News What do you do with a problem like Ahmadinejad?

[Yonoz]

Where to begin, where to begin... And why does Iran have to rely on others to do things for them?

Because they keep making death threats on entire nations.

So that they can have Russian shut off the power and raise the prices like they did to Europe this last summer? Get real.

Fine, make it in Turkey - show that shining beacon of an Islamic democracy just how much you love 'em by giving them more jobs and money. Heck, just give Haliburton another contract in Iraq, I hear they get quickly through all the red tape. Money makes the world go around, and when the US wants stability that bad, money is not an issue.

If you are so worried about nuclear capability, let's take away Israels nuclear technology while were at it and let Russia supply them with it as well. Sounds fair to me, no?

Only Israel is not run by Ayatollahs and does not constantly threaten to wipe Iran off the map.

Yes, and Israel can't even get back 2 troops after laying waste to Lebanon. So you think the US and Israel are going to defeat Iran by some mircale? That's what we call a pipe dream.

The destruction in Lebanon was caused by Hizbullah's use of civilian neighbourhoods and villages to attack Israeli civilians. I don't think anyone in their right minds would think knocking down buildings in Beirut will simply prompt Hizbullah to come out with their hands up and hand over the soldiers. Consider the possibility that Israel did not recover the troops because it could not have done so without prompting a larger scale conflict. We too can see different shades of grey. Out we come the responsible ones, yet again, only to be completely disregarded, and perhaps even ridiculed. Perhaps next time we will satisfy our ruthless conqueror image.
Nuclear weapons programs and 2 kidnapped soldiers to be retrieved alived are not quite the same thing. You can hide centrifuges and reactors in a very deep hole, but every hole has an entrance and vents. Cruise and guided missiles can be fired from hundreds of kilometres away. The Americans have really big bombs - the infamous bunker buster bombs contain surplus cannons. I bet they thought of something.

 

[Yonoz]

Bullying, threats, coercion . . . are not the ways to lead to a stable future.

Do you think the west has not exhausted the diplomatic route?

 

[kyleb]

kyleb, allow me to diverge from our regular skirmishes.
Do you honestly believe Iran, a country with quite a bit of oil, requires a nuclear program for research purposes?

I'm not looking for a skirmish, I'm just wondering where you got your conclusion when you said:

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/01/280f9a59-88b6-489b-bd03-f76267db36fa.html" .

If you'd please explain that first, then I'd be happy to move on to your question.

 

[Gokul43201]

I just skimmed the article and it seems it is about two and a half year old speculation, could you quote what you believe backs up your conclusion?

Speculation? Are you denying that Iran bought weapons technology from AQ Khan, or just unaware of it? It is almost universally accepted - especially after his public admission - that the AQ Khan network sold centrifuge technology and parts to Iran.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/pakistan/khan.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan

In January 2004, he confessed to having been involved in a clandestine international network of nuclear weapons technology proliferation from Pakistan to Libya, Iran and North Korea.

 

[Hurkyl]

I don't, nor did I state as such

How can you think that Bush proved that violence isn't a solution unless you think that Bush executed the violent approach as best as could possibly be done?

I don't see that the situation is "no-win" at this point.
...
This needs to be further explored. I don't believe 'it is too late'.

Okay. But can you offer reasons for your beliefs? Your first post simply expressed hope that Iran really wants to be peaceful. Is that all you got?

I am not as naive, nor blind, as one seems to be inferring. I prefer to 'give peace a chance'.

That certainly sounds naïve and blind...


(and, incidentally, waiting might not be the best approach to achieve a peaceful outcome either)

Can you find this quote, I would be interested to see it.

One day I'll learn to save references to these things.

 

[Astronuc]

Do you think the west has not exhausted the diplomatic route?

Good question. Actually - I don't think they have seriously tried.

How can the west be serious about diplomacy, when Bush is in the background talking about the military option.

Of course, we only know what has been released in public, so we don't know what has been said/discussed behind the scenes.

"Many" does not a majority make. . . . Iranians, I think and hope, are more progressive, but considering that they elected Ahmedinejad (whose views on Israel, among other things, were well known) overwhelmingly, they can't feel that differently on a majority of issues from his stated opinions.

What I don't know is whether the "many" are a minority or majority, but I am also not willing to dismiss Muslims as a single group, just like 'the west' is not a homogenous population.

The election of Ahmedinejad is certainly problematic. But how much of that was a reaction to Bush and his belligerent policies?

Reagan and Thatcher blew opportunities with Gorbachev, and look where Russia is now. It could have been so much better.

We are now paying dearly for the sins of the past. I would prefer not to continue with the same failed policies.

 

[Lisa!]

Russian needs its electricity. On the other hand, Russia's proposal has been to supply fuel to the Iran and 'take back' the spent fuel, which is a policy Russia had with all its E. European neighbors during the cold war and in some cases since. So there would be no reprocessing or long term waste disposal in Iran.

Also, Iran could build highly efficient combined cycle plants which use less thermal energy for a given amount of electrical energy, and out in the desert areas, they could build solar power stations.

So Iran does not need nuclear energy at this point.

Does that mean other countries like yours only try to get something base of theirpresent needs? Hmm does that mean they need nuclear weapons for killing people and that's pretty vital for them? and why other countries have the right to use both nuclear and so;ar power at the same time but Iran doesn't?

BTW, I have a question from you since you're a nuclear expert. what do you think of the future of a country withought uclear science and technology?

The people in Afghanistan for instance, were overwhelmingly in support of the execution of Abdul Rahman for his conversion from Islam. Iranians, I think and hope, are more progressive, but considering that they elected Ahmedinejad (whose views on Israel, among other things, were well known) overwhelmingly, they can't feel that differently on a majority of issues from his stated opinions.

Why would you people think that Iranian elected Ahmadinejad because of his views on Israel?

 

[kyleb]

Speculation? Are you denying that Iran bought weapons technology from AQ Khan, or just unaware of it? It is almost universally accepted - especially after his public admission - that the AQ Khan network sold centrifuge technology and parts to Iran.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/pakistan/khan.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan

Could you find anything in the article Yonoz linked which backs the clam he made when presenting it? If so, could you please quote that portion of the article? I'd like to clear that up first before moving on to what you posted.

 

[Gokul43201]

Why would you people think that Iranian elected Ahmadinejad because of his views on Israel?

I didn't say that. I believe that, given a field of candidates, the people vote for the one that closest shares their ideas on how things ought to be. Israel is only one of many aspects of this.

I think I can understand why women would want to vote for him - from what I've read, he's been quite supportive of reform that treats women less harshly than before (and I hope that's what the majority of women want). I have no idea however, what percentage of the voting public is female; I've imagined this fraction to be small, but I hope I'm wrong. And I'm sure his strongly anti-American agenda resonated with a lot of people, but this is mostly second-hand information and some speculation. Also, maybe I'm just terribly disappointed because I always thought Karroubi had a good chance, and I was rooting for him (didn't care for either Ahmadinejad or Rafsanjani).

But you're the best preson to tell us why someone who was so loyal to al Khamenei did so well, especially in the second round.

 

[Yonoz]

I'm not looking for a skirmish, I'm just wondering where you got your conclusion when you said:

If you'd please explain that first, then I'd be happy to move on to your question.

Astronuc asked an identical question, and I answered it.

I stand corrected, but it is nevertheless quite clear from the article that the technology was transferred in a deal to allow all 3 nations: Pakistan, Iran and North Korea to benefit from each other's advances to produce a nuclear balistic missile program. Obviously some will disagree but I think they would not be so happy about having a nuclear-capable Islamic fundamentalist neighbour whose leaders repeatedly describe the destruction of their state as a noble goal.

 

[Cyrus]

"Many" does not a majority make.

The people in Afghanistan for instance, were overwhelmingly in support of the execution of Abdul Rahman for his conversion from Islam. Iranians, I think and hope, are more progressive, but considering that they elected Ahmedinejad (whose views on Israel, among other things, were well known) overwhelmingly, they can't feel that differently on a majority of issues from his stated opinions.

Gokul,.....does the majority of Americans overwhelimingly feel the same on what Bush has to say?

Are all Americans right wing conservative christians? Ok, exactly...

 

[Cyrus]

Because they keep making death threats on entire nations.
Fine, make it in Turkey - show that shining beacon of an Islamic democracy just how much you love 'em by giving them more jobs and money. Heck, just give Haliburton another contract in Iraq, I hear they get quickly through all the red tape. Money makes the world go around, and when the US wants stability that bad, money is not an issue.
Only Israel is not run by Ayatollahs and does not constantly threaten to wipe Iran off the map.

This is more fantasy... Why not give Israeli power to Iran?

The destruction in Lebanon was caused by Hizbullah's use of civilian neighbourhoods and villages to attack Israeli civilians. I don't think anyone in their right minds would think knocking down buildings in Beirut will simply prompt Hizbullah to come out with their hands up and hand over the soldiers.

REALLLYYYY? That's not what Tsipi Livini, Foreign Minister of Israel, seems to have said. She said the goals the military wanted. It was caused because Israel, like always, wants to bomb first and ask questions later.

LIVNI: I know that. I know that. There`s a difference - there is a gap between what I expected from the army to begin with and the expectations of the public. And it was also changed in terms of -- during this month it was changed. I think it is clear that the military operation cannot bring back the hostages back home. It`s not enough, a military operation. And knowing that, Israel decided knowingly to attack Hezbollah and not to attack the Lebanese government. This is a very complicated situation.

ROSE: But the people that the Lebanese government represented suffered greatly?

LIVNI: Well, everybody .

ROSE: And the Israeli people were suffering greatly too.

LIVNI: Israelis and Lebanese suffered but there was a strategic decision. We could have attacked Lebanon and this could be an easy job in a way, because the Israeli army is weak and we could targeted the infrastructure of Lebanon and we were asked to by our chief-of-staff. And the military forces.

ROSE: They wanted you to do what, to go all out and declare war against Lebanon.

LIVNI: Yes, and to hit the Lebanese infrastructure, the electricity, water and all the others and we said - and we were asked.

ROSE: But that would be madness, would it not? It would lead you -- the entire country would be led into war with Israel, not Hezbollah and it would also lead other surrounding Arab countries to have to make a decision about what they would do.

LIVNI: You`re right. From a military perspective, this could have been an easy operation. But we were responsible in a way and we decided not do it. And since the first day of the operation, we asked by the international community not to undermine the Lebanese government and we accepted.

So the operation became very complicated because it is very difficult to target Hezbollah members which are hiding within, among the civilian population in the south part of Lebanon, targeting Israel and there`s a difference because we were looking for -- our forces were looking for the Hezbollah among the civilian populations and to target only the terrorists while they were targeting Israeli civilian population centers in order to kill civilians.

So it is two different battles from two different sides. And it became -- it is more complicated goal for an army to fight against guerillas or terrorists and not against a state.

So the goal is, you asked me at the beginning what is the goal? The goal is to end a state with the border hoping that Lebanon will be a functioning state and not a state with weak government, with a terrorist organization like militias and maybe this is not only the future but this is also the role of the international community to pressure, to put the pressure on Lebanon to change.

ROSE: It has been said that you wanted to use diplomacy earlier.

LIVNI: Yes. Yes.

ROSE: And the prime minister said no. Reigned you in, said I don`t want you to go do that now. There is a time later for talk after we achieve our military objectives.

LIVNI: Tough question in tough days. It is true that, as I said before, my expectations from the army were limited.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4005416540334575462&q=type%3Atvshow

But I digress, back to the topic of Iran...

You can hide centrifuges and reactors in a very deep hole, but every hole has an entrance and vents. Cruise and guided missiles can be fired from hundreds of kilometres away. The Americans have really big bombs - the infamous bunker buster bombs contain surplus cannons. I bet they thought of something.

Sorry, don't be fooled into thinking precision weapons are a godsend. They don't work that well. This is more nonsense. Most guided bombs dont hit their intended targets.

 

[Cyrus]

Do you think the west has not exhausted the diplomatic route?

What, have we not explained to you enough times already that the US is willing not talking to Iran, Syria, or Palestine? I think it was explicit. You can read it for yourself online if you don't believe me. You have some bad information... Iran and the US has not had serious talks in 30 years. Is this your idea of "exhausted the diplomatic route!?" When Iran has openly stated it wants talks? Are you just posting whatever you feel like typing? (no disrespect Yonoz, but come on!)

 

[Gokul43201]

Gokul,.....does the majority of Americans overwhelimingly feel the same on what Bush has to say?

When he was elected, in 2000 and 2004, a narrow majority of the US electorate did agree with Bush on (more than half of the relevant issues at the time, or so I imagine. Bush won by a single state in 04' with a 2% margin on the popular vote. Ahmedinejad won by a 25% margin in the run-off. Perhaps 'overwhelming' is a poor adjective - maybe 'by a wide margin' is a better description.

Are all Americans right wing conservative christians? Ok, exactly...

What? Where are you going with this question? But to answer it, no. So?

 

[Cyrus]

Well, with all due respect, what you said seemed out there.

I think I can understand why women would want to vote for him - from what I've read, he's been quite supportive of reform that treats women less harshly than before (and I hope that's what the majority of women want).

Are you suggesting that somewhere women want to be treated harshly?

Iranians, I think and hope, are more progressive, but considering that they elected Ahmedinejad (whose views on Israel, among other things, were well known) overwhelmingly, they can't feel that differently on a majority of issues from his stated opinions.

Yessss, and a majority voted for Bush. But his support is dwindling right now. That's how you win any election. You have to have a majority. That does not imply everyone thinks that way or continues to think that way. It is dynamic with time. But if Bush wants to ignore Iran and not have serious talks with them when Iran wants to, then that support for Ahmedinejad will rise because then their population will say, "see look at the US, all they do is make threats and won't even talk with us." Why do you think Iranians want nuclear technology so badly? Because someone else tells them they are not good enough to have it? This goes back to what Astronuc said. "Iran does not need nuclear technology" Says who? The president says they do, and their country does. That's their prerogative.

 

[Astronuc]

Does that mean other countries like yours only try to get something base of theirpresent needs? Hmm does that mean they need nuclear weapons for killing people and that's pretty vital for them? and why other countries have the right to use both nuclear and so;ar power at the same time but Iran doesn't?

I think most countries have policies based somewhat on perceived needs, whether economics/trade or security. After the US and Britain developed their nuclear weapons, Russia, France and China were not far behind. The latter developed nuclear weapons because the other guys had such weapons. The Israel (unofficially), India, Pakistan, N. Korea, have developed nuclear weapons. S. Africa had a program. With the exception of the two bombs used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear weapons have not been used in war, but have been used defensively as a threat.

All nations, in theory have a right to develop nuclear energy, going back to the UN's Atoms for Peace program, and NPT.
See - http://www.iaea.org/About/index.html
http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=nd03weiss

The practical problem concerns those nations like N. Korea and other states who have gone outside the bounds international agreements/policies to develop nuclear weapons. Then it is a matter of international security, which is the current issue with NK and Iran. If Iran, would recognize Israel's right to exist and stop support for groups like Hizbullah, then the issue of nuclear technology would be entirely different than it is now.

BTW, I have a question from you since you're a nuclear expert. what do you think of the future of a country withought uclear science (nuclear science) and technology?

Well, the demand for oil, gas and coal is increasing as China's and India's economies grow, and other developing nations will want similar development. Oil and gas are finite, and nuclear (also finite) is being considered or reconsidered by many nations. How soon oil and gas will be substantially depleted is a hot topic. Apparently the tar sands in Alberta are looking very attractive.

Nuclear is being touted as a solution to 'green house' gases. Current U-resources are limited, but could be extended with reprocessing and recycling of residual U-235 and Pu-239. Thorium could contribute to the energy reserves, and that involves breeding of U-233. It would seem there is a future for nuclear. Nuclear technology is a double-edged sword - it can be used peacefully, and it can be used in very destructive weapons. And then there is the waste issue.

However, I think renewable sources of energy, e.g. solar and wind, need to be developed as much as possible.

 

[Gokul43201]

Are you suggesting that somewhere women want to be treated harshly?

I'm suggesting that people can be brainwashed...and I know it's true. People from extremely conservative backgrounds often choose what to you or me would sound ridiculous. Christianity, Hinduism, Islam (and probably a host of other religions) are overtly male-dominated, yet women willingly participate. Why do Mormon women accept an unfair deal - because they are told that it is the right way, and one that will lead to favor in the afterlife? Why do followers of Opus Dei practice self-mutilation? There are millions of people that subject themselves willingly to what we might consider unfair treatment, stupidity or masochism. There are millions still who are waiting for the day they will be freed of such shackles.

Yessss, and a majority voted for Bush. But his support is dwindling right now. That's how you win any election. You have to have a majority. That does not imply everyone thinks that way or continues to think that way.

I never used the word 'everyone', so this argument must not be directed at me.

 

[Astronuc]

Journalist Anthony Shadid Discusses Lebanon
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5690023

Fresh Air from WHYY, August 22, 2006 · Anthony Shadid of The Washington Post has been reporting from Lebanon. Shadid won the Pulitzer Prize in 2004 for international reporting. His latest book, Night Draws Near: Iraq's People in the Shadow of America's War, has just come out in paperback. Shadid is of Lebanese descent and grew up in Oklahoma City, Okla.

Interesting perspective by Shadid who was in S. Lebanon during the conflict. Shadid makes a comment that he did not observe Hizbollah fighters amongst the civilian population. Well, he probably wasn't everywhere, but one must decide for oneself.

 

[Astronuc]

When he was elected, in 2000 and 2004, a narrow majority of the US electorate did agree with Bush on (more than half of the relevant issues at the time, or so I imagine. Bush won by a single state in 04' with a 2% margin on the popular vote.

Actually, Gore won a majority of the popular vote by a slim margin in the 2000 election, but not the electoral vote - that is what the Florida controversy was all about.

 

[edward]

First we giveth and now we must taketh away.

In the 1980's We helped arm Iraq at the same time we were selling weapons to Iran.
But even before that we did this:

An irony in the international struggle to get Iran to stop enriching uranium is that the United States gave Iran its first reactor, the Chicago Tribune reports.
The dome-shaped Tehran Research Reactor was given to the country as part of a U.S. Cold War strategy to help the shah, who was also against the Soviet Union. Compounding the irony in today's stand-off is that the U.S. government also supplied Iran with 10 pounds of weapons-grade uranium needed to power the facility, and which is likely still there, the newspaper said.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi/20060824-090656-8012r.htm

 

[kyleb]

Astronuc asked an identical question, and I answered it.

But you haven't explained how you got from the speculation in the article to your claim that it is "quite clear" Iran has nuclear missile program. Could you please quote whatever part of that article you think backs your claim?

 

[Astronuc]

But you haven't explained how you got from the speculation in the article to your claim that it is "quite clear" Iran has nuclear missile program. Could you please quote whatever part of that article you think backs your claim?

In all fairness to Yonoz, it is well known that Iran has a ballistic missile program, and that such missile could carry an appropriately sized nuclear warhead. Since Iran does not yet have such a warhead, they do not yet have a nuclear missile, but they very likely have the plans.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jdw/jdw041206_1_n.shtml
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4144563.html
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/39332.pdf#search=""Iran","Ballistic Missile""
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/31/world/main1460846.shtml
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-03-31-iranmissile_x.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190696,00.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/27/iran.missile.reut/

 

[kyleb]

I don't suppose I could get a bit of fairness for my question in the form of a direct answer. Do you see anything you can quote in the article Yonoz linked (or yours for that matter) that backs his claim?

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't suppose I could get a bit of fairness for my question in the form of a direct answer. Do you see anything you can quote in the article Yonoz linked (or yours for that matter) that backs his claim?

I thought his was the claim, and I quote:

Iran has purchased nuclear weapons-only technology from Pakistan.

But according to you:

But you haven't explained how you got from the speculation in the article to your claim that it is "quite clear" Iran has nuclear missile program.

I no longer have any idea what claim you are you are talking about.

If you are talking about the "claim" I quoted above, I believe AQ Khan's own admission is sufficient support for it. If you require that the evidence be found only in a particular article (which I haven't read yet), you are nitpicking for no good reason. Maybe the wrong article was linked - so what?

 

[ptabor]

I didn't read all the replies, so this may have been said before.

To me, it's a matter of simple logic: of COURSE they are trying to build a bomb. They would be complete and utter fools NOT to.

Come on, the commander in chief of the most powerful military on the planet calls your nation, alongside with Iraq (which has already been invaded) and North Korea, part of an axis of evil ... how would YOU react?

It's simple. We have the bomb, that means they must have it. It's the ultimate deterrent. Nobody in their right mind would invade a nation with the bomb, let alone one with a sociopathic leader.

 

[Cyrus]

I'm suggesting that people can be brainwashed...and I know it's true. People from extremely conservative backgrounds often choose what to you or me would sound ridiculous. Christianity, Hinduism, Islam (and probably a host of other religions) are overtly male-dominated, yet women willingly participate. Why do Mormon women accept an unfair deal - because they are told that it is the right way, and one that will lead to favor in the afterlife? Why do followers of Opus Dei practice self-mutilation? There are millions of people that subject themselves willingly to what we might consider unfair treatment, stupidity or masochism. There are millions still who are waiting for the day they will be freed of such shackles.


I never used the word 'everyone', so this argument must not be directed at me.

Ok, well, let's ask an expert, Lisa!. She is more qualified than anyone else here to tell us what women in Iran think about the situation. Chime in Lisa! :!)

 

[kyleb]

I thought his was the claim, and I quote:

It was, and then Astronuc and I took issue with and Yonoz responded with:

I stand corrected, but it is nevertheless quite clear from the article that the technology was transferred in a deal to allow all 3 nations: Pakistan, Iran and North Korea to benefit from each other's advances to produce a nuclear balistic missile program. Obviously some will disagree but I think they would not be so happy about having a nuclear-capable Islamic fundamentalist neighbour whose leaders repeatedly describe the destruction of their state as a noble goal.

That is the claim I am inquiring about.

If you are talking about the "claim" I quoted above, I believe AQ Khan's own admission is sufficient support for it.

Like Yonoz already acknowledged, centrifuge technology is not weapons-only.

If you require that the evidence be found only in a particular article (which I haven't read yet), you are nitpicking for no good reason.

I'm not requiring anythng here, I'm just looking for what Yonoz told me I could find where he told me I could find it.

Maybe the wrong article was linked - so what?

So, I would like to see the right article if that is the problem. Why do you take issue with me for that?

 

[Gokul43201]

So, I would like to see the right article then, why do you take issue with me for that?

I do not. It seemed like you were specifically insisting upon seeing the evidence in that particular article. Did I not post a couple of articles where it mentioned AQ Khan's admission that he was involved in "nuclear weapons" technology transfer to Iran, Libya and DPRK?

But I see that your objection may be to the words "weapons-only". I can't say I know enough about the technical aspects to make a judgement based on a knowledge of the details of what exactly was transferred - and I don't have this knowledge - but perhaps, if the original text of the televised AQ Khan admission were found, that might answer this question.

 

[kyleb]

I do not. It seemed like you were specifically insisting upon seeing the evidence in that particular article. Did I not post a couple of articles where it mentioned AQ Khan's admission that he was involved in "nuclear weapons" technology transfer to Iran, Libya and DPRK?

But I see that your objection may be to the words "weapons-only". I can't say I know enough about the technical aspects to make a judgement based on a knowledge of the details of what exactly was transferred - and I don't have this knowledge - but perhaps, if the original text of the televised AQ Khan admission were found, that might answer this question.

So then, do I underderstand correctly that you do not know of any evidence which demonstrates that Iran has been pursuing nuclear ballistic missile program or other weapons-only nuclear technology?

 

[Evo]

I think anyone that is so naive to believe that Iran has no plans for nuclear warheads needs to think again. Does anyone really think that once they have the capability, they won't use it?

"Iran already is equipped with the Shahab-3 missile, which means "shooting star" in Farsi, and is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. An upgraded version of the ballistic missile has a range of more than 1,200 miles and can reach Israel and U.S. forces in the Middle East."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4144563.html