Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Iran says it will never scrap nuke program. Bush readies invasion   (story.news.yahoo.com) divider line 891
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

20112 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Feb 2005 at 5:28 PM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



891 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-02-03 08:29:29 PM  
You are partially correct. The passion in your one sided argument implies that you believe Irans government is as rational and peaceful as most any other western civilization. It also implies there is nothing incongruent with Iran taking such great risks to secret nuclear development when they are floating atop one of the largest oil reserves on the planet.

Right, but they sell the oil, which is just about the only thing that they do sell, and oil will run out sooner then later. You can't fault them for trying to hedge their profits by a decade or two.
 
B82
2005-02-03 08:31:03 PM  
To all naive lefties: some civilians always die in warfare.

Try fighting WW2 without disemboweling a couple thousand innocent German children.

Ruling a war out because of the possibility that some innocents will die is the height of retardation.
 
2005-02-03 08:31:28 PM  
BlindMan

Yes, now you got it... you just enjoyed the clean cool taste of a obviously self satirizing statement.

I don't get it.
 
2005-02-03 08:33:27 PM  
vartian

You can't fault them for trying to hedge their profits by a decade or two.
The secretive and belligerent way they are doing it? Yes. I can fault them for that. They think all the major oil companies on the planets projections are overestimates? Fine. Build alternative energies. But, do it in a non-threatening manner. If you cant get along with your neighbors, you will attract attention. See USA.
 
2005-02-03 08:35:05 PM  
B82
To all naive lefties: some civilians always die in warfare. Try fighting WW2 without disemboweling a couple thousand innocent German children. Ruling a war out because of the possibility that some innocents will die is the height of retardation.

Listen closely; that is not why we are pissed. None of us are upset that WW1 was fought. We are, however, upset that Bush LIED to us about the reasons for the war, and only when he was faced with insurmountable evidence to the contrary, did he change his tune.

That is why we are pissed, idiot.

/And yes, we are happy a dictator was toppled. We would have been happier if your guys hadnt propped him up for a decade, and even happier if we had stopped a few genocides that have happed in the same time frame, but I guess black people + no oil = no interest by the racist old white guys in the Republican party.
 
2005-02-03 08:35:32 PM  
Zoultan writes: The secretive and belligerent way they are doing it?

Would you fault the United States for being secretive? If not, why fault Iran?

Also, how are the Iranians being belligerent?
 
2005-02-03 08:35:56 PM  
B82:

2005-02-03 08:31:03 PM B82

To all naive lefties: some civilians always die in warfare.

Try fighting WW2 without disemboweling a couple thousand innocent German children.

Ruling a war out because of the possibility that some innocents will die is the height of retardation.




And not considering civilian casualties is the height of evil. Sure War causes death and destruction, which is exactly why war whould always be avoided. But you seem to be the type that creams itself at the prospect of war....
 
2005-02-03 08:37:18 PM  
racist old white guys in the Republican party

Tired old yarns never die. They just go to FARK.
 
2005-02-03 08:37:39 PM  
Zoultan
Fine. Build alternative energies

And if we had spent the 200+ billion doing that instead of bombing the crap out of Iraq, we could have made every oil-rich dictatorship irrelevant by now. Imagine that.
 
2005-02-03 08:38:04 PM  
In 1992, Dick Cheney, then Secretary of Defense and Paul Wolfowitz, then the Pentagon's Under Secretary for policy, oversaw the preparation of a classified blueprint draft of a post-cold-war strategy intended to help "set the nation's direction for the next century."

The initial "Defense Planning Guidance" draft, called for concerted efforts by the U.S. to preserve American global military supremacy and to thwart the emergence of a rival superpower in Europe, Asia or the former Soviet Union.

The document set forth that the number one objective of the U.S. post-cold-war political and military strategy should be preventing the emergence of a rival superpower and that, if necessary, the U. S. be prepared to take unilateral action.


From Here

We do the "preventing the emergence" thing by squatting on 75% of the world's oil. China has none, Russia is only going to be able to give her so much.

Iran will be toppled and occupied (with troops or by proxy), make no mistake about it. We are going to do this, or go down trying.

Anyone against it should explain why they would prefer to live under Chinese domination.
 
2005-02-03 08:38:57 PM  
What happen to the old decade-of-murderous-sanctions-and-bombing-of-water-treatment-facilities approach?
 
2005-02-03 08:39:09 PM  
Right_Drumstick_Wacko
Tired old yarns never die. They just go to FARK.

I'll drop it the moment you guys stop whining about Clinton.
 
2005-02-03 08:39:20 PM  
rush22

"neo-con" is also a buzzword. You really didn't get it?
 
2005-02-03 08:39:32 PM  
2005-02-03 08:21:11 PM eraser8
Albert writes: Clinton/Albright helped build North Korea's nuclear weaponry...

What the hell are you talking about, moran? How do you figure that either President Clinton or Secretary Albright did any such thing? Do you have any credible sources to back up your libel?

-----------------------------------------------------

Clinton/Albright gave North Korea over $500 million and a two light water nuclear reactor ($6 billion). Guess what they did with the money and the reactor?

Investigate before you speak...you make yourself look like a "moran" when you spout off about things you don't know about.
 
2005-02-03 08:39:35 PM  
Sorry to jump on the B82 bandwagon but:

If we go to war with Iran, wouldn't that just up the possiblity of civilian casualties being on American soil?

/Gonna live in a smaller city.
 
2005-02-03 08:39:51 PM  
Obscene_CNN

Zoultan, NCRider, and sonnyboy11

You all define the word crypto-fascist


I Googled up "crypto-fascist" and here's what I found.
 
2005-02-03 08:40:53 PM  
If they want nukes, give 'em nukes. Thirty minute delivery, guaranteed to send them to Paradise.

All amongst you crying out that every country should be able to have nukes if they want are just farking insane. What the hell are you smoking? It's one thing to say "this is just more Bush B.S.", but if you actually believe everyone in the world needs a nuke, then you've some serious problems in your head.

/and you thought I was a liberal.
 
2005-02-03 08:40:59 PM  
majorhopper writes: Anyone against it should explain why they would prefer to live under Chinese domination.

And, you should explain why Chinese control would be any worse than an American government that sees fit to lie to its own people.
 
2005-02-03 08:41:52 PM  
Does anyone here have a bomb shelter?
 
2005-02-03 08:43:36 PM  
eraser8
Would you fault the United States for being secretive? If not, why fault Iran?
If I were Iranian, yes. Of course, if I were Iranian, Id be under constant threat of physical harm from my government. You seem to be under the delusion that Iran is a peaceful, stable nation just like your own. It is not. Just because you see lines around that territory on your globe, does not make it a peer to other nations.

Also, how are the Iranians being belligerent?
Are you serious? There are no more than a handful of nations (I use that term loosely) with normalized diplomatic relation with Iran. This is because Iran, much like N Korea, constantly provokes its friends and foes alike. Much like the Taliban did.
 
2005-02-03 08:44:37 PM  
[image from img230.exs.cx too old to be available]
 
2005-02-03 08:48:54 PM  
vartian
And if we had spent the 200+ billion doing that instead of bombing the crap out of Iraq, we could have made every oil-rich dictatorship irrelevant by now. Imagine that.

Youve slipped into partisanship. Fair enough. Youre conclusions may very well be correct. The fact remains, You and I both face living on a planet with a an Islamic fascist government with nuclear weapons at it disposal. I think its time to rise above pettiness for a moment, for this issue.
 
2005-02-03 08:48:56 PM  
eraser8:

And, you should explain why Chinese control would be any worse than an American government that sees fit to lie to its own people.


OMG, they LIED! They lied to us, and kept us on top - fat, dumb and happy. The evil farking bastards! They LIED! And all I have to show for it is, well, everything.

Come again when the President orders that protestors be run over with armored vehicles. Come again when the USA starts performing FORCED abortions on babies as they come to term. Come again when the Noam Chomsky's of this country are imprisoned or executed.

Of course they lied doofus. What else are they going to do, explain the situation to a nation of Fear Factor fans? Surely, you jest.
 
2005-02-03 08:49:39 PM  
To Zoultan and Albert...tell you what.
As far as I'm concerned the good old USA is so far in debt because of morons like you and your president every other country in the world is going to own a piece of you in the years to come. Yet you keep on a spending and a borrowing....Sooner or later it's going to be time to pay the tax man.

Than what.
Check and mate....

Now you can come suck on this -- I think your wives are just about done.
 
2005-02-03 08:49:58 PM  
Albert writes: Clinton/Albright gave North Korea over $500 million and a two light water nuclear reactor ($6 billion).

Not really. The Agreed Framework called for aid (in the form of fuel-oil shipments and the easing of trade restrictions) and the construction of light water reactors (specifically because they are "proliferation-resistant") in exchange for a cessation of work on reactors that would produce plutonium as fission byproduct. Unfortunately, neither the aid nor the construction was actually fully realized.

So, basically, you're just talking out of your ass. Neither the fuel shipments nor the reactor development were helpful toward the production of nuclear weapons. In fact, they were both detrimental to a nuclear effort -- which was the entire point of the Framework.

Investigate before you speak

I can virtually guarantee you that I know more about this (and, just about any other issue of international policy) than you do.
 
2005-02-03 08:50:19 PM  
2005-02-03 08:25:00 PM EdBear
Mmmm... back bacon. You forgot BC Bud, tons o'skiing, Health Care, freedom for Gays to marry soon (for the folks so inclined), no guns, no Republicans...

Sweet. Anyway, enjoy all your rules.

--------------------------------------------------------

1. Having lived in both Canada and the U.S and being an avid skiier I can assure you your mountains are nothing compared to ours. Whistler/Blackcomb is ok but the snow is usually heavy and/or icy. Its a north face.

I wasn't impressed with Banff and Eastern Quebec is to damn cold.

If you want to ski try heading out to Park City Utah where the snow is dry and fluffy.

2. I heard BC Bud is ok but can't compare to the indoor hydroponic(sp?) stuff being grown here in the states.

3. The Canadain healthcare system sucks. Trust me..I've suffered many broken bones in Canada. My Wife's father nearly died waiting months for a procedure that takes a day here in the States. You just think your healthcare is good because you've never been treated in the States.

p.s - its not free..thats why you pay taxes out the ass...shhhhhhhhh

4. Freedom for gays to marry. wow...you got me there.

5. I owned guns when I lived in Canada. Did they take them all away?

6. No replubicans? They're called conservatives up there.

So....if you're gay and like paying taxes I guess you would love Canada.
 
2005-02-03 08:50:41 PM  
err, Chomskys - when can we do away with the apostrophe and simply assume the possessive when the word is used in a possessive context? And all of those farking Ss in Possessive, wtf? farking bunch of unfiltered bulshiat.
 
2005-02-03 08:52:40 PM  
Zoultan writes: If I were Iranian, yes. Of course, if I were Iranian

That's completely unresponsive to my question. Why should other countries be allowed secrecy while Iran is not?

Iran, much like N Korea, constantly provokes its friends and foes alike.

Then perhaps you'd be willing to list recent occasions on which Iran has threatened offensive action against friends or neighbors.
 
2005-02-03 08:53:38 PM  
eraser8:

I can virtually guarantee you that I know more about this (and, just about any other issue of international policy) than you do.


Suitable for framing. Amuse friends and co-workers. Show the spirit of Fark today! Order now!
 
2005-02-03 08:54:19 PM  
I don't get it MajorHopper. Are we supposed to like it when our gov't practices in unethical behaviour when it has a (dubious) benefit for the people and hate it when that same unetical behavior lands us in trouble?

Next time the gov't lies about something, and it proves to have a negative effect, would you still thank them for keeping you in the dark?


/Refering to 1984 is soo 90's
 
2005-02-03 08:54:51 PM  
pottymouthed: almost time for bed young man.
 
2005-02-03 08:55:17 PM  
B82

To all naive lefties: some civilians always die in warfare.

Try fighting WW2 without disemboweling a couple thousand innocent German children.

Ruling a war out because of the possibility that some innocents will die is the height of retardation.


That is so farking insane. Like, it's all just some foregone conclusion we have to live with this edict that innocents must die to achieve our (your) objectives.

Listen, if we only fight wars when we ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO, then you can take that higher ground. Wars of aggression are not much better than terrorist attacks except we use our military instead of some dumbass with a bomb strapped to himself. We are not the good guys here. There ARE no good guys currently.

Frankly, your reasons for blowing the shiat out of innocents are just as bad as any terrorists and just as unacceptable. Except when terrorists do it, you run around crying foul and want to drop more bombs. When YOU do it though, FREEDOM IS ON THE MARCH!

/asshats
//not naive
 
2005-02-03 08:55:55 PM  
Please let their be a draft. It would cut down on all the biatchy kids posting here.
 
2005-02-03 08:56:42 PM  
Nukes are for chicken-shiat dumbass pussies. Nuff said.
 
2005-02-03 08:56:48 PM  
there

too much beer tonight
 
2005-02-03 08:57:52 PM  
2005-02-03 08:49:58 PM eraser8

I can virtually guarantee you that I know more about this (and, just about any other issue of international policy) than you do.


lmao! I bet you don't!
 
2005-02-03 08:57:56 PM  
majorhopper writes: Of course they lied doofus. What else are they going to do, explain the situation to a nation of Fear Factor fans? Surely, you jest.

I do not jest. It's frankly scary and sad that you're content to let the government deceive the people. It is anathema to everything the nation was founded for and upon.

The government is not set up to save the people from themselves. It is set up to serve the people and to carry out their will.
 
2005-02-03 08:59:42 PM  
BeerNut

Please let their be a draft. It would cut down on all the biatchy kids posting here.

Not you though, right BeerNut? Bum knee botherin ya?

Sure.

/know a chickenhawk when I see one
 
2005-02-03 08:59:45 PM  
Albert writes: lmao! I bet you don't!

I bet I do...especially if your boner on the Agreed Framework is an example of your competence in the subject.
 
2005-02-03 08:59:53 PM  
Right_Drumstick_Wacko

rush22

"neo-con" is also a buzzword. You really didn't get it?


Ah. I just figured it was a short form for "neo-conservative," or those adhering to the political philosophies of Leo Strauss. Considering traditional conservatives would fight hard for freedoms guaranteed under the constitution regardless of war time, would have fought hard to keep deficits down, would have fought against bloated government, I think indeed it is not incorrect to label people who agree with these things as "neo" conservatives, them not being traditional conservatives.
 
2005-02-03 09:01:20 PM  
Right_Drumstick_Wacko

More about neo-conservatism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_%28United_States%29
 
2005-02-03 09:01:57 PM  
kill or be killed
 
2005-02-03 09:03:08 PM  
So tell me eraser8, how much money did Clinton/Albright actually give North Korea?

Also, please tell me how many North Korean's starved to death while the north Korean government used the money to develop their nuclear arms program?
 
2005-02-03 09:03:11 PM  
BeerNut needs his picture posted. Hint: he's not Foghorn.

[image from foar.net too old to be available]
 
2005-02-03 09:03:53 PM  
Of course they lied doofus. What else are they going to do, explain the situation to a nation of Fear Factor fans? Surely, you jest.

yes, the situation needs to be explained. it's true that most Americans might not understand or even care, but there are lots of people who care and want to understand. and they deserve it. the government works for us, and it has no right to be anything less than transparent.

to do anything less would be uncivilized.
 
2005-02-03 09:04:25 PM  
rush22 writes: I think indeed it is not incorrect to label people who agree with these things as "neo" conservatives

Considering the neoconservatives themselves coined the phrase, I think you're right.
 
2005-02-03 09:05:17 PM  
WalkingCarpet

Just for you:

[image from img233.exs.cx too old to be available]
 
2005-02-03 09:06:16 PM  
Albert writes: So tell me eraser8, how much money did Clinton/Albright actually give North Korea?

Did your well of expertise run dry?

Also, please tell me how many North Korean's starved to death while the north Korean government used the money to develop their nuclear arms program?

How is that relevant to my question regarding your initial libel?
 
2005-02-03 09:07:38 PM  
Albert:

So tell me eraser8, how much money did Clinton/Albright actually give North Korea?

So tell me Albert, which President labeled NK as the Axis of Evil and did NOTHING as they went ahead and not only said they were developing nukes, but did so anyway.

Also, please tell me how many North Korean's starved to death while the north Korean government used the money to develop their nuclear arms program?

How is this day different from any other day in the last 50 years? Clinton is responsible for NK continuing the same policies it always had towards its own people?
 
2005-02-03 09:09:27 PM  
We're just about out of the reserves reserves. We've taken almost of the Individual Ready Reserves. We have called back soldiers that have been out of the Individual Ready Reserves for several years. Who do we have left? The Kiss Army Reserves!

[image from gooddog-music.com too old to be available]
 
Displayed 50 of 891 comments

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report