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

9128 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Sep 2005 at 5:36 PM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



602 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-09-15 06:10:30 PM
STFU. We don't care about some grammar and other mistakes. We get the point of what he was submitting.

Alright then. By the way, that's a very mature response.

Anyway...

US President willing to share nuclear technology with other Mexican nations.


-IR
 
2005-09-15 06:10:45 PM
.....and 1984 is just a gentle tale of a man and his pet rats
 
cot
2005-09-15 06:12:05 PM
faethe: I think you are right, and that's even worse.

It's a shiatty situation, with the terrorists coming from a variety of countries and not tightly affiliated with the governments but still receiving support from citizens. If we nuked all the countries with citizens sending money to terrorists, not only would our "good buddies" saudi arabia and pakistan take it on the chin, we'd have to nuke ourselves.
 
2005-09-15 06:12:19 PM
submitter and whoever greenlit this are idiots.

First its pronounced "Arab states" (as in ethnicity), not "Arabic states" (as in the language of said enthnicity).

Second, none of that even matters of course, because Iran is not an Arab state . It is not a member of the Arab league. In fact, ethnic Arabs make up only 3% of the population. I suppose the submitter also considers the United States an Asian nation because they are about the same ratio. The people who live in Iran are mostly Persian and Azeris

Third, the farking article even says "Iran is willing to provide nuclear technology to other Muslim states " Not Arab. Arabs are less than one third of all Muslims.

But please, Fark community, please continue with your inability to understand key geopolical terms. And you wonder why the War on Terror is unwinnable. [rolls eyes]
 
2005-09-15 06:12:33 PM
Who the hell is an Islamic sympathizer, JabbaTheButt?
 
2005-09-15 06:13:01 PM
M2MM and all those others who keep posting pics of that hott-@$$ girl...

For whatever's sake, go to a bar, a club, a social gathering and meet the women. They are out there! I'm not the smoothest guy, but c'mon
 
2005-09-15 06:13:08 PM
I think if the crazy Muslims like Bin Laden really wanted nukes they could have gotten them by now. Russia was a free for all after the USSR fell apart.
 
2005-09-15 06:13:21 PM
Yeah, let's just sink to their level. Especially if it helps us "win," right?

Let's DARE to be that scumbag country everyone thinks we are anyway.


You are an idiot. Reread the comments. If terrorists are using a mosque/holy site to conduct their operations, they are toast. We would not actively engage in outright destruction without first being engaged from something supposedly exempt from the Geneva convention. You know that using a church to conduct/hide military activity is illegal right? RIGHT?
 
2005-09-15 06:13:32 PM
MrBigglesworth

The ROE allow soldiers to protect themselves from ANY threat, regardless if that threat is in a "holy" place or not. There is a mosque on MSR Tampa between Abu Ghraib and Baghdad that no longer fires at troops because superior fire power trumps stupidity.
 
2005-09-15 06:13:38 PM
faethe: What other shiat hole nation says its going to arm itself with nukes, then spread the tech out to all its friends?

Oh, so Iran is a shiathole country. I see where this is going.

And I love how you assume that bombmaking is their game.

Where is that evidence?
 
cot
2005-09-15 06:13:41 PM
What's the over/under on how many more times the headline will be corrected? I'm guessing around 17 or so.
 
2005-09-15 06:13:55 PM
As Kurt Vonnegut so poignantly pointed out last night, there are 27 million people in Iraq. Our 200,000 troops will not succeed.

How many in these other countries like Iran, Jordan, etc.?

Gosh, I hope we never do anything stupid that would focus all of their fear and hatred onto the US all at once.
 
2005-09-15 06:14:14 PM
What bums me out is that the people of Iran must feel even more out of touch with what their government is up to than people in the U.S. do. Yet a lot of people here are advocating just nuking them all. Heh, good idea. Let's have a global nuclear war. That'll be fun, especially after the Chinese, Russians, Israelis, Indians and Pakistanis get into it.
 
2005-09-15 06:14:15 PM
Actually there is nothing we can do about it. We can't invade every country that has WMD's (or we think has WMD's), it just won't work. We tried to invade Iraq and look what a mess it turned into. If we hadn't invaded Iraq, invading Iran instead would have been just as bad of an idea. Democrat or Republican presidents are going to have to deal with a nuclear Mideast (and beyond).

Our inability to get Iraq under control has shown the world that small countries now have carte blanc to do what they want. All we can do is post in Fark, wring our hands in frustration and blame the opposite political party. Nothing is going to stop this now get used to it. Dubya or Hillary will do nothing of consequence.
 
2005-09-15 06:14:28 PM
MrBigglesworth: You know that using a church to conduct/hide military activity is illegal right? RIGHT?

So your solution is to sink to their level. Bomb their farking mosques.

Yeah, I'm the idiot here.
 
cot
2005-09-15 06:15:25 PM
whidbey: Oh, so Iran is a shiathole country. I see where this is going.

And I love how you assume that bombmaking is their game.

Where is that evidence?


I do think the word shiathole is kind of extreme and derogatory, but I believe it has as much to do with her dislike of their politics and potential threat to us as it does to their standard of living.

However, I don't think you really need much more than a modicum of common sense to realize that they are very likely pursuing nuclear weapons.
 
2005-09-15 06:15:29 PM
cot: It's a shiatty situation, with the terrorists coming from a variety of countries and not tightly affiliated with the governments but still receiving support from citizens. If we nuked all the countries with citizens sending money to terrorists, not only would our "good buddies" saudi arabia and pakistan take it on the chin, we'd have to nuke ourselves.


No we wouldn't nuke ourselves, we'd just apologize. I really, seriously think we should have just called a spade a spade and gotten rid of Saudi after 9/11. They appear to be the central assholes in all of this.

You ever think that the main reason gas prices are so high is that we are being schooled for a real shortage? farked up as this seems, this does not bother me so much. I mean, the refineries are down in the gulf, but they will come back up. If us, the EU, Venezuala and Mexico share gas, how high can prices go before we switch to alternates of some sort? We are going to have to, eventually. Or this bullshiat is just the beginning of the end.
 
2005-09-15 06:16:14 PM
faethe

Really? What other shiat hole nation says its going to arm itself with nukes, then spread the tech out to all its friends? Name one?


Well, the US didn't exactly give Israel nukes but we definitly intentionally looked the other way while they covertly developed them.
 
2005-09-15 06:16:46 PM
cot: However, I don't think you really need much more than a modicum of common sense to realize that they are very likely pursuing nuclear weapons.

Great. As soon as there's hard evidence, I'll be willing to take that claim seriously.

Otherwise it sounds suspiciously like the Iraq scenario.
 
2005-09-15 06:16:55 PM
whidbey: And I love how you assume that bombmaking is their game.


You need to get your news from the Iraqi information ministers website. I hear he has one helluva mideast update section. Try it. It will make you feel better.
 
2005-09-15 06:17:29 PM
PeopleFirst: and you thought if we didn't invade Iraq the whole region wouldn't try to proliferate nuclear weapons in order to combat Israel?

Put down the starbucks, the Chomsky and turn off the DMB--and WAKE UP.
 
2005-09-15 06:17:58 PM
Antho

 
2005-09-15 06:18:06 PM
faethe: You need to get your news from the Iraqi information ministers website. I hear he has one helluva mideast update section. Try it. It will make you feel better.

And so you dismiss the point.

You have no evidence of bombmaking, do you, faethe?
 
2005-09-15 06:18:23 PM
Yeah, I'm the idiot here.

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with you. And as usual, you seem to employ very selective reading of my comments.

I have stated, and for your convenience, again, that we would not engage in first strikes in mosques without first being engaged from the enemy. When that happens, all bets are off in relation to that strike from terrorists of that particular location.

Thanks for playing though.
 
2005-09-15 06:19:01 PM
The
European Union has taken the lead in trying to persuade Iran to halt uranium processing in exchange for economic help and a guaranteed supply of fuel for nuclear reactors.

Iran rejected that proposal, arguing the nonproliferation treaty gives it the right to run a peaceful nuclear program.


Hmmmm...someone else makes the fuel rods for your nuke plant for free. versus you having to make them yourself? AND economic help, too.

Or, make the stuff yourself, piss off the EU, US and UN Security council...

What a dillema..
 
2005-09-15 06:19:53 PM
Just a heads up. If you read this headline and did not do a double-take wondering wtf kind of moron wrote it, then your opinion on geopolitics and the war on terror is most likely going to be worthless. Sorry, I may be sounding elitist, but I can't help but shiver when these sorts of things pass as intelligent conversation or even as a worthwhile summary.
 
cot
2005-09-15 06:20:08 PM
whidbey: Otherwise it sounds suspiciously like the Iraq scenario.

Except that they're openly pursuing nuclear technology in some form, and that part is not in debate.

If iraq would have been openly pursuing anthrax research in their department of bovine disease even though they had never had an incidence of anthrax in their cattle I would have been a lot more inclined to be pro-iraq war.
 
2005-09-15 06:20:10 PM
Okay so if you were GW Bush, what would you do?

a. nothing
b. negotiate
c. snort a line, do a shot, and turn Iran into a parking lot
 
2005-09-15 06:20:42 PM
Antho

Despite my last post, I still agree with your observations, but just couldn't resist to post the comic.
 
2005-09-15 06:20:48 PM
"Hokay, eet is gud to see everywan here. Thees ees a typical nu-klee-yar device, heer on thees table. First, nevar,evar,evar, cut thee red wire, like thees..."
 
2005-09-15 06:20:50 PM
MrBigglesworth: I have stated, and for your convenience, again, that we would not engage in first strikes in mosques without first being engaged from the enemy. When that happens, all bets are off in relation to that strike from terrorists of that particular location

So, what does any of this have to do with this topic?

Namely, that Iran wants to expand its nuclear power program?

I'd say "nothing."
 
cot
2005-09-15 06:21:10 PM
That's one.
 
2005-09-15 06:21:25 PM
This is not news. The nuclear powers of the world, led by the USA (though Ireland suggested it), got most countries to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty from 1968 to 1970, in which the non-nuclear countries promised to not develop nuclear weapons, and in exchange, we promise to help them develop nuclear power technology. Note that a lot of countries gave up something really important by signing, and in exchange we owe them, as was negotiated 35 years ago. The vast majority of countries (189) have signed it.

Despite a few ranters here, the treaty has worked better than envisioned at the time - one of the treaty architects was interviewed on NPR this year saying that it was expected that by 2000, there would be from 35 to 45 countries with nuclear weapons. So far, 3 non-signers have nuclear weapons; I guess that's predictable; and only one country - North Korea - has signed and then (apparently) violated the treaty.

Read the article link above, it's good.

So, Iran offers to help other countries with nuclear research? Yawn. As long as it's countries that have (a) signed it, and (b) agreed to inspections by the IAEA.
 
2005-09-15 06:21:27 PM
Problem with Bush's preemptive doctrine is that it has set a precedent that encourages others to also preemptively strike. Why wouldn't you strike first by setting off soccer ball sized nuclear bombs in Washington DC, New York, Miami, LA, Seattle, Redmond, etc; if you know that the US has an itchy trigger finger?

/And it has been said that a time machine cannot be created. What can you call reverting to primitive practices that have been proved disastrous.
 
2005-09-15 06:21:50 PM
THIS JUST IN.......
PICTURES FROM IRAN
THIS PICTURE HERE IS OF A MAN NEXT TO A URANIUM PLANT IN IRAN, AND HIS REACTION AFTER HEARING THE NEWS TODAY.

 
2005-09-15 06:24:13 PM
Mordant: The Day After was kids stuff, look for a European film called Threads if you want to get really depressed.

Wow! Even when reduced by two whole words, the sentence still works!
 
2005-09-15 06:25:41 PM
mdbirt: Why wouldn't you strike first by setting off soccer ball sized nuclear bombs in Washington DC, New York, Miami, LA, Seattle, Redmond, etc; if you know that the US has an itchy trigger finger?


Suitcase nuke = fiction

really.

It doesn't work like that. Dirty bomb = yes. Fission or Fusion nuke = no.

Reason - chamber too small and explosives to small to initialize reaction.
 
2005-09-15 06:25:44 PM
I don't get people who think Iran is developing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes only... They most obviously aren't. They have this little thing called oil in case nobody knows, nuclear reactors for electricity would be moronic.

The whole point of this announcement is to create new bargaining chips to work the international community over with. By the time they are done negotiating this and that with the UN, etc. they will have weapons done.
 
2005-09-15 06:27:47 PM
brazil: I think we should share some of our nuclear technology with them.

Your comment wins the thread.
 
2005-09-15 06:28:16 PM
booring

 
2005-09-15 06:28:29 PM
2005-09-15 06:25:44 PM farken_icehole
I don't get people who think Iran is developing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes only... They most obviously aren't. They have this little thing called oil in case nobody knows, nuclear reactors for electricity would be moronic.

I don't think they are developing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes only, but I disagree with your later claim. It would be smart if they used the profits from their oil revenues to fund alternative energy sources and try to maintain some control on future energy markets.
 
2005-09-15 06:29:04 PM
FISSION MAILED
 
2005-09-15 06:29:46 PM
*sigh*
 
2005-09-15 06:30:09 PM
Digitalstrange: If thats all you got from A Brave New World then I pity you.

No I got a lot more out of it than that one simple idea.

Remember the conversation Bernard (I think that's his name, he's the guy refered to as The Savage) has with Mond where he explains why religion is not necessary for society? Religion still exists but only among the savages, and religion is used to partially explain the savages' condition. Meanwhile the rest of society exists in a state of comparable bliss in an engineered utopia. Anyone who expresses dissent, such as through spirituality, is exiled to an island.
 
2005-09-15 06:31:34 PM
Sharing? Where is Lars Ullrich when you really need him?
 
2005-09-15 06:31:35 PM
Honest question - have not read the whole thread so forgive me if it was answered elsewhere... why do Americans get so het up about other countries having nukes? We have thousands of the damned things and we are the only one to ever use them. Why can't everybody play? At least until we get rid of ours anyway. Anyone got an answer for that?
 
2005-09-15 06:32:46 PM
faethe: Suitcase nuke = fiction

Really? The Center for Nonproliferation Studies seems to disagree with you.

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/020923.htm
 
2005-09-15 06:33:29 PM
Seems like if I went back and took those nucular engineering classes the job market is good.
 
2005-09-15 06:33:31 PM
farken_icehole
I don't get people who think Iran is developing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes only... They most obviously aren't. They have this little thing called oil in case nobody knows, nuclear reactors for electricity would be moronic.

Moronic? Oil is like the basis for their economy. I'm not saying that they aren't looking at nuclear weapons tech but that's a bit of a leap in logic.
 
2005-09-15 06:34:42 PM
droptone It would be smart if these countries used their cheap energy and cash to create thriving new industries. It makes no sense to create a newer and much more expensive energy source with this cash.

The bomb brings with it enourmous prestige and political power.
 
Displayed 50 of 602 comments

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



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report