FARK.com: (1668712) Iranian president willing to share nuclear technology with other Muslim states

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.

		Iranian president willing to share nuclear technology with other Muslim states (news.yahoo.com)		602
		More: Scary

• • •

9123 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Sep 2005 at 5:36 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/1668712

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

602 Comments (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

jeremyrainman		2005-09-15 12:41:00 PM

Pre-emptive nucular strike in 3...2...1...

albo		2005-09-15 12:41:54 PM

all those choices and the admin picks the one that gets it wrong. Islamic countries, not Arabic

/don't ban me please

Starboard		2005-09-15 12:42:50 PM

Its pronounced *Nucular*

Jolonco		2005-09-15 12:44:40 PM

From Other thread. Allow me to say:

Welcome to our new, oil producing, glass parking lot!

digs duck		2005-09-15 12:47:26 PM

Mission Accomplished?

BooBoo23		2005-09-15 12:47:34 PM

I predict this will be met with encouragement by the governments in surrounding countries, as well as our own.

trashcancream		2005-09-15 12:48:07 PM

We are the world, we are the children
We are the ones who make a brighter day
So lets start giving

Occams_Electric_Razor		2005-09-15 12:48:08 PM

Well, at least Iran (the enemy) is only, supposedly, going to share peaceful nuclear technology, whereas Pakistan (our ally) was selling nuclear weapon technology to anyone with enough cash.

Thanks, guys.

Ferruz		2005-09-15 12:48:56 PM

Yes... Giving a lit match to an area doused in oil is a good idea.

When the end of the world begins, I don't know. I do know it will begin somewhere in the Middle East, aka Earth's Tinderbox.

mediaho		2005-09-15 12:49:38 PM

Let me check my list of things that are good...

Nope. This isn't on it.

Crap.

Heroic Poser		2005-09-15 12:49:58 PM

So now we're down on sharing?

KaponoFor3		2005-09-15 12:50:42 PM

Nuclear proliferation is going to be the biggest threat towards global peace in my lifetime (I'm 23)

El_Swino		2005-09-15 12:50:57 PM

Can we finally acknowledge that non-proliferation isn't going to work?

R.A.Danny		2005-09-15 12:53:24 PM

I could hear the "Woo woo, woo woo woo" songs from the Vonage commercials the second I read the headline.

Shack_Daddy		2005-09-15 12:54:43 PM

While the cat's away, the mice will play.

TheRealist		2005-09-15 12:54:48 PM

trashcancream

There's a choice we're making
about nuke technology
It's true, we'll make Iran pay
Just Dick and Me

Lurker_John		2005-09-15 12:54:51 PM

I'll probably get nutted for saying this, but at least Iran (unlike Iraq) shows a capacity for self-governance.

We're just still pi$$ed at them for the hostage thing back in '79-80. But they did that to get rid of the Shah, which (IMO) was a good thing. That guy was almost as bad as Sadaam, and he was installed by US/British oil interests.

/fire away

whidbey		2005-09-15 12:55:00 PM

KaponoFor3: Nuclear proliferation is going to be the biggest threat towards global peace in my lifetime (I'm 23)

It's only been a threat for the last 50 years...

We just had us a little break...:D

vernonFL		2005-09-15 12:55:35 PM

What could possibly go wrong?

IsoTropt		2005-09-15 12:56:39 PM

I'll take "things that go boom in the night" for $100, Alex.

KaponoFor3		2005-09-15 12:57:29 PM

Lurker_John:

I'll probably get nutted for saying this, but at least Iran (unlike Iraq) shows a capacity for self-governance.

I would disagree -- the mullahs disqualified a large amount of reform candidates for their Presidency. They have a quasi-democracy, but the real power lies in the hands of the ruling mullahs.

cruci fiction		2005-09-15 12:58:11 PM

Maybe we should get Pakistan to help them with the ropes, show them how unpunished and widespread nuclear proliferation can be used for fun and profit.

/nobody cared then...

Ferruz		2005-09-15 12:59:30 PM

El_Swino: Can we finally acknowledge that non-proliferation isn't going to work?

The SALT treaties were pie-in-the-sky ideas back in the 70s. Today, non-proliferation is laughable when you have rogue states like Iran and North Korea, with the addition of "questionable states" like China, India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and - generally speaking - the rest of the Third World where the ends of obtaining nuclear power are justified by the means.

The world was safer during the Cold War and the de facto detente it facilitated. This brave new world scares the ever living shiat outta me. I'd like to see how Louis Henkin might revise his "How Nations Behave" today.

chakalakasp		2005-09-15 01:04:38 PM

The Iranians are (literally) making a power play. Pretty ballsy thing to do, given who's in the White House right now.

Lurker_John		2005-09-15 01:06:26 PM

I would disagree -- the mullahs disqualified a large amount of reform candidates for their Presidency.

Well, just because it's a system that the west doesn't like doesn't mean that it's not viable. At least there's some process.

ArcadianRefugee		2005-09-15 01:06:26 PM

Ferruz: I do know it will begin somewhere in the Middle East

Isn't that what the Bible says?

KaponoFor3		2005-09-15 01:08:22 PM

Lurker_John:

Well, just because it's a system that the west doesn't like doesn't mean that it's not viable. At least there's some process

I agree, hence why I called it a quasi-democracy (in the sense of democracy that we know). I was going to compare Iran's democracy with African democracies, but I think that the Iranian form of democracy may be a little bit more towards what we, as Westerners, think of democracy (when compared with the one party African despot democracies)

mediaho		2005-09-15 01:08:56 PM

chakalakasp: The Iranians are (literally) making a power play. Pretty ballsy thing to do, given who's in the White House right now.

I think it's the natural response when the strongest country in the world starts unilaterally deciding who gets to keep their country and who doesn't.

brazil		2005-09-15 01:12:07 PM

Heroic Poser: So now we're down on sharing?

Not at all.

I think we should share some of our nuclear technology with them.

DarkLancelot		2005-09-15 01:13:28 PM

I think these oil producing countries, especially Iran, would want to go to nuclear power so they don't waste any oil on themselves and can sell it all.

brazil		2005-09-15 01:14:09 PM

whidbey: We just had us a little break...:D

Not really... that was just PR.

farkncorey		2005-09-15 01:14:19 PM

KaponoFor3: global peace

Never had it ..., never will.

mediaho		2005-09-15 01:15:00 PM

El_Swino: Can we finally acknowledge that non-proliferation isn't going to work?

Apparently, no one read the story of Pandora's Box.

Personally, I'd like to kick her in that box and shove her.

binnster		2005-09-15 01:16:52 PM

1. Iran is not an Arabic country.
2. See 2005-09-15 12:41:54 PM albo.

Ferruz		2005-09-15 01:17:35 PM

ArcadianRefugee: Isn't that what the Bible says?

I dunno. I've never held a bible, torah or koran, much less read one of 'em. Read about them, watched Discovery & History Channel programs on religion, but I have no need for religous texts touching my skin or in my immediate vicinity.

Lurker_John		2005-09-15 01:19:25 PM

I agree, hence why I called it a quasi-democracy

OK, so now you think Iran does show a capacity for self-governance?

/can't tell what your points are

KaponoFor3		2005-09-15 01:21:15 PM

Lurker_John: OK, so now you think Iran does show a capacity for self-governance?

They have the trappings of a democracy -- they can vote for some elected officials and representatives. However, they choose who can and cannot run, which is something that generally does not occur in Western democracies. So they have some of the characteristics of a democracy (as in, they govern themselves), but there are limits on exactly how "free" their elections are.

DirkValentine		2005-09-15 01:22:35 PM

dude, Israel CAN'T be happy about this

OneHandFapping		2005-09-15 01:27:45 PM

I'm torn here. On one hand, I don't mind it if nuclear weapons are in the hands of responsible nations that won't use them unless absolutely needed. On the other hand, that list is basically Canada and Switzerland.

KyngNothing		2005-09-15 01:28:29 PM

KaponoFor3:

They have the trappings of a democracy -- they can vote for some elected officials and representatives. However, they choose who can and cannot run, which is something that generally does not occur in Western democracies. So they have some of the characteristics of a democracy (as in, they govern themselves), but there are limits on exactly how "free" their elections are.

I think you're arguing Iran is not a democracy, and he's arguing that they have a fairly stable government, without committing genocide every couple of years...

Lurker_John		2005-09-15 01:29:31 PM

Well, like I said, just because it's not a typcial western democracy doesn't mean it isn't viable. Your earlier post claimed that you disagreed with my statement that Iran shows capacity for self-governance. Your argument now seems to have shifted to Iran's efficiency of their democracy vs. the west.

A government doesn't have to be a democracy/republic to be viable. (see: constitutional monarchy)

sigdiamond2000		2005-09-15 01:32:02 PM

"And boom goes the dynamite!"

Fnord		2005-09-15 01:39:03 PM

Oh boy, I can't wait for this to go live on FarkLite. Then we get to watch all the people who hate Bush more than they hate Nukes make contrived arguments as to why this isn't a bad thing.

It's an odd turn from the Cold War days, where the right was largely pro-nuke and the left was largely anti-nuke. Now some on the left are so blinded by anti-Bush (or even anti-US, for our foreign friends) feelings, that's they're taking a pro-Iranian-Nuke position. Bizarre.

mediaho		2005-09-15 01:41:27 PM

Fnord: Oh boy, I can't wait for this to go live on FarkLite. Then we get to watch all the people who hate Bush more than they hate Nukes make contrived arguments as to why this isn't a bad thing.

And we'll get to see all the "glass parking lot" racists too. Then I bail the thread before my blood pressure zooms.

cruci fiction		2005-09-15 01:42:26 PM

Fnord
It's an odd turn from the Cold War days, where the right was largely pro-nuke and the left was largely anti-nuke. Now some on the left are so blinded by anti-Bush (or even anti-US, for our foreign friends) feelings, that's they're taking a pro-Iranian-Nuke position. Bizarre.

I think its more of an anti-Pre-emptive-war-with-Iran stance than pro-Iranian-Nuke. Besides, I personally think Pakistan is FAR FAR more of a threat with their nukes than Iran. And Pakistan has already shown itself to have done the worst nuclear proliferation of all time with no consequences, so I doubt it has stopped.

pshaw		2005-09-15 01:49:49 PM

sigdiamond2000: "And boom goes the dynamite!"

Best.Sports.Broadcast.Evar!

suebhoney		2005-09-15 02:04:12 PM

I feel that the US shouldn't go around telling other countries what to do regarding nukes. What's good for the goose....

I'm very anti-nuke, no matter the country, and I wish the US would get rid of all that it has so there would be no chance of any president using it. Let's also remember that the US is, so far, the only country to use these types of weapons. That alone, I would think, would lead others to believe they have to defend themselves in some way. The Cold War saw a stockpiling and since then we've been able to bring those numbers down on both sides. But did anyone really bother to stop and think that any other country wouldn't want them? Isn't that a bit naive?

I also believe had the US not invaded Iraq on false pretenses, the power play Iran is doing right now, would not be happening.

/just my .02, not hanging around for this to go live

Riche		2005-09-15 02:16:37 PM

Unless Iran changes course in the not-distant future, this could blow up into a major world crisis.

The situation as I understand it:

Iran wants to be a nuclear power. All their talk about civillian power plants is utter bullshiat.

Israel is understandably paranoid about Iran having The Bomb. After all, the only thing the Islamic nations (including Iran) hate worse then America is Israel.

Israel is going to do more than just file a diplomatic complaint to the U.N. Once the Iranians pass a certian threshold in their nuke program development Israel is going to fire up their bombers and take out what nuclear sites they can, just like they did in 1981 to Iraq. Only this time around the U.S. will probably supply some logistical/targeting support.

That action will piss off A LOT of people, especially if Israel bombs sites that already have radioactive fuel in them and people on the ground die from radiation poisoning.

What happens next?

Well, that depends on the quality of leadership in the White House.

(In other words, we're farked)

------------------------------
Keep in mind a few things:

Iran is much bigger, richer and stronger than Iraq.

Iran has missles that can reach Israel. Missles that have a lot more accuracy and payload than those POS Scuds Iraq once tossed around. Missles that can easily hit our military sites in Iraq.

Iran has surface-skimming supersonic antiship missles. AND we keep a carrier group within range of those missles. If they fire off a couple of hundred towards the U.S.S Ronald Regan, one or two just might make it through the defenses.

True, the U.S. certianly does have the ability to bomb the ever loving shiat out of Iran, but we can't take it over. We simply don't have the military resources to invade and occupy the country, especially after we shot our wad in Iraq.

Actually, if we really needed to take over Iran, it would be possible. But it would involve putting much of our economy on war mobilization status and re-implementing the draft. By the time it was all said and done we could expect to spend a well over a trillion dollars.

I'm deeply worried. This mess in Iran could very well be yet another "Big Crisis" the Bush administration will have to deal with, and history clearly indicates Bush is a complete, utter fool who has a real knack for making bad situations worse.

But, hey, at least he won't raise taxes.

Fnord		2005-09-15 02:20:17 PM

cruci fiction: I think its more of an anti-Pre-emptive-war-with-Iran stance than pro-Iranian-Nuke.

No, not really. At least the folks I'm talking about. I've seen people actively argue that it's only fair for Iran to have nuclear weapons, and that any effort to prevent that would be wrong.

I think most rational people would agree that Iran having nukes is bad, as is a pre-emptive attack on Iran. It's the people who reduce the whole thing to a moral argument that scare me.

suebhoney: Let's also remember that the US is, so far, the only country to use these types of weapons.

That's a terrible argument to make. For one, were we at the end of a long and painful war. But mainly, nukes were viewed in an entirely different light back then. Did the world condemn the US for those two bombs? No. You can't always apply modern standards to what happened in the past. I mean, you might as well condem modern Germany for having used chemical warfare in WWI (and gassing the Jews in WWII).

You might also note that the US is the only country to have *stopped* using nuclear weapons against enemies after having used them twice.

I also believe had the US not invaded Iraq on false pretenses, the power play Iran is doing right now, would not be happening.

Georgie sure as hell didn't make things better, that's for sure. But Iran has had nuclear ambitions for quite some time (same with North Korea). They may have pushed forward the timetable, but it was coming anyway.

AirForceVet		2005-09-15 02:30:54 PM

Well, why not? Pakistan already did. And nothing happened to them.

Displayed 50 of 602 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

Redisplay/refresh comments

This thread is closed to new comments.