Iran To 'Remove Fuel' From Bushehr Nuclear Plant 240
mangu writes "Iran said on Saturday it is removing the fuel from the reactor of a Russian-built nuclear power plant, a move seen as a big blow to its controversial nuclear program. The plant was first launched by the shah using contractors from Siemens. It was shelved after the Islamic revolution and it lay unfinished through the 1980s. In the early 1990s, Iran sought help for the project after being turned away by Siemens over nuclear proliferation concerns. In 1994, Russia agreed to complete the plant and provide the fuel, with the supply deal committing Iran to returning the spent fuel. The plant has faced hiccups even after its physical launch, with officials blaming the delays in generating electricity on a range of factors, including Bushehr's 'severe weather.' But they deny it was hit by the malicious Stuxent computer worm which struck industrial computers in Iran, although they acknowledge that the personal computers of some personnel at Bushehr were infected with it."
more concerned about israels nukes. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Facts please. When did Israel threaten another country with nukes? They don't even acknowledge they have them.
Actually Israel has used it's nukes as part of a threat when US aid was restricted.
Of course it wasn't acknowledged. But when you roll out a certain squadron from bunkers with the clear intention of allowing it to be seen by the people who know what it is, and the purpose of that rollout was to say, "We need aid, or these are all we have left to defend ourselves." The threat is quite clear.
Essent
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
That was rumored to happen in the middle of 1973's war, when Israel was on the verge of being annihilated. If that's the kind of provocation required to get Israel to even talk about nukes, then there is little from that end. Compare to Iran, which needs no provocation at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Israel has never threatened to destroy Iran
You sure about that?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133899,00.html [foxnews.com]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7440472.stm [bbc.co.uk]
http://peoplesworld.org/coincidence-israeli-palestinian-talks-to-open-israel-threatens-iran-attack/ [peoplesworld.org]
And of course the US has made similar threats against Iran:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/05/hunter-giuliani-on-using-nukes-against-iran/ [cnn.com]
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/10/ftn/main2908476.shtml [cbsnews.com]
But IMO, actions speak louder than words. Israel has invaded several countries within the last 50 years, when was the last time Iran invaded anyone? More than 100 years ago? With that said, I don't believe Iran should have nuclear weapons, but I believe it's hypocritical of Isreal and the US to keep a large stockpile of long range nuclear missiles while beating the war drums about how "dangerous" Iran is and that we need to invade them, and expect them to not try to defend themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Iran has invaded Iraq and Afghanistan well within recent memory.
Re: (Score:3)
Israel has stated unspecified relation and the right to *self-defense*.
Israel's definition includes "pre-emptively" invading countries and annexing chunks of them. To be fair, if said chunks don't contain any valuable resources they have been sometimes willing to return them for a large ransom...
Iran is not a democracy (Score:2)
I'd say the nukes were planned for places a bit closer than Israel. Iran would get almost nothing from an attack on Israel apart from an empty thank you from Syria and a schizophrenic reaction of both gratitude and extreme hostility from Lebanon.
Re: (Score:2)
You ignore the nascent civil war between the Shia and the Sunnis. In my opinion, Iran's leaders believe if they are the ones to knock off Israel, they will get a leg up on determining which is true Islam. Your opinion may differ.
Re: (Score:3)
Iran does not recognize Israel as legitimate and *routinely* threatens to "wipe the Zionist Entity from the face of the Earth".
The "wipe from the face of Earth" thing simply isn't true [wikipedia.org].
Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (Score:5, Insightful)
New York Times good enough?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/26/world/africa/26iht-iran.html [nytimes.com]
CNN International work?
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/ahmadinejad/ [cnn.com]
Washington Post?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102702221.html [washingtonpost.com]
How about the BBC?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4384264.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Now what the fuck were you saying again?
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I trust some other sources more than mass media http://antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025 [antiwar.com]. So it seems, what was reported was not what was said but hey, I am sure what was reported was calculated to sell better than what was actually said.
Back on topic of course, what is interesting is the problem of trying to get a 30 year old design to work, with Russian technology, using in part some German and US technology. Hardly surprising the first effort was not that successful when they sta
Re: (Score:2)
The translation came from the Iranian state news agency, leaders from around the world decried the quote, he admitted/defended the quote, Palestinians have been quoted as saying he should not have said that. That is enough evidence for most reasonable people to assume that that is at the very least what he meant.
Your source has a obvious slant (not saying it isnt an admirable goal) but that slant is to stop wars. So someone with a obvious stated slant like that does not make them a good source.
Re: (Score:2)
For you to accuse anyone of an obvious slant after posting what you have posted is incredibly ironic your realise?
Re: (Score:2)
None of my sources has an obvious slant, unless you would like to expand on the BBC, CNN, NYT, and Washington Post. Do you believe they have a slant?
You don't seem to understand either what I was saying, which is his source has an obvious slant. Which isn't Ironic because none of my sources has an obvious slant. Or you don't seem to understand the word irony.
Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (Score:5, Informative)
Please supply a source that it was mis-translated.
No? If you read my sources you will see stuff like this...
BBC...
Iran's president has defended his widely criticised call for Israel to be "wiped off the map".
Attending an anti-Israel rally in Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his remarks were "just" - and the criticism did not "have any validity".
Hes not claiming he was mistranslated...
Washington post..
Most Arab countries have no diplomatic relations with Israel. But the Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, said, according to the Associated Press: "We have recognized the state of Israel and we are pursuing a peace process with Israel, and . . . we do not accept the statements of the president of Iran. This is unacceptable."
Are you saying the Palestinians mistranslated him? You'd think they'd be able to get a good translation there.
Your WRONG! He said it, he admits it. The Palestinians even told him he shouldn't have said it.
Re: (Score:2)
NYT:
Admadinejad said, "As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."
I don't know how that doesn't count as a direct quote.
Same NYT source I listed earlier.
Re: (Score:2)
You can substitute "fuck" with just about anything you wish, and it is still a common English idiom. For example:
"Now what in the world were you saying again?"
"Now what the heck were you saying again?"
Or even simply:
"Now what were you saying again?"
All of these have the same meaning, which you seem to have completely missed. The so called 'profanity' is not intended to give offence, merely provide emphasis, and therefore should not be considered an indication of rudeness.
The more you know!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I suppose politeness is in the eye of the beholder.
Re: (Score:3)
In other parts of the world where people are more polite, it is not a common idiom.
You talk that way where I live and you get a punch on your face
If that's true, it speaks more about the politeness of the people where you live, instead of the people who utter four letter words.
In other parts of the world where people are more polite, it is not a common gesture to punch people in the face.
Re: (Score:2)
Zionism is not a race, it is an extremist political movement similar to Apartheid.
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong again:
Source:
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=zionism [princeton.edu]
Definitions of zionism on the Web:
* a policy for establishing and developing a national homeland for Jews in Palestine
* a movement of world Jewry that arose late in the 19th century with the aim of creating a Jewish state in Palestine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism [wikipedia.org]
Zionism (Hebrew: , Tsiyonut) is a Jewish political movement that, in its broadest sense, has supported the self-determination of the Jewish people in a sovereign Jewish national homeland.[1] Since the establishment of the State of Israel, the Zionist movement continues primarily to advocate on behalf of the Jewish state and address threats to its continued existence and security. In a less common usage, the term may also refer to 1) non-political, Cultural Zionism, founded and represented most prominently by Ahad Ha'am; and 2) political support for the State of Israel by non-Jews, as in Christian Zionism.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Zionism [reference.com]
Zionism (zanzm) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]
—n
1. a political movement for the establishment and support of a national homeland for Jews in Palestine, now concerned chiefly with the development of the modern state of Israel
2. a policy or movement for Jews to return to Palestine from the Diaspora
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing there says they are an extreme movement similar to apartheid.
I will not ignore your posts while you continue to bullshit. I will show you the sources that prove you are wrong. That way at the very least your lies don't muddy the water.
I'm not saying that Israel has treated the Palestinians fairly, I'm not saying that they haven't been assholes at times. I'm saying that there cannot be an intelligent discussion about the subject if we have lies being thrown around.
Re: (Score:2)
So Zionism is extremist because its your personal opinion? Don't state it as fact, cause without evidence, its a lie.
Cite a reputable source for a mistranslation, or your lying. I showed you how he admits those were his words, I showed you how others that speak the language spoke out against it. Show me something to prove me and my sources wrong, or your a LIAR.
That's the end all be all of it. You refuse to provide any facts to back up your OPINION. See my sig if you need help.
Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (Score:4, Interesting)
There are 400,000 links listed in that google query. If you cannot look at them it is your problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#Translation_controversy [wikipedia.org]
---
From Wikipedia , section on "Translation controversy"
Iranian government sources denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat. On 20 February 2006, Iran's foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference: "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime." [15][16][17]
Shiraz Dossa, a professor of Political Science at St. Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia, Canada, also believes the text is a mistranslation.[18]
Ahmadinejad was quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini in the specific speech under discussion: what he said was that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." No state action is envisaged in this lament; it denotes a spiritual wish, whereas the erroneous translation—"wipe Israel off the map"—suggests a military threat. There is a huge chasm between the correct and the incorrect translations. The notion that Iran can "wipe out" U.S.-backed, nuclear-armed Israel is ludicrous.[19][20][21]
---
It is not just my opinion that Zionism is extremist, at least several hundred millions of people agree with me.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Oh you left some stuff out.. like the fact that the original translation came from a official source:
The translation presented by the official Islamic Republic News Agency has been challenged by Arash Norouzi, who says the statement "wiped off the map" was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the "regime occupying Jerusalem". Norouzi translated the original Persian to English, with the result, "the Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."
The Islamic Republic News Agency is :
The Islamic Republic News Agency (Persian: ), or IRNA, is the official news agency of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
How did the OFFICIAL IRANIAN NEWS CHANNEL screw that up so badly? If I was a despotic leader, and my minions misquoted me badly enough to almost get my country kicked out of the UN, I think Id be pretty upset. Anyways you don't think erasing from the pages of history sounds pretty threatening?
Or you left of stuff like this:
In a June 11, 2006 analysis of the translation controversy, New York Times editor Ethan Bronner stated:
[T]ranslators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his website, refer to wiping Israel away. Sohrab Mahdavi, one of Iran’s most prominent translators, and Siamak Namazi, managing director of a Tehran consulting firm, who is bilingual, both say “wipe off” or “wipe away” is more accurate than "vanish" because the Persian verb is active and transitive.
Emphasis mine.
Go on now go find me a
Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, it is a call to wipe Zionism from the world (which is a very legitimate decent request), not a country.
So it's ' legitimate and decent ' , to call for the wiping out of a political movement ?
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess, you teach "How to lose credibility in online discussions 101" at your local university.
Regardless of what you think about the matter, you don't flat out defend "wiping zionists off the face of the earth". Not if you expect anybody to take you seriously.
Re: (Score:3)
A mentioned earlier in this discussion by another participant, the two are not distinguishable in any meaningful way.
I won't bore you by repeating the distinction, though I will say that my comment still holds true (you are still making yourself look bad), and I will furthermore argue that you don't use bombs to wipe out political movements. You use bombs to wipe out people.
Re: (Score:2)
You either have a very short memory, or your purposefully being obtuse. Scroll to the top of the thread if you must.
Re: (Score:2)
Zionism is Jewish Nationalism, to call that an extremist political movement like Apartheid, is to call Pan-Arabism or Arabism an extremist political movement similar to Apartheid. Or to call the American Indian Movement an extremist political movement similar to Apartheid.
Zionism is not racism and the only way now to eliminate Zionism is to destroy the Jews as a culture and a people.
The knowledge that there are people in the world who think destroying Judaism and Jewish identity is an option is exactly way
Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (Score:4, Insightful)
Zionism is not racism
That's a matter of opinion [wikipedia.org]. The main reason we have the palestinian problem is that Isreal will not allow them to return because recognising them as citizens would fuck up their majority jewish demographic. The gigantic palestinian concentration camps have a different history to South African Apartheid but the end result is the same.
Re: (Score:2)
At the same time Palestinian refugees were gathering in camps on one side of the front lines of the 1948 war, a comparable number of so-called "Arab Jews" were gathering in the reverse direction, cleansed out of Arab countries and into Israel. Israel is an enclave for a minority that the Muslim community has treated like crap for 1400 years.
However, the camps for Jewish refugees did not stay camps for long. The hellish camps, where disease and misery ran rampant, became towns, and are now prosperous towns.
Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (Score:4, Interesting)
Iran's politics are more complex than most people outside the region realize. Iran's parliament has at least one seat set aside for a Jew (with others set aside for other religious minorities). Ahmadinejad has certain powers, but may always be overruled by either Ayatollah Khamenei or the council that sits between the elected government and Khamenei. He's been put in his place by both at various times, and his position as president is purely by their graces.
It's no utopia for the Persian Jews. One of my former supervisors was from there, having fled with the fall of the shah because there was a strong backlash against the Jews present in several parts of the country. However, she still has (or had a few years ago) a large family there that did quite well.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I would be more than happy of all of those assholes nuked each other.
Let them kill each other and let their God sort it out!
If/when that happens the price of oil will skyrocket and the world's economy will take a substantial enough hit that every other country will suffer drastically. War in that region of the world - especially a war that could leave the land radioactive for a long time - will make transporting food so expensive that many in the world will starve or steal (and die trying as others protect their own). I'm not sure anyone would really be happy if/when that happens.
Re:more concerned about israels nukes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Or they could make peace with Israel. Seems a lot cheaper.
Re: (Score:3)
The current Supreme Leader is a religious and intellectual lightweight who is only still breathing because he does what the Revolutionary Guard tells him to do. Iran may have functioned the way you describe under Khomeini, but Khamenei is just a puppet, and the Guardian Council has been emasculated. Iran is now a thinly veiled military dictatorship, so Ahmadinejad is probably closer to those calling the shots that Khamenei.
Rambling summary (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Awful, rambling summary. Why is removing fuel from Bushehr "seen as a big blow to its controversial nuclear program"?
SPOILER ALERT! Read TFA SPOILER ALERT!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. Removing (possibly some of the rods or even all of them) for safety and maintenance is not something that never happened in other reactors. It is something that happens frequently in the world.
Why do I feel like epimetheus on this site... (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, maybe Slashdot should change it's title to "News from yesterday, stuff that might still matter".
I realize Slashdot isn't a news site, but seeing news or stories about things that happened days or weeks ago is a little ridiculous.
-rt
An awkward but possible choice for Pu production (Score:2)
http://www.iranwatch.org/privateviews/First%20Watch/perspex-fwi-plutoniumprocessing-0304.htm [iranwatch.org]
They'd need a reprocessing facility, and some way to handle undesirable concentrations of Pu-240, which decays by spontaneous fission and complicates bomb design.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If these facilities were for civilian energy needs (perfectly legitimate IMHO) then why bury them and hide them from IAEA inspection
To make it harder for Israel to drop a bomb on them, perhaps? You know, like it's been threatening to do for years, has gone so far as to plan out in detail and try and get US permission for, and has done before to Syria.
Re: (Score:3)
For the same reason that Saddam was refusing to allow weapons inspectors in. Iran is surrounded by hostile neighbours. It's a persian state, with mostly arabic neighbours. Actually using nuclear weapons would be a political impossibility for Iran - not least because it shares a border with all of the potential targets and the fallout would be as bad for them as for the enemy. However, appearing to have the capability to launch a nuclear strike is a pretty good deterrent against an attack - they probably
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Short of doing a difficult isotope separation on the Pu, I'd be quite surprised if they were able to make use of power reactor Pu for bomb production. The British and the US both did some testing toward that in the 50s and concluded it was impractical. It's far easier to set up a reactor with a neutron energy cross section that limits the amount of heavier Pu isotopes.
This is why the US and other countries were willing to build light water power reactors for North Korea, as the Pu would be difficult to dive
all this crap about israel (Score:5, Insightful)
i don't care about israel. israel doesn't matter: iran shouldn't have nukes because it is a theocracy. it believes in power invested in some grumpy old men who are believed to have a sort of monopoly on the interpretation of the will of god. this is not the kind of person i want with a nuclear weapon
this is the constitution of iran:
http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/government/constitution-1.html [iranonline.com]
you want a government who believes these things in possession of a nuclear weapon?
and please, don't get me wrong: i don't have any problems with islam. if this document was centered on christianity or judaism i would have the same repulsion. i have problem with religious power structures, period. some religious kooks who think some invisible mahdi dude will reappear at armageddeon, with freaking NUCLEAR BOMB?! self-fulfilling prophecy? hello?
no, no fucking thanks, no nuke for iran
again: i don't care about israel. i have no problem with islam. i simply have a major serious problem with religious kooks possessing a nuclear bomb. NO THANK YOU
and please, i don't want any asshole lecturing me about false equivalency: that it's the same as pakistan, or israel, or the usa, or whatever: no, it isn't really the same. iran is EXPLICITLY a theocracy. A THEOCRACY. do you understand that? it really is different than saying "well gw bush is religious". yeah, good for him. but the fucking government he is part of isn't based on the fucking pope or some rabbi holding all ultimate power. that difference is real
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Russia - which a decade ago imploded and nearly lost control (or perhaps has lost control) of nuclear weapons which cost us hundreds of millions of dollars to get under some degree of temporary security.
Pakistan - a nominally secular country in t
Re:all this crap about israel (Score:4, Funny)
I think we should give them all to Canada.
What? They'll change the pronunciation to 'noookes' and we'll never be able to get that voice out of our heads ... not to mention they'll eventually name a hockey team after them.
Re: (Score:3)
The Moose Jaw Loon Nukes
has a nice ring to it
Re: (Score:2)
no, we don't give them to canada
and no, its not ok for the usa to have them either. or france. or anyone
no one really deserves nukes. no regime is fit for them in my eyes
however, there is definitely a sliding scale of regimes who have nukes, and if you put canada on the top of your scale, you have to agree, iran falls down on the low end. so where do you draw the line between "i'm uncomfortable with this" and "no fucking way"
Re: (Score:2)
...
there is definitely a sliding scale of regimes who have nukes, and if you put canada on the top of your scale, you have to agree, iran falls down on the low end. so where do you draw the line between "i'm uncomfortable with this" and "no fucking way"
Right below Canada.
Re: (Score:2)
I am sure that is how things work in your world.
Re:all this crap about israel (Score:5, Informative)
India - a nominally democratic country that has nucs so it can ward off Pakistan.
I guess you are using nominally - as - existing on name only - right?
From this sentence, I take it that you have never been to India - and dont even really know about it. There are many negatives for India, but being non-democratic is not one of them.
Democracy is the most important thing in our collective psyche. And when people kick your country down on the biggest thing it believes, due to their ignorance - it really really feels bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I'd say India was much more democratic than the US, given all the anomalies (hanging chads?) in recent US elections, and all the influence of special interests in US politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Nominally means mostly
No, it doesn't. It means in name only, just as the GP stated.
MMM: Mass Martyr Machine (Score:2)
It's different because religious zealots are more likely to be suicidal. As evil as the Soviets were, at least they wanted to live. The didn't believe that a bearded dude handed out rewards in an afterlife for holy warfare victories. The Iranian theocrats may decide it's "worth it" to take us out even if it means they die.
I suppose they could possibly argue the same about the far right in the US. However, Christianity does not have a significant history of suicidal martyrdom (at least not intentional).
Re: (Score:2)
> It's different because religious zealots are more likely to be suicidal
They believe in an eternal afterlife, which means suicide brings you to your 72 virgins and happiness everlasting. That is the difference. They are not more suicidal, the consequences are just not quite the same.
>As evil as the Soviets were,
Marxism is a secular religion.
Holy prophets? Check.
Prophets have beards? Check.
A holy book? Check
A promise of nirvana? Check.
Belief that the infidel needs to be tamed or brought into the fold?
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
And add to that the intel the US gets from Israel and all the data about how to effectively combat asynchronous warfare tactics. This data is a lot more useful to the US if Israel is using the same weapons that the US uses.
And of course the dirty little secret of the Middle East is that most countries there like Israel. This has been confirmed by wikileaks. Israel actually does make the Middle East more stable and more democratic. Even Syria and Iran probably like having Israel around if only to distract th
Re: (Score:3)
"Actually in one war Israel could see Egyptian preparations and launched a pre-emptive strike on the Egyptian airbases."
WRONG. The state of war was already on at the time because Egypt had launched a naval blockade against Israel.
Egypt wanted a simmering war. Israel gave a boiling war. You can negotiate the terms of a peace, but
you can't negotiate the terms of a war.
" The US did not like this and did not supply ammo."
WRONG again. Israel was relying on French armaments at the time.
Re: (Score:3)
"You are in fact incorrect. In the 1967 War Israel is considered to have struck first."
The blockade was 6 weeks before things got hot. A blockade is an act of war.
Ergo, there was a war on. Egypt was preparing slowly for a low intensity war.
Israel prepared rapidly for a high intensity war. But the war was already on, and Egypt began it with a blockade.
Israel is "considered to have struck first" only by the ignorant and the haters.
Re:all this crap about israel (Score:4, Informative)
I'm happy you cite primary sources, but it's a bit more complicated than that, since Iran's theocracy is rooted in democracy and elected institutions.
Khamenei, the Supreme Leader, is chosen by the Assembly of Experts who are voted by the people; this is analogous to how the President is indirectly elected by the Electoral College. He in turn appoints the Courts and armed forces.
Here's a good flowchart [bbc.co.uk].
What makes it a bit harder for people to understand is that Iranians are electing a head of state who is also at the same time their religious leader (aka the marjiya), although many follow other Ayatollahs such as Sistani or Montazeri. Iran is not religiously homogeneous, there are about 25,000 Jews in Iran and they get guaranteed representatives in the Parliament as well as the Bahais and others.
Re: (Score:2)
I do see problem with election, when people start questioning election results and authorities try to suppress them.
Re:all this crap about israel (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The checks and balances inside the Iranian government exist, I just didn't think it within the scope of my answer to include them. The Iranian Parliament is tasked with duties of the Legislative branch, and has the power to impeach the President, the President has the Executive branch and is tasked with carrying out the laws, and the Supreme Leader has the power to appoint the Judicial branch and is head of state and commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and is chosen via indirect election (unlike the US
Re:all this crap about israel (Score:5, Interesting)
But the Guardian Council gets to decide who is allowed to stand for election. You're a reformer? Yeah the Guardian Council says that you're not allowed to run for political office.
Iran is actually closer to how the Vatican is run. Yeah the Cardinals decide who gets to be Pope, but the Pope gets to decide who gets to be Cardinals. This ensures that there isn't going to be a new Pope with radical new ideas like allowing priests to marry, or promoting the use of condoms in Africa, even if most catholics might want the church to move in this direction.
The Iranian government isn't doing what the people of Iran want, as indicated by the protests there.
Re: (Score:2)
The Guardian Council vets Candidates. Candidates must pledge in writing that they are committed, in theory and in practice, to the Iranian constitution. The council did bar a lot of reform candidates from office, which was probably a political move and could have been an abuse of its power. However, the existence of strict vetting is not that different from places like Israel. It is a requirement that you state your commitment to Zionism in order to run for office (Israel has a large Arab minority of 20% an
Re: (Score:2)
According to Israeli law: "A candidates list shall not participate in elections to the Knesset if its objects or actions, expressly or by implication, include one of the following:
The Israeli government is under pressure to ban Arabs from future elections under the pretense that they don't consider Israel a "Jewish" state.
Re: (Score:2)
IAmANutJob, Twelvers, Nukes (Score:2)
> some religious kooks who think some invisible mahdi dude will reappear at armageddeon, with freaking NUCLEAR BOMB?!
It is actually worse for the twelvers to have bombs vs some crazed Pentecostals having the bomb because the twelvers believe they can actually cause the chaos that leads to their end times scenario. Most Christians, even the end times types, would reject the notion that they can 'force God's hand', most even reject the notion we can know when the big kaboom is coming exactly. Not saying
Re: (Score:2)
Good old CTS, the same broken record, on Iran (He has a real bee in his bonnet about them)and yes, false equivaency. If you dont want people saying that you shouldnt do it, its easy really. DONT DO IT!
Re: (Score:2)
i don't care about israel. israel doesn't matter: iran shouldn't have nukes because it is a theocracy. it believes in power invested in some grumpy old men who are believed to have a sort of monopoly on the interpretation of the will of god.
that's the only reason?
and please, i don't want any asshole lecturing me about false equivalency: that it's the same as pakistan, or israel, or the usa, or whatever
The USA elected a leader who said "I believe God works through me" on national television and you don't think we live in a theocracy? In God We Trust, all others pay cash? I pledge allegiance to the flag united under God? Sucker.
Re: (Score:3)
the usa is not a theocracy. compare the us constitution's statements on religion with that of iran's. no matter what eisenhower decided to add to our currency in the 1950s, this little brainfart doesn't alter the reality of longstanding constitutional separations between church and state
but this is just intellectual charity at this point. to call the usa a theocracy is just loudly announcing how ignorant you are
i don't really understand you false equivalency morons
please shut the fuck up about israel (Score:2)
i don't fucking care about israel. i don't care if it exists for a thousand years or disappears tomorrow. neither occurrence would change my opinion about the THEOCRACY of iran having nukes
my opinion about iran having nukes has to do with IRAN. with the CONSTITUTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS of the government possessing nuclear weapons. in iran's case, and iran's case alone, a RELIGIOUS power structure is getting possession of a nuclear weapon. this really bothers me, immensely. and it has nothing to do with islam.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
A litttle bit of nuclear physics helps (Score:5, Interesting)
Civilian nuclear plants are not optimized for the production of weapons grade plutonium. The most economically efficient way to produce power creates Pu-239 (the bomb stuff) and Pu-240, which will result in predetonation in an implosion nuclear weapon. (It is totally impractical to isotopically separate Pu-239 from Pu-240 because they're sufficiently radioactive)
However, if you remove the nuclear fuel in a civilian plant prematurely, such as what Iran is doing, then less of the Pu-239 being produced will be turned in to Pu-240 (just a small amount poisons the reactor). And it can be used to make weapons, though a purpose-designed plant to make weapons grade plutonium is more economically efficient (e.g. graphite instead of water moderated).
This premature removal of fuel rods (and likely reprocessing) along with Iran's other actions show a renewed committment to producing nuclear weaponry.
Re: (Score:2)
There really is little doubt that Iran is in the process of making nukes. At this point, I think that we just leave Iran and Syria a simple message:
Blow a nuke on your soil and we will send in conventional missiles to destroy your bases and your ability to produce them. Blow a nuke off your soil OR send up a single missile pointed towards ANY nation, and all of our incoming missiles will have nukes.
Re:Why dont they just (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf12nHhz5XM [youtube.com]
This is what he's talking about. ... It's oddly interesting, but I prefer this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jC8JIjW2cw [youtube.com] (this one is special for it does something few other videos do).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
First of all attacking the computers of an operating nucreal power plant is quite dangerous as it might cause a meltdown if they don't act fast enough, and if there is an explosion or fire then the radioactive debris can be swept by the wind and blow into the face of the israelis and neighboring countries.
The computers that Stuxnet affected were controlling centrifuges that were attempting to enrich uranium, not in an operating nuclear power plant. In fact I don't think this nuclear power plant has ever been 'operational'.
Buying time is important. If enough time passes that some form of 'peace' can be established in the Middle East then Iran (and others) may not want/need to pursue nuclear weapons. If that never happens then buying time means using up Iran's limited resources which slows the process even
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What OS was that? (Score:4, Insightful)
Running a critical machine on a general purpose computer is a terrible idea no matter what OS you have. But it's also extremely common practice.
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC only the data display module was running on windows, not the controlling part. My father works in a medicine factory and you wouldn't believe how entreched Windows is there.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Stuxnet was created by some very determined people aiming at a very specific target. I'm sure they would have found a way in, no matter what OS they were running.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a pretty bad analogy. Yes, Iranians believe the antichrist will one day come and the apocalypse will happen, but people who believe in it are the type who are willing to sit and wait for it to come, and not try and hasten it like some Christian millennialists do (those are the ones who want the Dome of the Rock destroyed and the temple of Solomon rebuilt in its place, in the belief that Jesus will come back faster if they do).
As for the murdering of civilians, Ayatollah Khomeini categorically stated
Re: (Score:2)
> Yes, Iranians believe the antichrist will one day come and the apocalypse will happen,
The problem is what you call the antichrist they call the Mahdi. And they want the apocalypse for much the same reason they strap bombs onto their children, this life has no value. Even if you forget the religious aspects (foolish, since THEY believe it) actions speak clearly. Mutual Assured Destruction is not likely to be a deterrent against fundamentalist Islam because they don't object to dying. The Soviets did
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Get your crazy witchcraft out of here.
Re: (Score:2)