CNN banned in Iran for translation gaffe

[»nintendo64]

TEHRAN (Reuters) -

Iran on Monday banned CNN journalists from working there after the broadcaster misquoted President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying Iran wanted nuclear weapons, the ISNA students news agency said.

 

 

CNN's simultaneous translation of Ahmadinejad's lengthy news conference on Saturday included the phrase "the use of nuclear weapons is Iran's right."

 

In fact, what the Iranian president said was that "Iran has the right to nuclear energy," the official IRNA news agency reported. CNN later clarified in an apology on Sunday night.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060116/tv_nm/media_iran_cnn_dc

 

Makes you think, no?

 

-nintendo64

[Aileron]

I don't blame Iran for reacting that way. While I could be convinced that Iran might be pursuing nuclear weapons development, if that is their goal they are smart enough not to say it officially.

 

And, CNN's mistake damaged Iran's foreign policy and international image, damage an apology isn't going to undo.

[MonteZuma]

Heh. That was an unfortunate mistake. You can't blame the Iranians for being uptight about it.

 

Having said that, they probably do want nuclear weapons and the world should probably make sure that they don't get them.

 

Is it possible to build a 'docile' nuclear reactor that is good for making energy, but not good for making weapons?

[Manus Celer Dei]

Heh. That was an unfortunate mistake. You can't blame the Iranians for being uptight about it.

 

Having said that, they probably do want nuclear weapons and the world should probably make sure that they don't get them.

 

Is it possible to build a 'docile' nuclear reactor that is good for making energy, but not good for making weapons?

 

Yes. Although I can't remember why, but it is possible.

[Aileron]

You can't remember why because it requires a degree in nuclear physics or engineering to understand that. My father might be able to explain it, but I don't live at home so I have no clue how it works either.

 

I know one could build a reactor to increase the rate of aquiring weapons grade plutonium, such as how Chernobyl was designed (only once for obvious reasons).

 

That being said I don't believe that there is a way to have capacity for a nuclear reactor without capacity for a nuclear bomb. I think Plutonium is a by-product of the basic fission reaction, so its as impossible to make a fission reaction that doesn't produce Plutonium as it is to make a fire that doesn't produce heat.

 

If I'm wrong, which since I know very little on the subject I could easily be, I absolutely do know that it is still possible to make an old fashioned Uranium bomb with the same fuel you need to power a reactor. In some ways Uranium bombs are even more dangerous, because they are less powerfull, so you could set one off on the other hemisphere of the planet and it is unlikely anything will come back to hurt you, removing the M.A.D. effect of the nuke.

 

Iran is a far way from building a missile with that kind of range, but our military encounters with them proved that they are creative and suicidal. If they had one they could probably find some way to smuggle it in to whoever they wanted to attack. Also keep in mind that they are suicidal enough to face fallout from attacking Israel, and building a missile of that range wouldn't be that difficult.

 

Overall though, its still probably easier to buy old soviet weapons than make your own. Its probably cheaper and has much lower chance of detection by international monitering agencies.

 

Reality is that Iran probably has about two or three plans to acquire a nuke and drop it on Israel. They probably don't have it on them, but have a plan to get one within a week whenever they decide that they need to bomb something. What is stopping them is the fact that they can't even win a Jihad that way, because if they bombed anybody, everyone else would bomb them, and having the fanatical portions of the muslim community blasted into oblivian would end the Jihad real quickly.

 

Iran probably does just want the electricity, though more than that, they want off the "Axis of Evil" list. They are trying to wedge the divide between the UN and the US to get the UN to trust them more, and then get the US to follow suit.

[SeVeR]

I don't recognise Israels right to Palestinian land, i dislike America's foreign policy and i think nuclear power is the best way to generate electricity at the current time. Would I be portrayed within the media in the same way as the Iranian President if I was the leader of a country? I think Iran has every right to nuclear power as does any other country.

[MonteZuma]

Israel doesn't recognise Palestinian rights to 'Israeli' land. What do you propose should be done about the imp!@#$%^&*e?

 

Everybody agrees that US foreign policy sucks (except Aileron )

 

Under the NPT, Iran has a right to nuclear technology, but would you trust them with a nuclear weapon?

 

And yep...GWB would lump you in with the other members of the axis of evil and the media would probably support him. You'd be portrayed as some kind of radical socialist or terrorist sympathiser or something.

[SeVeR]

The creation of a Palestinian State needs to be top of the agenda for Israel (not sanctions that'll force the population into desperate attacks when they start starving to death).

 

Israel should have been created somewhere on American land like one of those states where almost no-one lives.

 

Under the NPT, Iran has a right to nuclear technology, but would you trust them with a nuclear weapon?

I would trust them. I think the level of mis-trust has been blown out of proportion by the UN, the US and the media tool that they use.

[spedhead]

i think we should blow iran and iraq to little bits

 

but thats just me

[Aileron]

SeVeR, keep history in mind. Iran can't really be trusted. The Russian proposal is a good one though.

 

Hey, and don't think I support all of Bush's decisions. I would probably have signed on to Kyoto if for no other reason than to help Blair out, and I definitely would've booted Cheney in 2004, and given Rice the VP position. I mean, us redneck conservatives know how to operate our firearms and don't end up causing hunting accidents. (Though we do from time to time shoot lawyers, but those aren't really accidental shootings. )

 

I also would have dealt with Iraq differently. I would've smuggled in weapons and black ops forces over the Turkish border to bolster the Kurdish rebellion. Then, I would've kidnapped Baathist leadership (easier said than done, but in the end probably do-able), and had the Kurds execute them in shame trials on the internet much like the insurgents are doing to civilians now. Then I would've had them hide from the reprisal strikes, until the Baathists start asking themselves who should be the next leaders. Then, and only then I would've directed the Kurds to start attacking in the open, waited a week, and only then would I have officially declared war and sent US conventional forces in.

 

I also would not occupy Iraq, but instead would pull all forces out, and then when the insurgents attempt to occupy again (they would have to, or else the civilian population would just let them rot in their caves and form a democracy without them), I'd move back in and take them out again, continuing the pattern of withdrawing, forcing the enemy out into the open, and then hitting them again as many times as necessary.

 

 

Ultimately, Bush's solution is both more righteous and has less moving parts to it. My solution would have fewer American casualties and the war would have been over faster as far as the public would be concern, but there would have been much higher civilian casualties, the Iraqi public probably would have hated us afterwards, and ultimately democracy would not have been guarenteed. In the end I figure that since my solution is much much worse than the one Bush used, I probably don't have the right to criticise his decision.

[SeVeR]

I think we should have left Iraq alone because they were not threat to us. They weren't even a threat to Israel. So why did we invade? Because Saddam is a dictator? Well there are many other countries ruled by dictators in the world. Because Saddam killed some of his people? Well once again this happens all over the world. None of these things sparked a war, only after 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan did Bush take his moment to invade. Could it be that Iraq is the second largest oil producer in the world? Could it be that Bush wouldn't have even invaded Iraq if not for 9/11 and the successful test-invasion of Afghanistan (supported by most of the public)? He chose his moment well, he used 9/11 well, he escalated the war on terror by giving deadly ambition to thousands of terrorists world-wide. May the thousands of people who've died in Iraq including the soldiers from all the participating countries thank GW Bush. May the 50 Londoners who died on July 7th thank GW Bush. May the people who died in Bali and Madrid thank GW Bush. May those who still have yet to die thank GW Bush.

 

border to bolster the Kurdish rebellion.

They are just another tribe who would do exactly what Saddam did. The media portrayed them as "the good guys" because they were against Saddam but they would have made the Shias and Sunnis into second class citizens in no time.

 

SeVeR, keep history in mind. Iran can't really be trusted. The Russian proposal is a good one though

Yes the Russian proposal is a good one. Why can't Iran be trusted?

[SeVeR]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4782930.stm

 

I say good on them. Paranoia is no excuse to interfere with and threaten another country.

[Aileron]

Ok, so by your logic we shouldn't arrest murderers, because there are a lot of murderers uncaught around the world. Nor should we arrest rapists, because there are many rapists walking free around the world. Nor should any criminal as long as they are not the exclusive culprit found on Earth.

 

The middle east was violent long before G. W. Bush. It was a violent place even before the US Cons!@#$%^&*ution was signed. I'd venture to say that the history of middle eastern violence is older than most of the countries of Europe. The only difference between now and then is that now they have the technology to actually carry out the things their ancestors could only dream of.

 

To think that Bush caused violence in the middle east is emotional.

[SeVeR]

Islamic society hasn't always been as hate-filled as it is now. Their hatred of the West has only materialised in the last or so with Israel and the big business for oil. Islam has traditionally been a much more peaceful religion than Christianity.

 

I don't see how you could assume i want rapists and murderers to roam free. I for one don't deny that they will inevitably exist on a grander scale in a society far less advanced than our own. The problem with interfering is we create more people willing to murder us because of our interference.

 

To think that Bush caused violence in the middle east is emotional

Try to read my post without pre-conceived ideas of Bush-hatred. I don't think he caused the violence in the Middle East, i said he escalated it. You don't need a lot of proof to realise that either.

[Aileron]

He didn't escalate anything, he just brought it from the fourth page to the front page of newspapers.

 

The fact that you hate Bush isn't a pre-conception of mine. This whole forum is filled with evidence of it.

[SeVeR]

So the attacks on London, Bali, Egypt, Madrid and recently at an American Univeristy would still have happened if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

The influx of recruits for Al-Qaeda (so many that they've had to close their doors to some) would still have happened if Bush hadn't invaded?

 

I'd say Bush has escalated the problem.

[Aileron]

Yes, I do think they would have happened anyway if Bush didn't invade Iraq and Afghanistan. If anything, those attacks would have been much more well planned and had higher death tolls if Bush didn't go on the offensive, removing most of their leadership and forcing the rest to spend more of their time running and hiding than plotting.

[Gravitron]

I'm uncertain as to how I should categorize 'sever' as...ignorant, guillible, stupid, loony, hater or fanatic?

Regardless, I think it'll end with the addendum of 'sad, pittyful, creature'.

[AstroProdigy]

Yeah let's take it easy on the personal attacks.