Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday January 21 2020, @01:36PM   Printer-friendly
from the what-flight-trajectory? dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

Iran said Sunday that two newly constructed satellites have passed pre-launch tests and will be transported to the nation's space center for eventual launch, without elaborating.

Telecommunications Minister Mohammad Javad Azari Jahromi tweeted about the development, calling it an "important research step."

Iran has not said when it will launch the satellites, but often coordinates its launches with national holidays. It will celebrate the 41st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution next month.

Iran's largely state-run media say the 90-kilogram (200-pound) Zafar satellites each have four high-resolution color cameras and will monitor and transmit data on natural resources as well as agricultural and environmental developments.

[...] Iran has sent several satellites into orbit over the past decade, and in 2013 it launched a monkey into space.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Tuesday January 21 2020, @04:15PM (12 children)

    by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday January 21 2020, @04:15PM (#946378)

    "You dare to take our embassy staff hostage after we overthrew your democatic government and installed a white dictator who tortured thousands to suppress dissent!?!?" is pretty much the way the entire history of Iran-US relations has gone.

    You left out 2 significant developments in the early post-revolution period:
    1. They had the approval of the Reagan 1980 campaign when they kept the embassy staff hostage.
    2. There was that little episode where the US sold them weapons to be used against the Iraqis in order to pay for death squads in Central America.

    If I were in charge of US foreign policy, which I'm not, I'd embrace the democratic institutions within Iran and kick the Saudis to the curb. I mean, what do the Saudis have to do to not be a US ally? They're longtime supporters of the bin Laden family (including Osama before he became a CIA asset and went to Afghanistan to fight the Russians), most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, they were backers of ISIS, and of course their human rights record is absolutely atrocious. But hey, I guess they made George H.W. Bush a lot of money, so we'll let that all slide.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Interesting=1, Informative=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Tuesday January 21 2020, @04:57PM (5 children)

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 21 2020, @04:57PM (#946402) Journal

    "Democracy" is only something they pitch as part of foreign policy when they're talking to voters. The actual institutions of government operate the same way feudal rulers did, protecting long-standing alliances for their military value and stability regardless of their moral value.

    The House of Saud is our ally because we promised them that when they rebelled against the Ottomans in WW1. And that predates anyone else we promised to get along with. Well, that and they buy our politicians like candy in elections.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday January 21 2020, @05:33PM (4 children)

      by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday January 21 2020, @05:33PM (#946423)

      The reason I'd back the democratic institutions of Iran is that they're backed by the youth of Iran, who on average are much more friendly to the US than the theocracy is. Back during the last administration, John Kerry developed a pretty good rapport with that part of their government, and managed to defuse several of what could have been serious military confrontations.

      Of course, Kerry's efforts annoyed the heck out of the people who are mad that the US isn't blowing Iran to smithereens. The list of reasons they've provided for why the US should blow Iran to smithereens vary, but the 2 glaring ones are (1) they're Muslims, and a lot of people in the US want to murder every Muslim they can, and (2) they have oil, and multinational oil companies want that at discount prices.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Tuesday January 21 2020, @06:57PM (2 children)

        by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 21 2020, @06:57PM (#946478) Journal

        Were. They were more friendly. I'm not so sure "We'll make a deal, no wait fuck you more sanctions" won't create another generation of hate for us.

        • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday January 21 2020, @07:05PM

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday January 21 2020, @07:05PM (#946482) Journal

          And all those moderates who suggested 'deal with america' is better than 'death to america' are no longer in power.

        • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday January 21 2020, @10:05PM

          by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday January 21 2020, @10:05PM (#946546)

          I should mention that was precisely the reaction the war hawks in the US government were hoping for. They don't want there to be a possibility of negotiated peace between the US and Iran, they want to create the excuses to start a war with Iran. They came really close to succeeding earlier this year.

          About the only thing that I can think of that might convince the US hawks to not attack Iran is if they get nuclear weapons. I'm not surprised their government announced that that's exactly what they're going to do.

          --
          The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday January 21 2020, @07:01PM

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday January 21 2020, @07:01PM (#946481) Journal

        Well on the plus side I've already been called a traitor several times (right here) for saying maybe we shouldn't start another pointless war in the middle east.

        It's like 2003 all over. I feel so young again!

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday January 21 2020, @05:23PM (5 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 21 2020, @05:23PM (#946416) Journal

    They're longtime supporters of the bin Laden family

    What is that doing in the list of grievances? bin Ladens are just another rich family which happens to maintain a low profile like say the present day Rockefellers in the US.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Tuesday January 21 2020, @05:51PM (4 children)

      by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday January 21 2020, @05:51PM (#946441)

      Osama bin Laden wouldn't have been able to found Al Qaida without his family's money. And Osama bin Laden was at the very least in contact with his family after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Was the entire bin Laden family necessarily accomplices? No. Were they all innocent bystanders? Also no.

      At the very least, someone should have sat down with them and asked them about what they knew about Osama on Sept 12, 2003. Nobody did.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 21 2020, @05:56PM (3 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 21 2020, @05:56PM (#946444) Journal

        Osama bin Laden wouldn't have been able to found Al Qaida without his family's money.

        So what? Al Qaeda didn't start as a terrorist organization.

        And Osama bin Laden was at the very least in contact with his family after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

        "Contact" means what?

        Were they all innocent bystanders? Also no.

        You have no evidence for that assertion.

        At the very least, someone should have sat down with them and asked them about what they knew about Osama on Sept 12, 2003. Nobody did.

        What makes you think that didn't happen?