Iran fires rocket from space center
 

Amidst super-bowl furor, Iran tosses a "research" rocket up into the air, purely for scientific purposes, no military intent whatsoever. I particularly like the last line of the article, regarding the vague possibility that perhaps Iran is up to something sneaky here.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/02/04/iran.rocket/

Anyone else see this? Thoughts?

Why is their president wearing 3D glasses?

My prediction: Israel will soon blow up their hopes.

I'm not giving the Iranians a pass here (they are a nation led by nutty, fanatical theocratic wackjobs who want to impose their belief system and way of life on the ROW - nobody's disputing that), but consider this:

Why is it that every single time a foreign nation tries to develop a technology that will elevate it out of the third world, we (America and the west) feel threatened by it. Whether it's nuclear power, better aircraft, better submarines, longer range rockets, 128-bit encryption, a stronger economy, whatever. We are always the first to condemn it, claiming it "might be used for military purposes".

Well I've got news for you, ANY technology can potentially be used for military applications. Yes, some are more suited to it than others, but you can't "un-ring" a bell once it's rung any more than you can control who uses technology and for what purposes once it's out.

Maybe if we hadn't screwed up foreign policy and become so ham-fisted at it, we wouldn't have to worry about everyone else in the world hating us and wanting to attack us. You know, the old thing about not needing to worry about a big, mean dog or tough kid at school if you don't give them a reason to attack you? This little bit of common sense that any 8-year-old kid knows has evidently been lost on our "leaders" because their hubris overpowers it into thinking that any/every resource on the world is ours and we can do whatever we damn well please to go steal it - or that we're always going to be bigger and stronger than the "mean dog" or "bully". Very presumptuous logic. No wonder we're hated.

It's also worth pointing out that many of the technologies we enjoy (as a first world country) were directly created for our own military use. The Internet, jet engines, nuclear energy, etc. They were all developed first with military uses in mind. Yet we conveniently didn't listen to the ROW when THEY undoubtedly b!tched about it, did we? Yet somehow it's different when they do it.

Don't get me wrong here - Iran in particular is a nation that probably SHOULD be kept in the third world. They have shown themselves to be reckless imperialists sworn to destroy the way of life of a great number of the world's people, and to not respect national sovereignty, governed by blind and mindless religious fervor.

All I'm saying is it would be VERY easy for someone else in another part of the world to re-write that above sentence to read, "America in particular is a nation that probably should be returned to the third world. They have shown themselves to be reckless imperialists sworn to destroy the way of life of a great number of the world's people, and to not respect national sovereignty, increasingly governed by blind and mindless religious fervor".

Just something to consider.

It's all relative, and perhaps we should start looking in the mirror once in a while. . .

You're obviously not letting thousands of years of history get in the way of your anti-American thought process.

Diplomacy doesn't work with barbarians. It's still a land-grab out there.

You should spend more time studying history. You'll see that what is happening is nothing new, and certainly not the result of failed foreign policy.

Clearly, the leftist media has control of your brain. Free your mind, man. Free your mind...

Self loathe much Jeff? This isn't about Iran developing the jet engine, hydrodynamic power, or indoor plumbing. This is the development of a rocket that, with a little tweaking to trajectories, becomes an ICBM. With their nuclear ambitions, as well as the work they have done to that end, it's not a trivial thing. Considering the state of Iran, as well as their leader, I can't believe that you could attempt to connect this to USA foreign policy. The leader of Iran has publicly stated that he intends to wipe Israel off of the face of the Earth, how do you go about difusing the situation with policy?

Dude. They stopped developing nuke weapons. Crazy 3-D glasses guy said so.

What I can't figure out is how will they find Mecca twice a day from way up there?

I know, I'm not saying Iran should have this technology - I have no doubt their intentions are less-than-honorable, but ultimately I just get sick of CONSTANTLY hearing this line trumpeted from the administration - and not just in reference to Iran.

If it wasn't for our bumbling, idiotic foreign policy, we'd have a lot less to worry about when it comes to countries developing technology. If you want to kill a weed, you attack the roots, not the leaves. The root cause of this is not other countries developing technology, it's that we fear it because we feel threatened because of the stupidity of our foreign relations. Want to fix the problem? Fix the root problem before attacking all the symptoms, which only makes us look more imperialistic and more vilified in the ROW. . .

If Iran represents a threat to Israel (and I have no doubt they do), then let the Israelis handle it. Not us. We should butt out. Israel's problem, they can deal with it.

You could argue that Iran is currently in the Second World. Recall that these are Cold War terms. First World was the US and its allies. Second World, the USSR and its allies, and the Third World were the bottom of the barrel that the superpowers didn't think worthy of recruiting into their sphere.

hey, we agree again, but shouldn't there no longer be a Second World after Reagan killed it? Bush's failure in diplomacy that allowed the phoenix-like rise of Russia as an adversary super-power is just another piece to his failed Presidency.

we won the Cold War on military and economic might. Russia, China and Iran banding together under Bushes watch will have untold, negative consequences down the road.

After Israel, who do you suppose would be next? Not Canada, but close....

I'm not in any way defending GW's foreign policy, but it's dangerous to ignore Iran.

The entire region has been cowed by our foreign policy so, I'm not worried in the least. They will fall in line. It has been proven.

I agree. I'm not saying "ignore" in this particular case. The problem is that (1) it's getting a bit like the boy who cried wolf with us constantly crying about other nations' technological developments (Here we have a situation where there's a legitimate possible threat to us but gee whiz, haven't we heard this rhetoric a hundred times before?) and (2) the fact that it's ultimately attributable to our bumbling foreign policy and meddling in the ROW that creates the threat in the first place.

Yea, no kidding. And cancer wasn't cured on Bush's watch either. Here's a new bumper sticker for you: While Bush illegally invaded and occupied a peaceful sovereign nation, killing 600 thousand innocent civilians, millions more died of cancer.

Your analogy, and outrage, would work if cancer had been cured before Bush. But then it wouldn't, would it?

Russia acts in its own self-interest. I believe that you over-estimate the influence of an American president in reversing Russia's will to maintain high oil and gas prices (which accounts for around half of its economy) and the other shenanigans Russia (Putin) determines are in its best interest.

That's like saying Reagan's policies didn't win, or at least heavily contribute to winning, the Cold War. I thought you were a Reaganite. My apologies for assuming so.

You a big fan of Carter's now if I read you right?:D

Diplomacy is the art of aligning self-interests, not searching for soul's in your "partner's" eyes.

I look forward to reading your diplomatic scenario of where the US and Russia's interest align, regarding oil prices and Middle East stability.

I think this position is extreme. We only need to kill as many as it takes to make them say uncle.