Iran Sends Monkey to Space

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Iran Sends Monkey to Space

image

"This monkey's gone to heaven." - Frank Black

People talk about Iran a lot. During the U.S. Presidential debates, Iran's pending ability to construct nuclear weapons was a major concern. Despite the objection of Mitt Romney, scientific development proceeds in the Middle Eastern nation. Today, Iran announced on its state television network that it successfully launched a monkey into outer space as part of its burgeoning space program. Iran plans to eventually run manned space mission, and today's flight is just another step in that process.

The monkey rode on a rocket - called a PishGam, or Explorer - reaching a height of 120 kilometers. That height puts the rocket firmly in Earth's thermosphere, but it didn't reach as high as the orbit of the International Space Station (~370 km). The monkey returned to Earth safely.

In 2010, Iran stated it launched a rocket which held various creatures including a mouse, a turtle and worms. The monkey was the first attempt to send a primate into space, and the success might mean Iran plans a manned space flight soon.

Of course, that has the United States and its allies feeling a bit cautious. I get the nervousness, but part of me wonders why it was OK for one nation to have nukes and a space program - i.e. the U.S. - and totally unacceptable for another. Is it terrible for the world to have access to all technology? Isn't that what the Internet and globalization and the spread of ideas is all about? Why can't we act more like we're in Star Trek?

Maybe that's why I don't work in the State Department ...

Source: CBC

(Image)

Permalink

Greg Tito:

Of course, that has the United States and its allies feeling a bit cautious. I get the nervousness, but part of me wonders why it was OK for one nation to have nukes and a space program - i.e. the U.S. - and totally unacceptable for another. Is it terrible for the world to have access to all technology?

We humans can't have nice things until we stop having religion.

and I also think it's amusing that Iran is sending monkies into space. Don't they have something better to do like stone women for not covering their face fully or something equally retarded?

Of course, that has the United States and its allies feeling a bit cautious. I get the nervousness, but part of me wonders why it was OK for one nation to have nukes and a space program - i.e. the U.S. - and totally unacceptable for another. Is it terrible for the world to have access to all technology?

It's somewhat hypocritical but ultimately justified considering the periodic saber rattling that emanates from Iran towards the U.S. and Israel. The American government is no angel but at-least we can trust them not to preemptively nuke another country because they contravene a particular interpretation of a millennia old religious document.

Ympulse:

Greg Tito:

Of course, that has the United States and its allies feeling a bit cautious. I get the nervousness, but part of me wonders why it was OK for one nation to have nukes and a space program - i.e. the U.S. - and totally unacceptable for another. Is it terrible for the world to have access to all technology?

We humans can't have nice things until we stop having religion.

Which raises the question as to why we let a country that was recently led by a man who said that God told him to invade Iraq have nukes.

How long until Islamists claim the Moon belongs to their imaginary friend? Now even our peaceful Moon bases of the future are under threat :(

Congratulations, Iran, may you bring us the future!

Because lord knows the U.S. isn't in any hurry to do that...

In a comical turn of events, the monkey turned out to be one man of the cleaning staff that didn't shave for a while and fell asleep on the job.

I wonder if Iran could secretly send a gorilla up to the ISS to wreak havoc. That would be devastatingly hilarious.

The Great JT:
Congratulations, Iran, may you bring us the future!

Because lord knows the U.S. isn't in any hurry to do that...

Amen. Sounds like the beginnign of a joke,doesn't it?

JoJo:

Of course, that has the United States and its allies feeling a bit cautious. I get the nervousness, but part of me wonders why it was OK for one nation to have nukes and a space program - i.e. the U.S. - and totally unacceptable for another. Is it terrible for the world to have access to all technology?

It's somewhat hypocritical but ultimately justified considering the periodic saber rattling that emanates from Iran towards the U.S. and Israel. The American government is no angel but at-least we can trust them not to preemptively nuke another country because they contravene a particular interpretation of a millennia old religious document.

Thank goodness the US is in no way a perpetual war machine that spends most of its money on military advancements at all, right?
I guess it's good for Iran, at least when they get the rest of their politics somewhat sorted out.

Who's in charge of their space program? King Koopa?

GamerMage:

The Great JT:
Congratulations, Iran, may you bring us the future!

Because lord knows the U.S. isn't in any hurry to do that...

Amen. Sounds like the beginnign of a joke,doesn't it?

Dear Science, This week I successfully dropped a child from space for wanting to go to school. Yours Religion

The Plunk:

Ympulse:

Greg Tito:

Of course, that has the United States and its allies feeling a bit cautious. I get the nervousness, but part of me wonders why it was OK for one nation to have nukes and a space program - i.e. the U.S. - and totally unacceptable for another. Is it terrible for the world to have access to all technology?

We humans can't have nice things until we stop having religion.

Which raises the question as to why we let a country that was recently led by a man who said that God told him to invade Iraq have nukes.

"If only Saddam had his own nukes he might still be alive today."

Besides, we DID invent them.

The Plunk:

Ympulse:

Greg Tito:

Of course, that has the United States and its allies feeling a bit cautious. I get the nervousness, but part of me wonders why it was OK for one nation to have nukes and a space program - i.e. the U.S. - and totally unacceptable for another. Is it terrible for the world to have access to all technology?

We humans can't have nice things until we stop having religion.

Which raises the question as to why we let a country that was recently led by a man who said that God told him to invade Iraq have nukes.

What could 'we' have done to stop them? Basically, nothing. Unless we wanted to go to war with them, which would just be the most moronic thing ever. "We're afraid you're going to go to war with us, so we're going to go to war with you!".

It used to be that just two countries had them, and things got spooky now and again, but everyone got by without any going off. The more people have them, and especially the more likely they are to be on a hair trigger, the more likely one is going to go off. High quality efficient American Made nuclear weapons won't leave as severe fallout as a less efficient weapon (it has to do with conversion of energy completing, a nuclear chemistry analog to your catalytic converter turning the carbon monoxide into carbon dioxide). Once the long term effects of testing became apparent, test ban treaties came out. But new countries to the club wanted to test them too, if not use them against their neighbors they tend to fight lots of wars with.

So nuclear nonproliferation became the buzzword. As in, no more groups of people get to have them, and almost everybody signed all those treaties.

Pariah states, especially those not signatory to nonproliferation treaties or in violation of them, will not be trusted, and no support will be given for their typically totalitarian forms of government.

The Plunk:

Which raises the question as to why we let a country that was recently led by a man who said that God told him to invade Iraq have nukes.

To be fair, not even Bush nuked anybody.

because 'other countries' follow a different religion, and that's scary.

Rainforce:

JoJo:

Of course, that has the United States and its allies feeling a bit cautious. I get the nervousness, but part of me wonders why it was OK for one nation to have nukes and a space program - i.e. the U.S. - and totally unacceptable for another. Is it terrible for the world to have access to all technology?

It's somewhat hypocritical but ultimately justified considering the periodic saber rattling that emanates from Iran towards the U.S. and Israel. The American government is no angel but at-least we can trust them not to preemptively nuke another country because they contravene a particular interpretation of a millennia old religious document.

Thank goodness the US is in no way a perpetual war machine that spends most of its money on military advancements at all, right?
I guess it's good for Iran, at least when they get the rest of their politics somewhat sorted out.

Call back when the U.S. is openly stating that it intends to wipe an entire sovereign nation off the map, until then a comparison is silly.

Just wait 'til another country starts building drones

The Plunk:

Ympulse:

Greg Tito:

Of course, that has the United States and its allies feeling a bit cautious. I get the nervousness, but part of me wonders why it was OK for one nation to have nukes and a space program - i.e. the U.S. - and totally unacceptable for another. Is it terrible for the world to have access to all technology?

We humans can't have nice things until we stop having religion.

Which raises the question as to why we let a country that was recently led by a man who said that God told him to invade Iraq have nukes.

That never happened.

Greg Tito:

Of course, that has the United States and its allies feeling a bit cautious. I get the nervousness, but part of me wonders why it was OK for one nation to have nukes and a space program - i.e. the U.S. - and totally unacceptable for another.

The US government is not in the habit of shooting people in the street for protesting about ballot rigging, nor does it ban women from attending sporting events, or sentence people to having acid thrown in their face. There are many things that can be questioned about the US but there is no moral equivalence between Iran and the US governments.

albino boo:

Greg Tito:

Of course, that has the United States and its allies feeling a bit cautious. I get the nervousness, but part of me wonders why it was OK for one nation to have nukes and a space program - i.e. the U.S. - and totally unacceptable for another.

The US government is not in the habit of shooting people in the street for protesting about ballot rigging, nor does it ban women from attending sporting events, or sentence people to having acid thrown in their face. There are many things that can be questioned about the US but there is no moral equivalence between Iran and the US governments.

I was about to say, come on Greg, it doesn't take much to figure out why, the hostility of their ruling bodies for one, the instability of the region, all sorts that make adding nukes to that mix, really, really bad and potentially dangerous for the rest of the world.

JoJo:

Of course, that has the United States and its allies feeling a bit cautious. I get the nervousness, but part of me wonders why it was OK for one nation to have nukes and a space program - i.e. the U.S. - and totally unacceptable for another. Is it terrible for the world to have access to all technology?

It's somewhat hypocritical but ultimately justified considering the periodic saber rattling that emanates from Iran towards the U.S. and Israel. The American government is no angel but at-least we can trust them not to preemptively nuke another country because they contravene a particular interpretation of a millennia old religious document.

As bad as it may seem, this is essentially why we cannot let the Iranians have a nuke. As of now, there exists a relatively stable balance of power in the world. The specter of mutually assured destruction has prevented any major wars breaking out between the world powers. However, as was the case in WWI, the entirety of the world is entwined in a series of binding alliances. Were someone to break the peace in a particularly flamboyant nature (Read: nuke) it could very well drag the rest of the world into a potentially catastrophic war.

Taking another standpoint, the two largest powers in the Middle East, Israel and Saudi Arabia are staunch U.S allies. Israel currently maintains the best equipped military in the region, while Saudi Arabia provides for around 75% of all the oil we import from the region, as well as the second largest military (after Iran). Of course, should the Iranians develop a nuke, they would then become the de-facto power in the Middle East. Having a nuclear equipped nation that is vehemently opposed to the U,S situated within a geographical area that provides the U,S with roughly 13% of our oil, is shall we say, not in the U.S, or her allies best interests. It doesn't help the Saudi Arabia and Iran have been involved in an arms race these last couple years, and the fact that Iran has, on numerous occasions, called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

Points taken. To be clear, I was speaking more from a "Gee, wouldn't the world be great if it was more like Star Trek?" perspective than offering a real assessment of the diplomatic situation in the Middle East.

It's funny, but I've never seen the Middle East invade Europe/USA, at least, not in the last few hundred years. Nor have I seen them nuke anyone. Actually, unless my history is madly off only one country has used nuclear weapons offensively against other humans...

BUT this is the internet, therefore it's all religions fault. All of everything is.

thiosk:

The Plunk:

Which raises the question as to why we let a country that was recently led by a man who said that God told him to invade Iraq have nukes.

To be fair, not even Bush nuked anybody.

As Verlander said, only one country has ever nuked another country.

Ukomba:

The Plunk:

Which raises the question as to why we let a country that was recently led by a man who said that God told him to invade Iraq have nukes.

That never happened.

Oh, right. Wait a minute - what's this?! http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

Verlander:
It's funny, but I've never seen the Middle East invade Europe/USA, at least, not in the last few hundred years. Nor have I seen them nuke anyone. Actually, unless my history is madly off only one country has used nuclear weapons offensively against other humans...

BUT this is the internet, therefore it's all religions fault. All of everything is.

To be fair Russia never invaded the U.S, nor have they detonated a nuke offensive manner.
Didn't exactly make them any less of a threat during the Cold War.

The Plunk:

thiosk:

The Plunk:

Which raises the question as to why we let a country that was recently led by a man who said that God told him to invade Iraq have nukes.

To be fair, not even Bush nuked anybody.

As Verlander said, only one country has ever nuked another country.

Ukomba:

The Plunk:

Which raises the question as to why we let a country that was recently led by a man who said that God told him to invade Iraq have nukes.

That never happened.

Oh, right. Wait a minute - what's this?! http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

First, there was never mention of nukes. The WMD's in question were Chemical weapons. So ya, that never happened.

Second, what some Palestinian claims the president said isn't proof of anything. It's like trusting those people who swear they have proof Obama was born in Kenya. Anyways, even if true, that isn't why the invasion of Iraq happened, unless god talked to all the congress as well, since they're the ones who voted on it. Unlike certain current military actions, the invasion of Iraq wasn't a unilateral derision by the president. Nice try though.

Lucky Godzilla:
Israel and Saudi Arabia are staunch U.S allies.

And when the media reports on those totalitarian Iranian nasty people, they somehow forget to mention the people in our loyal ally Saudi-Arabia don't even get to vote for their absolute dictatorial monarchy, with their rather strict Shariah-like interpretation of the Quran.

Lucky Godzilla:
Of course, should the Iranians develop a nuke, they would then become the de-facto power in the Middle East.

Israel has nukes.

Lucky Godzilla:
and the fact that Iran has, on numerous occasions, called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

If by numerous occasions, you mean the one time Ahmadinejad quoted Khomeini in 2005, who said "the regime occupying Jerusalem should be erased from the pages of time", which was then constantly referred to as "We gonna kill all Jews!", but was meant by Khomeini as "Just as with the Soviet Union trying to suppress Muslims, Israel will fail as well".

albino boo:

Greg Tito:

Of course, that has the United States and its allies feeling a bit cautious. I get the nervousness, but part of me wonders why it was OK for one nation to have nukes and a space program - i.e. the U.S. - and totally unacceptable for another.

The US government is not in the habit of shooting people in the street for protesting about ballot rigging, nor does it ban women from attending sporting events, or sentence people to having acid thrown in their face. There are many things that can be questioned about the US but there is no moral equivalence between Iran and the US governments.

This reminds me of that one Shah guy. You know, the totalitarian dictator the US put in power in Iran. Must be a unique example though--- oh wait,... King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Sultan Qaboos bin Said Al-Said of Oman, "President" Batista in Cuba, "Papa Doc" Duvalier and his son in Haiti,...
Wait, but some of those US-backed dictators had death-squads and worse! Oh right- it's okay to put people in power in several countries who murder people, abuse women, have harsh laws, etc... Yes, I see, the US government is objectively 100% benign and saintly.

Zombie_Moogle:
Just wait 'til another country starts building drones

Israel and France build their own military drones.

The differance is of course that not all societies and civilizations are created equal. Iran has to work out "little" issues like a seperation of church and state and women's sufferage before allowing to have technology of this sort should even be considered. Iran does not generally have a reputation for playing well with others, and like it or not whether there are any immediate plans to nuke Isreal or not it's very attitude about the fundemental existance of a Jewish state says a lot about their maturity as a civilization.

In "Star Trek" it's important to understand that there were apocolyptic wars on earth that nearly decimated humanity, a period which lead to a facist regime that made the nazis look like a troupe of girl scouts taking over the world, with what amounted to a "join is, live our way, or die" followed by mass murder and genocide. This facist regime eventually reformed once it had everyone in line into what became the earth goverment that started The Federation. A case of doing really bad things so you don't have to do them anymore/the ends justify the means at it's finest. A point made by Q in "Encounter At Farpoint" (the first episodes of TNG) where he showed the beginnings of The Federation and how when you get right down to it the morality is hypocritical as the very foundation of their society only occured through the usage of exactly the kind of fascist, mass-murdering, military strong arm tactics that Star Fleet runs around preaching against. This in of itself was in referance to some of Roddenberry's extended writings where I believe he also explained was that the big differance between the TOS "Mirror Universe" and the regular universe was whether Earth changed policies over a period of time or not. The "Terran Empire" fundementally being those guys you saw in "Encounter At Farpoint" in Q's court scene, this is also why they had an eagle emblem very similar to the one used by "The Terran Empire" apparently. I've read some stuff about it... and the point is that Star Trek pretty much makes a bad parallel to real world politics because when you get technical the bottom line is that everyone who is inconveinent to it's somewhat western/liberal/socialist utopian view had been either wiped out due to natural disaster, genetic themed warfare, or by the facist regime that pretty much conquered everyone and forced a single global super culture. Even in current Star Trek, there would be an obligation to disarm a culture like Iraq having technology gained from other, more advanced and enlightened people, that they are not progressively ready for. The fact that The Western World could develop technology and then have barbaric neighbors that have not even established the fundementals of an enlightened civilization (like seperation of church and state, sexual equality, etc...) and the chaos that can ensue is exactly why Star Trek has the "Prime Directive" and seeks to keep things compartmentalized so the planetary equivilent of Iran or Iraq can never obtain things like warp drive or photon torpedos and go on a space jihad, and also takes a fairly aggressive policing stance against cultures that turn out that way and develop the tech on their own (ie keeping them contained, or otherwise refusing to intervene unless they reform while another power like The Klingons come wandering by and enslave them).

All the nerd rambling aside, I've been of the opinion that we should pretty much invade Iran for a while. Unlike this other insanity in Afghanistan and Iraq though, we shouldn't go in there with some big plan of winning the peace and imposing a progressive democracy. We've already learned twice that you can't teach a monkey philsophy, it's a creature that's fundementally unsuited for it, perhaps in thousands of years of evolution it will wind up being able to, but that's not the case right now. Islamic cultures are the societal equivilent of that, you can try and teach them how to be progressive, enlightened civilizations, but at the end of the day if they aren't evolved enough to do it, they aren't evolved enough to do it. The new Iraqi and Afghani constitutions that specified the nations as "Islamic States" and the failure to acehive true women's equality (to the point of visiting women from other countries still needing to cover them) have shown that no matter what they are shown, they just fundementally aren't equipped as a people to get it. The most we can do is break their cultures to the point where they are harmless to the rest of the world while they hopefuly grow up. If they hate us in the meantime, so what, when they grow up getting over it will be part of it as they will understand what we did what we did. Towards this end I think the Iranian "invasion" should basically be a mission with a clear entrance, goal, and exit strategy... cripple Iraq's infrastructure and technology base, and decimate it's military to the point where followup strikes are possible when and where nessicary to prevent them from rebuilding it until they are ready.

It's not nice, but let me be honest. We have issues with Iran getting the missle range to successfully hit Isreal through it's defenses or worse yet fire reliably at other countries. If Iran develops the abillity to place their own Satellites that means they have the abillity to put missles on those satellites, and it's not like they follow existing treaties (being religiously driven), so any kind of agreement like there was between the US and USSR to not do things like this (or greatly limit it) as part of a cold war stand off is kind of moot. What's more MAD doesn't mean much to a people that believe god will literally protect them from the repercussions of their actions.

Whether or not the intent for these programs is for it to be "used peacefully" or even if it is in the short term, the potential exists. When Iran has the abillity to potentially produce nuclear missles, or worse yet put them on orbiting satellites, we're pretty much all F@cked because we're dealing with what amounts to an inherantly irrational theocratic society that routinely calls holy war, being in possesion of the abillity to wipe out entire cities, while themselves feeling that their divine direction makes this right and protects them from the fallout (perhaps literally).

Sorry... no.... them having this is a bad idea.

We could go back and forth about whether Dubbya acted in good faith or not. Truthfully I think he did, the US had dismantled most of it's intelligence assets and we acted mostly on international Intel, among other things trusting Isreal which had it's own motives in the region a little more than we probably should have. Others disagree with me, but that's fine.

The differance here is that Iran itself is saying "hey, we're developing these things, and look we just fired a monkey into space and recovered it!" whether it's true or not they want us to believe it, and have been working in that direction. Heading in there to wreck their tech base at this point isn't based on any declaration of WMDs by shadowy intelligence types and information analysts, it's due to the people on the receiving end dancing around going "hahaha, we have all this stuff, try and stop us!". If we go in there and it turns out Iran never had this stuff, that isn't exactly going to be our fault, and truthfully they will kind of deserve it for having provoked the attack.

I don't think many people here will agree with me, but that's my thoughts on the subject. I just call it like I see it. If I seem bigoted and judgemental about Iran and it's level of development as a culture, hey, it comes from listening to these guys for decades, and looking at the fundemental nature of their society and it's failings to do even the most basic things like seperate church and state and try and institute serious women's sufferage. Those two things are very basic societal developments that I believe need to be met before one can even entertain the question of a culture being progressive, advanced, or enlighented. If your society currently has barbaric policies and customs (even if it was at one time among the more progressive people thousands of years ago) then I'm going to treat you like a barbarian. Without meeting basic fundemental details like that I don't feel you evenhave the right to try and play tit for tat with other countries that have gotten that far (by saying one aspect or other of a society that has gone that far might be "wrong" or "barbaric" compartively... without the basics nothing you say and do as a people matters to me).

TheBelgianGuy:

Zombie_Moogle:
Just wait 'til another country starts building drones

Israel and France build their own military drones.

Israel is given Carte Blanche by the U.S. to do as they please, for more reason than I feel like getting responses for

& nobody cares about France

(not agreeing; stating facts)

This is the first step towards space exploration by a Middle Eastern country, yeah?

Good for them, I guess, a little weird that's coming from Iran though, not really sure how I feel about that.

TheBelgianGuy:

Lucky Godzilla:
Israel and Saudi Arabia are staunch U.S allies.

And when the media reports on those totalitarian Iranian nasty people, they somehow forget to mention the people in our loyal ally Saudi-Arabia don't even get to vote for their absolute dictatorial monarchy, with their rather strict Shariah-like interpretation of the Quran.

All those statements are true, yet ultimately irrelevant. I was arguing for reasons why the U.S would want to keep nukes away from Iran, not Saudi Arabia's human rights record.

Lucky Godzilla:
Of course, should the Iranians develop a nuke, they would then become the de-facto power in the Middle East.

Israel has nukes.

Unconfirmed, though unlikely. The real value behind a nuclear weapon is not the raw destructive power, but the deterrence. Basically, any nation that wishes to attack another would think twice should said nation be a nuclear power. Israel, which is surrounded by at best fragile alliances would be all to happy to announce if they were indeed a nuclear power. Surrounding nations may not be so keen to invade if Israel could wipe them out at a push of a button.

Lucky Godzilla:
and the fact that Iran has, on numerous occasions, called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

If by numerous occasions, you mean the one time Ahmadinejad quoted Khomeini in 2005, who said "the regime occupying Jerusalem should be erased from the pages of time", which was then constantly referred to as "We gonna kill all Jews!", but was meant by Khomeini as "Just as with the Soviet Union trying to suppress Muslims, Israel will fail as well".

Actually Ahmadinejad never made those comments in 2005, the one you are thinking of is
"Some European countries insist on saying that during World War II, Hitler burned millions of Jews and put them in concentration camps. Any historian, commentator or scientist who doubts that is taken to prison or gets condemned. Although we don't accept this claim [of the holocaust], if we suppose it is true... If the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe - like in Germany, Austria or other countries - to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe. You offer part of Europe and we will support it."

Listen, you claim that there was just one single quote that called for Israel's destruction. Simply put, you are wrong. I'm not going to waste my time looking up the myriad of these quotes, but nothings holding you back.

albino boo:

Greg Tito:

Of course, that has the United States and its allies feeling a bit cautious. I get the nervousness, but part of me wonders why it was OK for one nation to have nukes and a space program - i.e. the U.S. - and totally unacceptable for another.

The US government is not in the habit of shooting people in the street for protesting about ballot rigging, nor does it ban women from attending sporting events, or sentence people to having acid thrown in their face. There are many things that can be questioned about the US but there is no moral equivalence between Iran and the US governments.

This reminds me of that one Shah guy. You know, the totalitarian dictator the US put in power in Iran. Must be a unique example though--- oh wait,... King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Sultan Qaboos bin Said Al-Said of Oman, "President" Batista in Cuba, "Papa Doc" Duvalier and his son in Haiti,...
Wait, but some of those US-backed dictators had death-squads and worse! Oh right- it's okay to put people in power in several countries who murder people, abuse women, have harsh laws, etc... Yes, I see, the US government is objectively 100% benign and saintly.

Again, horrible but irrelevant. I'm not denying any of this, but when talking about Iran's efforts to obtain a nuke, these arguments are, once again irrelevant.

Zombie_Moogle:
Just wait 'til another country starts building drones

Israel and France build their own military drones.[/quote]

Greg Tito:
Points taken. To be clear, I was speaking more from a "Gee, wouldn't the world be great if it was more like Star Trek?" perspective than offering a real assessment of the diplomatic situation in the Middle East.

But Greg, we don't have any aliens yet. :(
The world can't work like Star Trek until we find aliens.

Lucky Godzilla:

Verlander:
It's funny, but I've never seen the Middle East invade Europe/USA, at least, not in the last few hundred years. Nor have I seen them nuke anyone. Actually, unless my history is madly off only one country has used nuclear weapons offensively against other humans...

BUT this is the internet, therefore it's all religions fault. All of everything is.

To be fair Russia never invaded the U.S, nor have they detonated a nuke offensive manner.
Didn't exactly make them any less of a threat during the Cold War.

Well, yeah, it kinda did. I think it's safe to argue that had they invaded the US, or attacked a nation with nuclear weapons, they'd have been considered a much bigger threat than the were. Also worth pointing out that the USSR were a political enemy - the US didn't consider the UK a threat, despite also being an active nuclear power. Such as in this instance, where Iran and North Korea are considered dangerous threats by the USA, despite doing nothing more than what several other countries already have done.

Greg Tito:
"Topic"

Welcome to USA circa 1948

Greg Tito:
Today, Iran announced on its state television network that it successfully launched a monkey into outer space as part of its burgeoning space program.

Totally read that as "bludgeoning"

Floppertje:
because 'other countries' follow a different religion, and that's scary.

To be fair... it's not all the other religions that are scary... just certain ones that will kill you in the street for some imagined offense.

Imp Emissary:

Heh heh... it's really racist because they are a different race...

Draconalis:

Floppertje:
because 'other countries' follow a different religion, and that's scary.

To be fair... it's not all the other religions that are scary... just certain ones that will kill you in the street for some imagined offense.

like... say... christianity?
but you're right. you seldom hear about buddhist extremists killing people.

Floppertje:

like... say... christianity?
but you're right. you seldom hear about buddhist extremists killing people.

Among them others... yes...

I wasn't going to be the one to say it though.

Floppertje:

Draconalis:

Floppertje:
because 'other countries' follow a different religion, and that's scary.

To be fair... it's not all the other religions that are scary... just certain ones that will kill you in the street for some imagined offense.

like... say... christianity?
but you're right. you seldom hear about buddhist extremists killing people.

Read up on japanese and chinese history. I have yet to find a religion that doesn't have at least one chapter stained with blood. At least these days buddhist tend to kill themselves in protest, rather than others.

OT; This children, is what we call a powder keg scenario. Something the greater part of the world understands is that Iran having nukes would not be a good thing. Chances are they would use them as a threat to get other nations to fall in line or worse actually use them. The real problem, however, is that Iran doesn't really give a flying flip about the rest of the world and it is not hard to see them selling nuclear weapons to extremists. And extremists WOULD USE THEM.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here