see in control of the nuclear weapons that AQ Khan built for Pakistan. The Best part is they control the region the Taliban and Al-Qaeda retreated so completely the military is scared to go there and it would be suicide for the police to enter it.
Don't forget when our only real choice for a "good guy", a moderate and a reformer loved by the people, willing to work with the West, and aligned with neither the jihadists nor the military, was assassinated on the campaign trail. What a sad day that was.
Frankly, that all scares the willies out of me.
No kidding.
but ignore the real world, lets worry about the Bush Dynasty and it's heinous attempts at holding a free election in Iraq.
Hey now. Not that Bush is actually the greatest danger in the world (I mean, he's a short-timer and lame duck at this point), don't sugar coat the massively stupid fuck-up that was the invasion, and it's effects on the situation. I mean aside from strengthening Iran, how fucking insane is it that because our military is so entangled in Iraq that we can't field enough forces in Afghanistan to hold onto bases and cities we'd previously taken from the Taliban? And forget about being able to do what the Pakistanis can't and go into the northern regions where the Taliban retreats to every winter! There's a real battle with real fronts against our real enemy going on, but we can't do the needful because we're stuck in a pointless quagmire!
The frightening situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan is exactly why invading Iraq was the stupidest fucking thing we could have done.
Re:That's Not "Ironic" (Score:5, Insightful)
I am going to call you a Waaaambulance. Cry me a river Iran! It was Ayatollah Khomeini who overthrew the Shah! Of course, that idiot Jimmy Carter didn't help one bit. Regarding their war with Iraq, tough! It takes two to tangle
1) If you're going to call people idiots, perhaps you should back it up and not make mistakes yourself. 2) You don't look so smart yourself, as it's clear that the parent wasn't talking about the Shah being overthrown, but the government of Mohammad_Mossadegh [wikipedia.org]. 3) The idiom [goenglish.com] is "it takes two to tango," not tangle.
You know why Arab states don't like Iran, its because Iranian Shi'a Islam is considered heretical and destabilizing.
That's a stupid reason not to like a country. Other things the Arab states don't like because it's heretical and/or destabilizing: women's rights, infidels (aka: anyone they disagree with on practically anything), beer, etc, etc.
Nukes in India and Pakistan are of no consequence to Iran.
I'm afraid that the prospect of having your neighbor nuked is always cause for concern. Winds and radioactivity don't care about national borders. I suspect that there's some national angst there.
The US is there to remind the little man that we can whip his ass in a heart beat.
Iran is a man now? With an ass to be whipped? You know better than that kind of oversimplification.
Odd, I thought the U.S. was in the region in such force to rebuild Iraq after deposing of Saddam Hussein because he was allegedly violating the terms of the 1991 armistice and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.
Your language sounds about as jingoistic as I could imagine. It's not an asswhipping, because it's not a fistfight. It's a war your talking about here -- murder writ large and sometimes a bit of actual self defense.
Iran gets no pity party from me, but its people who are yearning to be free do!
What's the difference between Iran and it's people? Perhaps you shouldn't pity them, but actually work to understand them, and not just the ones who "yearn to be free," but all of the Iranians. I'm not saying agree with them, nor even try to befriend them, but merely to look past Khomeini and friends and view Iran not as a single militant entity, but as millions of different people, many of whom have unjustly suffered at the hands of their neighbors, their religious kin, their government and, sadly, the United States' government.
Cry for them.
Re:That's Not "Ironic" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's Not "Ironic" (Score:4, Insightful)
But it did demonstrate American will to deploy far more forces than needed to conquer Iraq(enough to militarily conquer Iran or Pakistan in fact), if WMD ever got in the hands of someone like Saddam who was willing to use them.
The thing is, I doubt Iran and Pakistan believed the ludicrous WMD lies, so all we really proved is that we're willing to invade a country that doesn't have them. Which I think is the major reason why Iran wants them, to deter us from attacking (this being even before Iraq). Pakistan already had nukes for years; they aren't worried about us invading them. Their change of heart came after 9/11 when they suddenly became our buddies in the War on Terror. I've seen no evidence that the invasion of Iraq has lessened the relationship between the ISP and the Taliban.
I mean, it's possible that Iraq at least showed that we were willing to mobilize a lot of troops, I'm just not sure what that actually could have bought us.
But that's alot of speculation. I think we are largely agreed that Bush/Cheney are either dangerously incompetent or dangerously corrupt, or both. But even with that, the leadership in Iran and Pakistan is a much greater threat and orders of magnitude more frightening.
I'm quite certain of their extreme incompetence, and confident of a fair measure of corruption by Cheney and company just from their Nixon/Regan days. Of course they aren't much of a threat any more, their damage has been done, and soon they'll be out. The only danger left, then, is that we repeat the same stupid mistake by which we let them back into power after getting rid of them before. Obviously Iran is a bigger threat than these neocon losers.
Re:but will they get him back down? (Score:3, Insightful)
The Jews aren't the only displaced people in the world. Without leaving the US you can find all of native American tribes as well as the Hawaiians.
History is one long tale of more powerful groups killing or evicting others from resources they wish to claim. How do you decide who gets their land reinstated? Over the course of history this can happen repeatedly over the same territory.
Certainly if the UN decided Manhattan island had to be restored to the Lenape tribe there would be hell to pay.
Re:That's Not "Ironic" (Score:5, Insightful)
I suppose you think we'd be loved and respected by the rest of the world, if ONLY we hadn't invaded Iraq! Iran would be our friend. Europeans-on-the-street would be saying they wish they could be just like us.
Think again. We're unpopular, we're often complained about, BECAUSE WE ARE PREEMINENT. No other reason is necessary.
Actually, before 9/11, the US had fairly strong support in Europe and elsewhere. Not massive, but nothing terribly bad either. After 9/11 when the US retaliated against Afghanistan, there was very strong support. It really is only since the invasion of Iraq for the flimsiest of excuses that recent worldwide anger against the US and its policies became widespread.
Maybe they should focus on basics... (Score:4, Insightful)
For all their attempts to be a major regional power they should spend less money on putting some Iranian in space a lot more effort on making sure the Iranian people have food, shelter, heat, roads, sewers, water and jobs.
On one hand you have a country developing ICBM's and trying to put people in space and on the other you have hundreds of people freezing to death because a government with some of the largest energy reserves in the world can't provide natural gas to rural populations living in the mountains.
Personally I'm astounded the Iranian people or even the clerics of Iran put up with it. Everyone in control must be so out of touch with the people on the ground they don't even realize the difference they could make and the power Iran would have if they could solve the real economic and infrastructure problems the country has.
Pre-eminent is right (Score:1, Insightful)
Nonsense. If the U.S. doesn't have a history of meddling in middle eastern affairs, there is no 9/11. This is the explanation given by the terrorists. What reason is there to lie?
Because the truth is even worse. It's not so much American "meddling", as you put it, that's got a burr up their ass... it's American culture. Our movies, TV shows, music, and fashion are "corrupting" their youth. Just like culture competes with religion here, it's competing with Islam for hearts and minds there. And they don't like the competition.
We could pull every single military unit and embassy out of the Middle East tomorrow, and in ten years they'll still hate our guts, because their own people will still be clamoring for the products of our culture.
If China wins more gold medals in the current Olympics, won't they be "PREEMINENT" as well? Once China's economy is bigger than ours, will China suffer terrorist attacks?
One, as a matter of fact, they already are. China's been in a low level war with Muslim militants for, oh, hundred's of years now [wikipedia.org]. They're still fighting the descendants of those original rebels in their arid northwestern provinces. And since the 90's, those rebels have stepped up attacks on Chinese forces.
To the larger question of influence worldwide, if China's culture surpasses ours, will these militant Muslims attack them? You betcha. It'll be the same deal... fighting Chinese culture for the hearts and minds of Muslims. That's a never ending battle for Jihadists.
Re:but will they get him back down? (Score:3, Insightful)
And don't be a fool. A lot of people will die over peak oil. It's so funny that conservatives talk about how Russia invaded Georgia to control the oil supply, but deny that the U.S. invaded Iraq and Afghanistan for the same reason, and deny that running out of oil matters on the world stage.
Re:Analogies suck... (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong. The Palestinians are the people evicted from the land now called Israel. They are distinct from the Bedouin tribes that constitute "real" Jordanians. Many elderly Palestinians still have the keys to their long gone houses in Israel.
And in Mahmoud Abbas, the Israelis have the most reasonable pragmatic Palestinian leader they have ever dealt with. And what is the reward? More roadblocks, more checkpoints, more walls and last but certainly not least, MORE SETTLEMENTS.
Re:Maybe they should focus on basics... (Score:4, Insightful)
Iranian people have food, shelte,r heat, roads, sewers, water and jobs. It may come as a surprise to some, but Iran, theoratic and totalitarian as it is, is not that poor. It's not up to the western life level, of course, but it is still a welfare state (as written in its constitution) with some fundamental guarantees for its citizens.
Re:but will they get him back down? (Score:3, Insightful)
They're willing to send people on suicide bombing missions...it's plausible that they'd take up suicide space missions as well. The only problem (from their point of view) is that in space, no one can hear you scream Allahu akhbar.
Re:That's Not "Ironic" (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but the idea that the Bush adminstration wasn't at least fairly positive there were WMD's in Iraq when they said so is ludicrous, or I can't believe they wouldn't have worked in a way to cover their butts by planting something. Not that I think Bush is above that sort of action, but it didn't happen.
Why is it ludicrous? They had decided they wanted to invade Iraq two days after 9/11. Then they came up with a reason why, and decided WMDs would sell to the public best. They asked for intelligence that showed Iraq had WMDs -- they did not ask for all intelligence in order to make a decision, just what supported their pre-decided case. It is conceivable that after two years of hearing nothing but what they wanted to hear, that they ended up actually believing it to an extent, but how they went about showing that intel and combating anyone who tried to tell the truth shows they were well aware of the need to spin it.
And after all their failures, why is a failure to cover their butts so ludicrous? Maybe it's harder to sneak WMD materials into a place than you think, and the consequences for getting caught quite severe. They certainly grasped at any straw they could -- remember the Trailers of Mass Destruction? And in the end, all they needed WMDs for was to convince the people to go to war, after that they could switch to any of their other reasons to justify continuing. And it worked -- Bush got his second term, didn't he? So where exactly is the problem?
Of course, there's also the still not-entirely discredited theory that Saddam shipped WMD-related equipment (not functional WMD's, however) forbidden by the Gulf War treaty to Syria.
Not entirely discredited? Forgive me, but I'm more interested in whether this theory has been credited in any way, or is it still simply the dream of those who think that ultimately Bush's WMD BS will be vindicated with no evidence behind it at all?
Also, the invasion was not soley predicated on the existance of WMD's or an active WMD program
No shit, and I never said it was. WMDs were the primary thing they kept harping on, because it resonated best with the American people who didn't give much of a crap about UN resolutions or any of that other stuff.
But since you obviously didn't notice, what we were talking about was how the invasion of Iraq may affected Iran and Pakistan, with the one I was talking to theorizing that it at least demonstrates that we will invade a country with WMDs. I'm saying it doesn't, they knew damn well we invaded Iraq because they were weak and non-threatening. We were not discussing the "Rational for the Iraq War" issue. Try to keep up.
Regime change, mind you (which does not necessarily require force)was an official US policy that came from the Clinton administration, and was furthermore part of the Bush administration's election platform (now that's a tidbit you won't see mentioned in most mainstream discussions of the invasion!).
So what. Regime change in Cuba has been the official policy for fifty years now, and since Kennedy who has taken any direct action? Obviously we wanted regime change in Iraq, but there was no move to actually do it. Hell, in early 2001, Colin Powell was giving speeches about how harmless Iraq was, how well they'd been contained and how well the sanctions were working. You remember that little tidbit?
I'm not a vocal supporter of the invasion. It was at best half-justified in my opinion, but it bothers me to no end to continuously see at least 99% of the discussions about it twist basic facts about something that happened only 5 years ago.
Since you didn't even know what the conversation was about or what facts were being put forward, I'm guessing 99% of the time it's you who is twisted.
Re:That's Not "Ironic" (Score:3, Insightful)
There's very little Qaeda in Iraq, and it's just a brand name some local assholes use to puff themselves up and get publicity (it works).
There's also no real evidence of Iran's special forces in Iraq. There is plenty of Iranian political force in Iraq, but calling Iraq's Shia Arabs "Iranian" is the kind of insult that sparks wars that kill a million of both of them.
Killed with US help to both sides in the 1980s. Including Rumsfeld selling Saddam the poison gas that were the actual charges that actually got Saddam hanged for.
But "foreigners who want to completely destabilize the region" is right on the money. 200,000 Americans can shout together "Mission Accomplished".
Re:That's Not "Ironic" (Score:2, Insightful)