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

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.

Bonzo_1116		2005-09-15 02:36:50 PM

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

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

Welcome to 1954, youngster.

Is it time for a remake of this yet?

/There's a disturbing pic of a hemmrhoidectomy when you GIS for "the day after"

BooBoo23		2005-09-15 03:02:36 PM

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

Great post.

Data Pimp		2005-09-15 03:06:45 PM

Mommy, why does everybody have a bomb?

/local
//he was only 7 years off the mark

willywanka		2005-09-15 03:26:44 PM

AirForceVet wins.

in '86, General Zia went on the record saying, "It is our right to obtain the technology. And when we acquire this technology, the Islamic world will possess it with us."

CodeBlue		2005-09-15 03:49:21 PM

Because, unlike Iran, here in America we have a fully transparent democracy ($$$).

/Pot, meet Kettle

heap		2005-09-15 03:55:00 PM

Occams_Electric_Razor: 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.

indeed. friends like that, who needs enemies.

it really pleases me to think that every time i look at my paycheck, that huge deduction goes towards....billions of dollars in cash and weapons to a country that got caught handing out prizes from the nuclear cookie jar.

Fnord: 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.

erm...when that prevention is a preemptive war, yes. it'd be nice if we could polish up the last one before embarking on new and different places to 'liberate'.

if it wouldn't put our military in iraq in an untenable position, i'd be entirely in favor of an isreali style response to any overt nuclear pecker wagging (bomb the living shiat out of their facilities, and move on)

i'm just not too jiggy on the idea of taking iran shopping at pottery barn.

CodeBlue		2005-09-15 03:55:57 PM

Well it was bound to happen, with Israel and NK having had nukes or nuclear tech for a long time, not to mention India and Pakistan. Iran would be stupid not to get nukes, as this would be the only way to get the Americans off their backs.

case in point:
Iraq: no WMDs -> invasion and humiliation.
North Korea: may have nukes -> let's talk

asmctommy		2005-09-15 05:40:37 PM

Lets share some of OUR nuclear technology with Iran, NOW!

Dorothy Day		2005-09-15 05:41:38 PM

Is anyone surprised? They do have a theocracy in place, and are very interested in keeping "muslim" countries "muslim".

Kind of like the Xian right-wing nutjobs who'd like the "Constitution Party" to take over....

Jraxis		2005-09-15 05:41:47 PM

"Other Arabic nations"? Iran isn't Arabic...

Fark It		2005-09-15 05:42:07 PM

'Other' Arab nations? Iranians aren't Arabs, they're Aryan.

PowerSlacker		2005-09-15 05:42:50 PM

/glass. parking. lot.

greenbean		2005-09-15 05:43:21 PM

submitter: ...with other Arabic states

? I thought it said "Muslim states" in the article.

people are saying Iran wants to be "a nuclear power", but I think Iran is only saying they *want* "nuclear power".

vernonFL		2005-09-15 05:43:52 PM

willywanka

in '86, General Zia went on the record saying, "It is our right to obtain the technology. And when we acquire this technology, the Islamic world will possess it with us."

Who? General Zia? Who is he, some 3rd world Islamo-fascist tinpot dictator?...

oh, wait. My bad. General Zia was our guy.

Colgate		2005-09-15 05:44:12 PM

These guys are begging for it. I swear by Allah if the USA lets these do nothing failed states put all their defense eggs in the nuclear basket the United States is doomed and most likely the entire world is doomed. This is a huge problem. Countries that can't get indoor plumbing working shouldn't be allowed to leapfrog like this. It'd be like putting a gatlin gun in the hands of Attila.

Obscene_CNN		2005-09-15 05:45:02 PM

time to...

Nuke 'em Till They Glow Then Shoot Them In The Dark!!!

Kick @$$ USA!!!

Screw the Appeasement strategy of Clinton with North Korea, that was the single worst horse trade in history!!!

RanDomino		2005-09-15 05:45:11 PM

Wow, talk about your propaganda. Just look at the first sentence: "...hard-line president said Thursday, notching up his rhetoric as his regime rejects..."

We've got all the classics
-hard-line
-rhetoric
-regime

Look people, all news sources are biased. Just know that most American news sources are biased against people whom our administration has labeled as 'enemies'.

Colgate		2005-09-15 05:45:41 PM

Relax. Headline writer and greenlighter made a boo boo. The things I've read indicate they are willing to share it with other Islamic Nations. Bad just got worse.

Anagrammer		2005-09-15 05:46:11 PM

Rules for FARK political threads:

1. If anybody posts anything that doesn't support your position. Remain calm, and don't fall into the trap of actually debating the content. If you're new to political threads on FARK, you can find a complete list and description of acceptable FARK debating practices at: http://www.seercom.com/bcs/resources/criticalthinking/fallacies.html

2. Free speech only means the freedom to agree with you. Otherwise, they're just spewing propaganda.

3. If you're on the right, remember to state that the person disagrees with you not only has no morals, but also they have no basis for ANY sort of moral system. If they question or deny the existence of god, you have free reign to attack them in anyway you deem fit.

4. If you're on the left, make sure to persecute anyone who expresses an opinion that differs in even the slightest manner with what you're saying. If they question or deny the existence of man-made global warming, you have free reign to attack them in anyway you deem fit.

5. Getting the last word in means that you win.

6. Any embarassing picture of prominent figures that you believe your opponent supports, whether real or photoshopped, is a substantive argument.

7. Despite the fact that any given event will have numerous and complex causes, the responsibility for any given event lies solely with people who believe the same as your opponent. The only exception to this rule is if the event is considered to be a good thing, in which case the credit for the event is solely due to people who believe as you do.

8. No one could ever be worse for the world than the current office holders of any country with whom you disagree, until new office holders with whom you disagree take their place.

9. Remember, above all else, that FARK threads are important, relevant to the real world, and will change things if you just state your case hard enough and in the proper way!

Colgate		2005-09-15 05:47:42 PM

"CodeBlue [TotalFark]

Well it was bound to happen, with Israel and NK having had nukes or nuclear tech for a long time, not to mention India and Pakistan. Iran would be stupid not to get nukes, as this would be the only way to get the Americans off their backs.

case in point:
Iraq: no WMDs -> invasion and humiliation.
North Korea: may have nukes -> let's talk"

Except that NK is agnostic. Islamist love death like we love life. It's hardcoded into their ethos. It's a way to build up courage in the face of an overwhelming enemy. It's a recipe for no less than the destruction of earth.

GDBFC99		2005-09-15 05:48:00 PM

asmctommy

I agree, let's bomb them.

/I keed, I keed

snorkblaster		2005-09-15 05:48:37 PM

The U.N. must act NOW! How can we allow them to stand by? It is time to make the finger-waggling EXTRA waggly! I'd even be in favor of the security council clucking or, god forbid, tsking in Iran's direction!

Then they'll stop.

/Hans Brix, you're breaking my barrs!

Victorinox		2005-09-15 05:48:48 PM

Oh those crazy Persians, what will they think of next.

/oy veh

h8red		2005-09-15 05:48:51 PM

sigdiamond2000

And boom goes the dynamite!

LMAO! You win the thread, sir!

/golf clap

Nightsweat		2005-09-15 05:49:09 PM

For those of you criticizing Lurker_John, let me say this:

Would you have wanted to go get a cup of coffee if the Shah was still in power?

MrBigglesworth		2005-09-15 05:49:25 PM

News flash, oil rich ME countries have absolutely ZERO need for Nuke Power.

"peaceful civilian power generation" my ass.

Tangenital		2005-09-15 05:49:43 PM

Mullahs backwards is Shallum.

vernonFL		2005-09-15 05:50:28 PM

I think Israel is going to "share" some nuclear technology with Iran soon too!

Doug_Piranha		2005-09-15 05:51:09 PM

FarkIt

The 2 I've met prefer Persian.

xxysyndrome		2005-09-15 05:52:20 PM

I know it's been said already, but I'd like to remind submitter that "Muslim" =/= "Arabic", and Iran is most certainly not a Arab state, in any sense of the word.

snorkblaster		2005-09-15 05:52:55 PM

... so far away -- couldn't get away ...

Fark Me To Tears		2005-09-15 05:53:20 PM

Iran is willing to provide nuclear technology to other Muslim states, Iran's hard-line president said Thursday, notching up his rhetoric as his regime rejects international pressure to cut back its atomic program.

Go for it, dude.
We're just looking for a reason to nuke you back into the stone age, anyway.

/and once again, Mankind takes two steps back

bill_01915		2005-09-15 05:53:59 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.

I hate Bush, so let me just say I absolutely do think this is a bad thing. I just wish we were in a position to do something about it short of the glass parkinglot route. But we can't because we're tied up in Iraq where, according to all the Bushbots out there, Saddam's WMDs were a more immediate threat to the US than either Iran or North Korea.

Nightsweat		2005-09-15 05:54:42 PM

Riche
If they fire off a couple of hundred towards the U.S.S Ronald Reagan, one or two just might make it through the defenses.

I prefer to call it the U.S.S. Washington National.

xip_80		2005-09-15 05:54:51 PM

Why do they need nuke power for electricity? They have all the oil in the world...

IRelayer		2005-09-15 05:55:43 PM

submitter needs to read up on the Middle East:

Facts that you got wrong (just in the headline):

1) Iran is not an Arab nation.

2) Thus you would not say that Iran wants to give nuclear technology to other "Arabic" nations. You might as well have said "nubian" instead of Arabic and that would be more correct.

2) It is "Arab" nations not "Arabic" nations.

People people...get educated about things as basic as what I mentioned before you write headlines.

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.

The US by itself could never hope to gain complete control of a country such as Iran. No way, no how. Too big, too rough, too populated, and too many ways to get FUBAR'ed before you can say Tehran. To attack and dismantle Iran and rebuilt it from scratch as we did with Iraq would take a coalition of countries akin to what we had going in 1991, but on a larger scale.

-IR

kliq		2005-09-15 05:55:45 PM

Won't someone post this with frenchy Melissa to make this news bearable?

Boorring		2005-09-15 05:55:58 PM

Riche

Pretty good post.

j__z		2005-09-15 05:56:12 PM

Goody, can't wait to see the gift basket Iran sends to Syria.

RanDomino

"Just know that most American news sources are biased against people whom our administration has labeled as 'enemies'."

What? Must be talking about the Carter administration. That whole 1979 hostage crisis was pretty much a good indication that the ruling party of Iran were/are our enemies. That 'Death to America' chant is another. But I have hope in the next generation of Iranians. Seems they're beginning to hit a tipping point of power that may break them out of the Islamofacist fundamentalism.

/'A chicken in every pot and cap in every ass'

Disdainful		2005-09-15 05:56:17 PM

Come on, Iran, trigger the war that will send us all into a new exciting ice age! 47 virgins and all that!

JaffaMac		2005-09-15 05:56:31 PM

Well, we can't be having a doomsday gap now, can we?..

/Gentlemen, you can't fight in here!

xip_80		2005-09-15 05:56:48 PM

bill_01915:

Well, look on the bright side... We will have the country of Iraq as a staging area when the time comes to occupy the glas parking lot.

//just being an ass, that's all

midazolam		2005-09-15 05:57:21 PM

To attack and dismantle Iran and rebuilt it from scratch as we did with Iraq...

Did?

haydenarrrrgh		2005-09-15 05:57:23 PM

MrBigglesworth

News flash, oil rich ME countries have absolutely ZERO need for Nuke Power.

Because there's no other use for that oil, right?

yehti7		2005-09-15 05:58:02 PM

Let's see. They want to give nuke tech. to other islamic countries and what not. Some are known terrorist sponsors. All want isreal destroyed at all costs. Because of our relationship with Isreal and other reasons, they target us too. I'm not here to get into tit for tit (heh, heh, heh, I said tit)reasons.

They get the "bomb" it's only a matter of time that they use this on someone. Maybe not us or Isreal, but someone. The "extremists" will use it on someone because they got their religous panties in a knot and start going, "lalalalalallala, Allah, Ackbar" and decide someone has to die so they can get their 72 virgin camels so they can go camel fark for eternity.

Glowing glass parking lot is lookin' a lot better these daze.

Too bad I can't go with the dolphins, So Long and Thanks For All The Fish.

Solid State Vittles		2005-09-15 05:58:06 PM

Well, if they plan on sharing with the rest of the group, I hope that they bring enough yellowcake for everybody.

totalsecurity		2005-09-15 05:58:07 PM

2005-09-15 05:44:12 PM Colgate

(snipped) Countries that can't get indoor plumbing working shouldn't be allowed to leapfrog like this.

Countries like Alaska? Did you know that Alaska is supposed to be one of the United States?

"Many rural Alaskans live without running water and flush toilets. Currently approximately 40% of the communities in rural Alaska do not have sufficient water supplies nor wastewater disposal. The basic sanitation needs in nearly one-half of Alaska's 192 Native villages have yet to be met. Another 76 rural communities are not considered to be Native villages; however, the sanitation facilities in a number of these communities are known to be similar to those of Alaska Native villages."

Google for Honeybucket or sewage lagoon.

lazymojo		2005-09-15 05:58:45 PM

LET'S JUST NUKE 'EM FIRST...HERE WE GO, WAHOOOOOOOO! NUKE NUKE NUKE, NUKE NUKE N-NUKE!

blakamin		2005-09-15 05:58:57 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.

Is that because you "totalFarkers" are sooo "1337" or something??

/not everyone has paypal

Boorring		2005-09-15 05:59:25 PM

xip_80:

bill_01915:

Well, look on the bright side... We will have the country of Iraq as a staging area when the time comes to occupy the glas parking lot.

//just being an ass, that's all

...I think you made a provacative point as to a possible war strategy by the administration.

Or should I say....strategery?

Mordant		2005-09-15 05:59:41 PM

The Day After was kids stuff, look for a European film called Threads if you want to get really depressed.

Nightsweat		2005-09-15 05:59:52 PM

So long mom, I'm off to drop the bomb
So don't wait up for me
Remember as you swelter,
down there in your shelter
You can see me
On your TV...

whidbey		2005-09-15 06:00:18 PM

Great. Another even more paranoid version of the first thread.

MrBigglesworth		2005-09-15 06:00:20 PM

We simply don't have the military resources to invade and occupy the country, especially after we shot our wad in Iraq.

BZZZT Wrong. We certainly do. It people on the left, and their farking hand wriging about not wanting to upset "muslims" if a mosque that is hiding terrorists and weapon caches is destroyed. Don't wanna offend anyone. If we took off that leash, we wouldn't be in the situation where we are today. The ROE should be changed to reflect this. If terrorists are hiding in "holy" sites, then screw em and take the safety off the trigger.

Eejit		2005-09-15 06:00:40 PM

Ok, the glass parking lot idea clearly is unpopular, but what if we just subjugated the Middle East, spread the population throughout the rest of the world (or relocated them to camps in Sibera), and then lived a happy life?

No more problems! We control the oil and those damnable Muslims, and we can stop nuclear proliferation! No more tinder for teh fire--just good ol' opression. It'd be easy enough: the war against Iraq was over before the media could call Bush an idiot. Well most of 'em at least. Regardless, if we're looking for another final solution, this might just be the one!

(To all of you who do not appreciate satire: this is an example of satire.)

Wombatjack		2005-09-15 06:00:41 PM

I know the bandwagon has been jumped on so many times that it's about to tip over but ... an Arabic state is, by definition, one where the population speaks Arabic. Iranians speak Farsi. They could be accurately described as "Middle Eastern" or "Islamic" ... but not Arabic.

yehti7		2005-09-15 06:01:19 PM

IRelayer ,

STFU. We don't care about some grammar and other mistakes. We get the point of what he was submitting.

Need we continue this senseless idiocy? My shovel can dig faster and deeper than yours.

Faethe		2005-09-15 06:01:49 PM

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

Me too.

mistergecko		2005-09-15 06:02:25 PM

This is the kind of situation that makes me think someday society will be like A Brave New World.

For those who haven't read the book, it's about a society where religion had been wiped out for the "good of mankind". This is just an excuse to work towards that "ideology".

Digitalstrange		2005-09-15 06:02:32 PM

Heroic Poser:

So now we're down on sharing?

not at all feel free to share hypodermic needles whenever you shoot up.

/despite what your kidergarten teacher taught you sharing isn't always good.

vernonFL		2005-09-15 06:02:34 PM

Countries that can't get indoor plumbing working shouldn't be allowed to leapfrog like this.

Iran is actually a very modern country, its not like Afghanistan. Tehran is a very worldly city.

Nightsweat		2005-09-15 06:02:39 PM

OK, here's my idea. We sell the Iranians cheap a bunch of those radiation-producing lightbulbs from the previous thread to install in the mullahs living quarters...

learn2fly		2005-09-15 06:02:44 PM

look mommy...there's an airplane up in the sky...

bill_01915		2005-09-15 06:02:55 PM

Well, look on the bright side... We will have the country of Iraq as a staging area when the time comes to occupy the glas parking lot.

That's the neo-con logic at work. If I were placing bets, I'd bet my money that the Iranians will have their nukes, probably by a timely purchase from North Korea, before we're in any position to leave Iraq.

Kuta		2005-09-15 06:02:59 PM

I'm so glad we made it patently obvious to the Arab world that the *only* way they'll be protected is if they have nukes themselves. Way to go cowboy Bush.

Baby's got an atom bomb
A motherfarking atom bomb
Twenty two megaton
Aint never seen so much fun

Baby got a poison gas
Baby got a heart attacks
Baby got a pain on tap
Baby gimme some of that

(Gimme some of that)
(Gimme some of that)

Baby got a nobel prize
Given for the perfect crime
Baby got an alibi
Baby got eight more lives

Baby got bubble hair
Baby got a secret lair
Baby got an army up there
I ain't never seen a baby that scared

whidbey		2005-09-15 06:03:02 PM

MrBigglesworth: If we took off that leash, we wouldn't be in the situation where we are today. The ROE should be changed to reflect this. If terrorists are hiding in "holy" sites, then screw em and take the safety off the trigger.

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.

Colgate		2005-09-15 06:03:07 PM

Boorring,

you catch on fast! The US views the ME as a bloc. Iraq was the loose brick in the wall. We have an army in Afghanistan and Iraq. Don't forget Afghanistan. We have Iran surrounded. We will probably quarratine them next. Things would get hairy in a hurry if we did this.

purplesmoke420		2005-09-15 06:03:16 PM

Just remember to DUCK and COVER.

... That's right... DUCK... and COVER.

fictional_character		2005-09-15 06:03:20 PM

Irrespective of Iran's electricity needs, it does not need enrichment technologies and secret facilities sealed off from teh very pliable and pro-Iranian IAEA (el-Baradei). It's intransigence, like Saddam's prior to GWII, means that people can reasonably assume that something fishy's going on. If that fishy is a radioactive one, the entire world has cauuse for grave concern.

/this ends the intrusion into the impending flame war

peachykeen		2005-09-15 06:03:40 PM

vernonFL

I think Israel is going to "share" some nuclear technology with Iran soon too!

ZING!

What, no 'they set us up the bomb' jokes?

Faethe		2005-09-15 06:03:57 PM

Eejit: Regardless, if we're looking for another final solution, this might just be the one!

Naw. They want us to bomb them - its painfully obvious. If we bomb them, then the 'muslim world' can openly declare war on the 'western world' which is what they have wanted the whole time.

Meanwhile, China sits on its big, fat, ass and laughs itself stupid.

//the end.

Mr. Anon		2005-09-15 06:03:59 PM

Rottenassdan

My coworkers want to know why i'm laughing now... thanks.

belhade		2005-09-15 06:04:16 PM

Ha ha ha ha! You just said "nuclear". It's "nukular", dummy, the "s" is silent.

cot		2005-09-15 06:04:18 PM

Colgate: Islamist love death like we love life.

I have to say that every time you post, I hate life just a little bit more.

I hope you're using a definition of Islamist that includes <1% of the Muslim population of the world, or else you're making a vast generalization that isn't valid.

Digitalstrange		2005-09-15 06:04:54 PM

mistergecko

This is the kind of situation that makes me think someday society will be like A Brave New World.

For those who haven't read the book, it's about a society where religion had been wiped out for the "good of mankind". This is just an excuse to work towards that "ideology".

If thats all you got from A Brave New World then I pity you.

shipofthesun		2005-09-15 06:05:21 PM

yellowcake.....strategery....

HAHAHAHAHA!

vernonFL		2005-09-15 06:05:40 PM

MrBigglesworth

There is no way we could successfully invade and occupy Iran without a draft and very heavy casualties.

serial_crusher		2005-09-15 06:05:52 PM

Hey NASA: Drop a meteor on these biatches already.

Money VSOP		2005-09-15 06:05:55 PM

Dude, that guy couldn't even afford a tie to wear to the UN World Summit?

biglot		2005-09-15 06:06:11 PM

We are f(_)cked. Their fundies are only fractionally more mental than our fundies.

As Riche says, "Bush is a complete, utter fool who has a real knack for making bad situations worse".

So, it's really beginning to look like he's going to have to sail his wooden ships in there and convert these savages to christianity. There, that should do it ... and thereby, making everything and everybody, a-ok and globally safe, once and forever, and for all of the remainder of our times.

cot		2005-09-15 06:06:25 PM

faethe: Naw. They want us to bomb them - its painfully obvious. If we bomb them, then the 'muslim world' can openly declare war on the 'western world' which is what they have wanted the whole time.

They don't want open war. They tried that. Didn't work out too well, with Israel handing them their collective asses. It'd be even more lopsided now. They like the current pseudo-unaffiliated terrorist bullshiat because it keeps them from getting reamed.

If they started lobbing missiles at Israel and destroying cities, they'd nuke Tehran in a heartbeat.

supersucker		2005-09-15 06:06:33 PM

Hmmm, in yesterday's FARK news we had this story

http://www.10tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3833744

"George Bush is one signature away from having preemtive nuclear strike powers. No follow up joke as this just isn't funny"

...and then today we have this headline.
Coincidence? I think not.............

Donga		2005-09-15 06:06:56 PM

Colgate
Countries that can't get indoor plumbing working shouldn't be allowed to leapfrog like this.

Countries that cant handle disasters well shouldn't be allowed to have them either.

/moran

yehti7		2005-09-15 06:07:18 PM

Screw this. I'm going back to bed and watching southpark on the intarnets.

Why do I keep hearing "It's Christmas @ Ground Zero" by wierd al?

/irony - that same song was on a video juke box on okinawa back in 93-94 at some hamburger stand on Camp Foster. God, I used to get drunk on a couple of pitchers of beer and watch some idiotic jerk play that just to piss the locals off. Talk about EXTREME non PC.

cot		2005-09-15 06:07:30 PM

Digitalstrange: If thats all you got from A Brave New World then I pity you.

... and Animal Farm's point was that you can teach pigs to wak upright.

learn2fly		2005-09-15 06:07:42 PM

In my rear view mirror the sun is going down
Sinking behind bridges in the road
And I think of all the good things
That we have left undone
And I suffer premonitions
Confirm suspicions
Of the holocaust to come
The rusty wire that holds the cork
That keeps the anger in
Gives way
And suddenly its day again
The sun is in the east
Even though the day is done
Two suns in the sunset
Hmmmmmmmmm
Could be the human race is run
Like the moment when your brakes lock
And you slide toward the big truck
And stretch the frozen moments with your fear
And youll never hear their voices
And youll never see their faces
You have no recourse to the law anymore
And as the windshield melts
My tears evaporate
Leaving only charcoal to defend
Finally I understand
The feelings of the few
Ashes and diamonds
Foe and friend
We were all equal in the end

bill_01915		2005-09-15 06:07:48 PM

It people on the left, and their farking hand wriging about not wanting to upset "muslims" if a mosque that is hiding terrorists and weapon caches is destroyed.

No, it's not because of liberal hand wrining, it's because the people in the military are smart enough to know leveling a mosque to kill 1 terrorist will cause 10,000 non-combatants to pick up rifles and join the fight against us.

M22M		2005-09-15 06:07:53 PM

Faethe		2005-09-15 06:08:00 PM

vernonFL: There is no way we could successfully invade and occupy Iran without a draft and very heavy casualties.

So just blow them all up. This is where its going. I think we are proving that to ourselves. Its all fun until some asshole gets hold of a nuke. Not only do they want to get hold of a nuke, they want all thier friends to have nukes too.

Any other shiat hole in the world said this - no problem. Ka-bang. What is it about these assholes that makes them so special?

Digitalstrange		2005-09-15 06:08:38 PM

vernonFL [TotalFark]

MrBigglesworth

There is no way we could successfully invade and occupy Iran without a draft and very heavy casualties.

Apparently you missed the discussion yesterday about giving GWB first nuclear strike capability.

roughmarble		2005-09-15 06:08:48 PM

JabbaTheButt		2005-09-15 06:08:50 PM

This thread has some of the dumbest comments I've ever read.
"Nuclear Bombs waaahhh..."
"Bush's fault..."
And the islamist sympathizers make me sick. I'll guarantee that if the symps voted in the last election, they voted 100% for J. F'ing Kerry.

I hope Israel just takes it in their own hands again.....

whidbey		2005-09-15 06:09:06 PM

faethe: Any other shiat hole in the world said this - no problem. Ka-bang.

Let's just hope you're being sarcastic. It's for the best.

Faethe		2005-09-15 06:09:23 PM

cot: They don't want open war. They tried that. Didn't work out too well, with Israel handing them their collective asses. It'd be even more lopsided now. They like the current pseudo-unaffiliated terrorist bullshiat because it keeps them from getting reamed.

If they started lobbing missiles at Israel and destroying cities, they'd nuke Tehran in a heartbeat.

I think you are right, and that's even worse.

Mugato		2005-09-15 06:09:27 PM

Hot French Newscaster can make a mushroom cloud pleasing.

kliq		2005-09-15 06:09:31 PM

M22M:

Thanks =)

schpaetzle		2005-09-15 06:09:44 PM

Funny peachykeen :)

Read this story earlier and thought, "Man that sucks."

I mean what do you do about something like this?

MrBigglesworth		2005-09-15 06:09:54 PM

Because there's no other use for that oil, right?

Uh.....no..there are plenty of other uses. They can sell it to support their economy, power their infrastructure, make plastics..etc.

They have no need for "peaceful, civilian power" as they claim. The oil can do it all.

Faethe		2005-09-15 06:10:18 PM

whidbey: Let's just hope you're being sarcastic. It's for the best.

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?

obz		2005-09-15 06:10:26 PM

Never fear!

fark YEAH!

IRelayer		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

shipofthesun		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.

Antho		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]

Mugato		2005-09-15 06:12:33 PM

Who the hell is an Islamic sympathizer, JabbaTheButt?

Boorring		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

vernonFL		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.

MrBigglesworth		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?

Swede		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.

whidbey		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.

xebeche_tzu		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.

dudemanbro		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.

PeopleFirst		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.

whidbey		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.

Faethe		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.

Mugato		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.

whidbey		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.

Faethe		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.

Money VSOP		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.

Boorring		2005-09-15 06:17:58 PM

Antho

whidbey		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?

MrBigglesworth		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.

Faethe		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..

droptone		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.

vernonFL		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

Boorring		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.

batcar01		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..."

whidbey		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.

tetheredswimming		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.

mdbirt		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.

Avialableforcomment		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.

Anagrammer		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!

Faethe		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.

farken_icehole		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.

RancidOne		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.

Antho		2005-09-15 06:28:16 PM

booring

droptone		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.

musmatta		2005-09-15 06:29:04 PM

FISSION MAILED

Eidolon		2005-09-15 06:29:46 PM

*sigh*

mistergecko		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.

TommyymmoT		2005-09-15 06:31:34 PM

Sharing? Where is Lars Ullrich when you really need him?

JohnBigBootay		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?

damitjim		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

ghare		2005-09-15 06:33:29 PM

Seems like if I went back and took those nucular engineering classes the job market is good.

Mugato		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.

farken_icehole		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.

Boorring		2005-09-15 06:35:13 PM

Antho

space_cadet_28		2005-09-15 06:35:39 PM

the danger is not actually countries having nukes but third party non-government groups.

marsupial		2005-09-15 06:36:09 PM

Maybe its just me, but I can't really see how this would make a difference in the long run. Eventually every country will have nuclear technology anyway, right?

If they said they'd share nuclear tech with any Muslim NGO or individual who was curious, then I'd be worried.

http//www.whitehouse.gov		2005-09-15 06:37:33 PM

whatever...im more scared knowing the USA has them then iran....

whorehopper		2005-09-15 06:37:59 PM

Everyone with nonsensical patriotic stickers on their cars can suck it, you caused the death of your empire. You had a chance in 2004, but you re-elected Bush. Diplomacy is dead and the world is united against us. Say goodnight asshats, the only thing y ou're going otbe getting out of this is a lifetime of being owned by your cresit card company.

Couldn't have happened to a bigger bunch of ignorant assholes either.

http//www.whitehouse.gov		2005-09-15 06:39:19 PM

i agree.

space_cadet_28		2005-09-15 06:39:33 PM

i have an idea why not give the superpower in the region (israel) actual borders. borders reduce a lot of tension. revolutionary idea.

Aexia		2005-09-15 06:39:44 PM

BZZZT Wrong. We certainly do. It people on the left, and their farking hand wriging about not wanting to upset "muslims" if a mosque that is hiding terrorists and weapon caches is destroyed. Don't wanna offend anyone. If we took off that leash, we wouldn't be in the situation where we are today. The ROE should be changed to reflect this. If terrorists are hiding in "holy" sites, then screw em and take the safety off the trigger.

So, what's your plan for *after* we blow everything up in Iran? That's the hard part. No one disputes we could annihilate their military. It's *occupying* the country that we can't do. We don't have the troops. We don't even have enough troops for Iraq and Iran is four times its size!

Being more willing to blow up mosques is only going to make the actual occupation part that much harder.

JohnPrester		2005-09-15 06:39:52 PM

I hope I'm not the first to point out that Iran isn't "Arabic" but Persian.

BobtheFascist		2005-09-15 06:40:34 PM

Saw that coming

cot		2005-09-15 06:41:38 PM

Aexia: So, what's your plan for *after* we blow everything up in Iran? That's the hard part. No one disputes we could annihilate their military. It's *occupying* the country that we can't do.

Maybe we should spend some money developing the ability to build tall, sturdy walls rapidly.

Petey4335		2005-09-15 06:41:41 PM

I don't get how people can't understand pandora's box has been openned since July 16th, 1945. The technology is 60 years old. All that is needed is material, time and space to separate U-235 from U-238. What makes matters worse is the ammount of fissionable material lying around the old soviet republic almost but not quite unguarded.

It is just a matter of time before random 3rd world country or Corporation or Fundamental Religious organization becomes a nuclear power.

Crying about Iran or Pakistan giving away technology is a moot point. Someone is going to have the technology and the material soon enough.

TommyymmoT		2005-09-15 06:42:14 PM

JohnBigBootay
"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?"

First, I'm not pro nuke.

However, bombing Japan, took 60,000 or so Japanese lives.
Had we invaded them, it would have been as many as 6 million.
As well as a whole bunch of American deaths.

Yeah, we have nukes. We also have airplanes, though we don't fly them into buildings.

We also have explosives, but we don't encourage our children to strap them to themselves, and blow up a coffee shop. (Though if I had kids, Starbucks is a pretty tempting target.)

Your statement is like "hey, I have a shotgun, why shouldn't the drunken homocidal maniac down the street have one"?

ObeliskToucher		2005-09-15 06:43:32 PM

KaponoFor3: I agree, hence why I called it a quasi-democracy (in the sense of democracy that we know).

If the equivalent form of "quasi-democracy" was installed here, either Daniel Berrigan or Pat Robertson (depending on which direction -nuttery you don't like) has approval rights on all candidates for state & national office.

Doesn't sound much like any kind of democracy anymore, does it?

tmwsiy		2005-09-15 06:43:46 PM

tommyymmoT:

so we are the only country responsible enough to have nuclear weapons? that is what you are saying?

uncoveror		2005-09-15 06:43:57 PM

Poster, Iranians are Persians, not Arabs. They speak and write Farsi, not Arabic

Anagrammer		2005-09-15 06:44:04 PM

I've never understood why people worry about nuclear war. If it doesn't happen, we don't have to worry. If it does happen, we won't have to worry.

simon_magus		2005-09-15 06:44:49 PM

Alright, be warned, in this post I am going to rant about Islam.

I'm a fairly liberally minded Religious Studies/ Political Science Major. If I were to describe my religious beliefs I'd be fairly agnostic (maybe some overtones of zen and existentialism, but that's neither here nor there). I'm fascinated by many world religions and have a great degree of reverence for near all of them...except the modern conceptualization of Islam.

It's become such a banality to say that Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism are outside the mainstream Muslim values. This is a nice way for the Bush administration to do Dr. Phil type PR. I do agree Muslim Americans are just as law abiding and patriotic as most others bla bla bla.

But can we stop pretending there is absolutely NOTHING intrinsic to Islam that promotes fanatical zealotry, terrorism, and violence against women?

Can we stop pretending that what young Muslim boys are learning in Madrasahs of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan is good old fahsioned "love thy neighbor" theology?

Can we stop ignoring the fact that the subjugation of women is a scripturally based tradition?

Can we ignore the fact that Islam has become a religion bankrupt of intellectualism?

Can we ignore the fact that any public figure who voices these concerns faces death threats?

Say what you want about Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and the rest of the whackjob religious right, but if you criticize them on TV, one does not typically need to worry about being shiskabobbed by a motorcycle riding zealot.

cot		2005-09-15 06:45:00 PM

Petey4335: It is just a matter of time before random 3rd world country or Corporation or Fundamental Religious organization becomes a nuclear power.

Crying about Iran or Pakistan giving away technology is a moot point. Someone is going to have the technology and the material soon enough.

I agree with a lot of your post, but not the conclusion.

As technology advances, it will become easier and easier for people to acquire nukes. We become more and more likely to face another detonation. I don't see anything changing this.

However, the slope of the decline into that era may be somewhat controllable and I hope that we do everything we can to make it happen as slowly as possible.

Think of it this way - death is totally inevitable, yet some of us do things to try to at least stave it off for a while. Would you cite the inevitability of death as a reason to jump off a building now?

AgeOfReason		2005-09-15 06:45:26 PM

Antho:

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]

Well I am glad I checked before I posted the same rant but with much less information.

//Why don't people in the US get out a little more?

I_Attack_People		2005-09-15 06:46:04 PM

BigJohnBootay

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.

Maybe you answered your own question.

Listen dopes: More nuclear weapons in the world is BAD BAD BAD. Who already has them is a non factor in this equation.

PLUS, the more nuclear armed countries there are, the less chance there is that anyone would ever disarm.

Nuclear non-proliferation can work. It just depends on how aggressive we want to be to see that it works.

MatterEaterLad		2005-09-15 06:46:44 PM

One of the world's largest oil producing nations says they need nuclear power for energy. Hmmm......I guess that sounds pretty good.

/Give them two new hostages, Fat Man and Little Boy.

Boorring		2005-09-15 06:46:59 PM

Petey4335

"It is just a matter of time before random 3rd world country or Corporation or Fundamental Religious organization becomes a nuclear power."

Man, if I was the owner of a corporation that owned a nuclear weapon, that would be so...cool.

I would just be sitting high in my glass-walled, new carpeted office, but in the under-belly of the corporate building would be my nuke in it's air-conditioned, hermetically sealed, new-car smelling lab, with lab technicians in white coats scuttling between stations lit by blue-neon bulbs...

Sweet. Look's like I have a mission, after all.

MOAB_in_my_pocket		2005-09-15 06:47:20 PM

Who woulda thunk it?

AgeOfReason		2005-09-15 06:48:37 PM

Boorring, Antho

Bravo

TommyymmoT		2005-09-15 06:48:53 PM

tmwsiy
tommyymmoT:

so we are the only country responsible enough to have nuclear weapons? that is what you are saying?

No, I'm not, but when someone clearly states that they are going to give them to any Muslem group that wants them (Muslems don't like us very much by the way), then there is a problem.

I don't think that anybody that's ever lived, has the right to ruin a part of the earth for that long a time.
The Muslems do. It's their divine destiny.

TommyymmoT		2005-09-15 06:51:38 PM

Oooops.
Muslem, Muslim whatever, who gives a damn.

LincolnLogolas		2005-09-15 06:51:47 PM

Looks like it's time to privatize the possession of nuclear weapons. I can't wait to see how many Bill Gates purchases.

altrocks		2005-09-15 06:52:47 PM

So they're just confirming what we already knew... that people are stupid.

I wonder if people who lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis are more or less scared these days.

Gash		2005-09-15 06:53:13 PM

"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."

Many people would also call the USA a quasi-democracy after watching its last two elections.

whidbey		2005-09-15 06:53:22 PM

simon_magus: Alright, be warned, in this post I am going to rant about Islam.

You're ranting about EXTREMISTS.

You're doing a disservice to the regular Muslims who don't think violence is in any way a solution.

Michael Hunt		2005-09-15 06:54:08 PM

Too much of this story sounds fishy. I smell a plant. Something to keep the sheep nice and scared.

On the other hand, I wouldn't blame Iran one bit for wanting to become a nuclear power. It seems like the only way to keep from being invaded and occupied is to actually have the WMDs(tm).

pstudent12		2005-09-15 06:54:12 PM

Ferruz [TotalFark]

... with the addition of "questionable states" like China, ~~India~~, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia.....

There, I fixed it for you. India hates muslims and is the
only nuclear state with an official no-first-strike policy.

cruci fiction [TotalFark]

...I personally think Pakistan is FAR FAR more of a threat with their nukes than Iran....

Exactly right. India hates them because of the Pakistan
supported terror/suicide groups that have been slaughtering
Indians in Kashmir in a fashion far more brutal than what suicide bombers are doing in Israel.

Want to get rid of the home of Islamic terror ? Support India.

Johnny_Alien		2005-09-15 06:54:14 PM

First we got the bomb, and that was good,
'Cause we love peace and motherhood.
Then Russia got the bomb, but that's okay,
'Cause the balance of power's maintained that way.
Who's next?

France got the bomb, but don't you grieve,
'Cause they're on our side (I believe).
China got the bomb, but have no fears,
They can't wipe us out for at least five years.
Who's next?

Then Indonesia claimed that they
Were gonna get one any day.
South Africa wants two, that's right:
One for the black and one for the white.
Who's next?

Egypt's gonna get one too,
Just to use on you know who.
So Israel's getting tense.
Wants one in self defense.
"The Lord's our shepherd," says the psalm,
But just in case, we better get a bomb.
Who's next?

Luxembourg is next to go,
And (who knows?) maybe Monaco.
We'll try to stay serene and calm
When Alabama gets the bomb.
Who's next?

--Tom Lehrer

altrocks		2005-09-15 06:54:35 PM

AgeOfReason: //Why don't people in the US get out a little more?

Because people like to blow themselves up next to us.

MWeather		2005-09-15 06:55:36 PM

MrBigglesworth: BZZZT Wrong. We certainly do. It people on the left, and their farking hand wriging about not wanting to upset "muslims" if a mosque that is hiding terrorists and weapon caches is destroyed. Don't wanna offend anyone. If we took off that leash, we wouldn't be in the situation where we are today.

Yeah, I can't wait till conservatives are amajority in the government and those damn liberals can't push people around anymore.

jookey22		2005-09-15 06:55:57 PM

Riche

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.

We could take over with very few troops if we did it unconventionally. If a city got upity we would simply melt it. Thats how it was done in the old days. When a city in norhtern england decided to rebell, William the Conquere simple distroyed there entire eco system. Now we can do it at the press of a button.

I am by no means advocating this course of action, quite the contrary. I am simply stating it's possible.

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.

I think a dozen or so would be sufficent overkill.

Anagrammer		2005-09-15 06:57:33 PM

simon_magus: Alright, be warned, in this post I am going to rant about Islam.

whidbey: You're ranting about EXTREMISTS.

You're doing a disservice to the regular Muslims who don't think violence is in any way a solution.

No, the Islamic extremists are doing a disservice to regular Muslims. Simon_magus is just expressing his thoughts.

Gowain		2005-09-15 06:57:39 PM

I wonder if they'll share nuclear with me if I convert to Islam? I'd like to have my own nuke plant, personally.

piss_ant_		2005-09-15 06:58:01 PM

these guys really have some big ones, considering how quickly the US invaded Iraq without much to go on.

cyberlost		2005-09-15 06:58:03 PM

brought to you by einstein and oppenheimer.
and me.

Alex Chilton		2005-09-15 06:58:09 PM

Submitter is an ignorant moran. Please don't offer an opinion on Mid-East politics if you don't even know that Iranians aren't Arab. Unbelievable.

The sad thing is, I think most or at least a lot of Iranians don't like their government but they get painted with the same brush as the crazy zealots. Sound like any other countries you know?

whyarefartslumpy		2005-09-15 06:58:19 PM

GASH,
Many people would also call the USA a quasi-democracy after watching its last two elections.

Oh, Really? Like what kind of people?

/just want to know

geekpunk2		2005-09-15 06:58:37 PM

Not all Arabs are Muslims. Only 10% of Muslims are Arabs.

Muslims are not monolithic. In Kuwait, women cant even be town councilwoman but in Indonesia, they had a women President once. In Saudi Arabia, women are not allowed to drive cars but in Malaysia, they have female fighter pilots.

Shiite vs. Sunni.They have been at each others throats longer than the time of GW Bush, George III and Columbus.

The US occupation in Iraq is a mere sideshow. Eventually, the US will leave. When? In Middle East time scale, 100 years is a very short time in an era which had 5000 years of civilization.

The real battle is between the Sunnis and Shiites as it has been for centuries and they know this.

altrocks		2005-09-15 06:58:40 PM

jookey22: I think a dozen or so would be sufficent overkill.

Probably not. Those anti-missile defense on today's warships are pretty good. you'd be surprised how many missiles a curtain of depleted uranium can stop.

LincolnLogolas		2005-09-15 06:59:01 PM

TommyymmoT

Yeah, totally. God commands them to lay waste to the lands of the heathens:

However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.

Oh wait, that's in Deuteronomy. My bad!

whidbey		2005-09-15 07:00:54 PM

Anagrammer: Simon_magus is just expressing his thoughts.

simon_magus: It's become such a banality to say that Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism are outside the mainstream Muslim values.

Thoughts that are completely wrong. I stand by my previous assertion.

simon_magus		2005-09-15 07:03:29 PM

whidbey

It seems to me that it's intellectually dishonest to believe that the "extremists" are an incredibly small population of Islam.

Maybe the MAJORITY of Muslims in the Middle East do support fanatical Islam (not the same thing as Wahhabism or terrorism) Iran's president did in fact win a democratic election.

Maybe the majority of Muslims have lost touch with the peaceful Islamic traditions of Averroues and Rumi. Maybe that Islam, the intellectual peace-loving Islam, does not exist anymore. Maybe all that is left is this unyielding hegemonic movement for theocracy that can't tolerate even the slightest bit of criticism or dissent.

whidbey		2005-09-15 07:06:51 PM

simon_magus: It seems to me that it's intellectually dishonest to believe that the "extremists" are an incredibly small population of Islam.

You're going to have to prove to me (and everyone here) that there is more than just a fringe element behind the bombings, suicides and terrorist actions. Otherwise, your comments are extremely ignorant and bigoted.

Go. You've got your work cut out for you.

falser		2005-09-15 07:10:33 PM

Wow isn't it coicidental the US is about to give pre-emptive nuclear strike powers to the President? It's like these two events were destined to come together in a big bang.

Pericles		2005-09-15 07:11:07 PM

Of course Bush is wrong either way so you liberal freaks have it made...keep your fingers crossed, i am sure a US city will get nuked eventually.

portscanner		2005-09-15 07:12:47 PM

The Iranians want to protect their precious bodily fluids. They want to protect their Purity of Essence.

They first became aware of it during the physical act of love...Yes, a profound sense of fatigue, a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily they was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence. They can assure you it has not recurred. Women, er, women sense their power, and women seek the life essence. They do not avoid women, but they do deny women their essence.

/ obscure?

uidzero		2005-09-15 07:13:23 PM

When there is power imbalance, there is war. If everyone has a big gun to each other's head, nothing happens (see the cold-war for notes).

WebAdmin		2005-09-15 07:13:41 PM

AgeOfReason
//Why don't people in the US get out a little more?

What country/region has the US not set boots down in? Seems like we get out too farkin often.

whidbey		2005-09-15 07:13:46 PM

portscanner: / obscure?

Tiresome.

moops		2005-09-15 07:14:17 PM

that farking asshole bush has put us in this position. if we hadn't invaded iraq, we could be taken seriously. now with iraq under our occupation, we have no credibility when it comes to getting tough. we invade/attack ANOTHER middle eastern country it'll produce a backlash big enough to cause the fall of rome.

fark you bush.

Lostcom760		2005-09-15 07:14:21 PM

If it weren't for the damn liberals we wouldn't have these problems.

craig1f		2005-09-15 07:15:13 PM

Um, Persians aren't Arabs. It should say "other Muslim countries" not "other Arab countries."

Anagrammer		2005-09-15 07:15:31 PM

whidbey: Thoughts that are completely wrong. I stand by my previous assertion.

Thank you for your opinion.

whidbey		2005-09-15 07:16:41 PM

Anagrammer: Thank you for your opinion.

I asked for proof. Don't make that claim again unless you can back it up.

I'm serious.

piss_ant_		2005-09-15 07:17:10 PM

I am an atheist.

But I believe religion is good to control the masses.

Each religion has loopholes though that allow for nutty interpretation.

As with any religion, Islam has good intentions.

But there are too many ways for nutty interpretation.

It's too bad there are so many religions in the world. If we just had one it would be a lot better.

2wolves		2005-09-15 07:17:44 PM

Political Science

No one likes us-I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens

We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us-so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them

Asia's crowded and Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us

We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin', too

Boom goes London and boom Paree
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono
And there'll be Italian shoes for me

They all hate us anyhow
So let's drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one now

-Randy Newman

cot		2005-09-15 07:18:20 PM

moops: that farking asshole bush has put us in this position. if we hadn't invaded iraq, we could be taken seriously. now with iraq under our occupation, we have no credibility when it comes to getting tough. we invade/attack ANOTHER middle eastern country it'll produce a backlash big enough to cause the fall of rome.

You know the naive shining example of democracy that iraq was going to be? Why couldn't we have made afghanistan that example? The whole world was behind us going into afghanistan, and would have gladly helped rebuild and keep order, and if we focused there it might have had a shot. Instead we open an even bigger can of worms that didn't really need to be opened just yet.

Anagrammer		2005-09-15 07:19:57 PM

Anagrammer: Thank you for your opinion.

whidbey: I asked for proof. Don't make that claim again unless you can back it up.

I'm serious.

You need proof that you expressed an opinion? Fascinating.

imcguyver		2005-09-15 07:20:10 PM

Any physics scientist with a few years of time and deep pockets can figure out how to make a nuke. It certainly sucks one country can speed up that process for others but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Other countries having nukes is bound to happen, with or without Bush. Instead of asking ourselves what we plan to do to prevent countries having nukes, we should ask how the hell are we going to prevent them from being used. Invading other countries and overthrowing governments isn't going to work forever.

simon_magus		2005-09-15 07:20:28 PM

Whidbey

See, this is why it's impossible to have a serious discussion about this. I'm not saying all Muslims are extremists. I'm saying the whole "that's not REAL Islam" is disingenous.

You've probably already made up your mind (considering you called me a bigot), but here are theological conventions of Islam wherein tolerance of violence is explicitly advocated. These aren't conventions of just radical Islam, but much of mainstream Islam.

Great PBS article on the hate and intolerance taught at Muslim Madrasah's

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/madrassas.html

Are Arabian summer camps encouraging terrorism?

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=IA24105

Good article by a Muslim scholar stating basically that Islamic education is essentially bankrupt and must embrace humanism and realism

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=IA24005

Great article that chronicles the suffering of women in the Islamic world:

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=jordan&ID=SP6399

I found these all in a few minutes at work.

Read ANYTHING about Islam and intellectualism by Fareed Zakaria he's written in the last few years and he'll agree that Muslim theology has become venomous and intellectually bankrupt.

Now, do you want to keep calling me a bigot or do you want to have a serious discussion of the problems of Islamic theology?

cot		2005-09-15 07:20:40 PM

whidbey: Anagrammer: Thank you for your opinion.

I asked for proof. Don't make that claim again unless you can back it up.

I'm serious.

You have a way of making me want to disagree with you even on something I'd probably otherwise agree with.

Geotpf		2005-09-15 07:21:16 PM

That's great, it starts with an earthquake, birds and snakes, an aeroplane -
Lenny Bruce is not afraid. Eye of a hurricane, listen to yourself churn -
world serves its own needs, don't misserve your own needs. Feed it up a knock,
speed, grunt no, strength no. Ladder structure clatter with fear of height,
down height. Wire in a fire, represent the seven games in a government for
hire and a combat site. Left her, wasn't coming in a hurry with the furies
breathing down your neck. Team by team reporters baffled, trump, tethered
crop. Look at that low plane! Fine then. Uh oh, overflow, population,
common group, but it'll do. Save yourself, serve yourself. World serves its
own needs, listen to your heart bleed. Tell me with the rapture and the
reverent in the right - right. You vitriolic, patriotic, slam, fight, bright
light, feeling pretty psyched.

It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.

Six o'clock - TV hour. Don't get caught in foreign tower. Slash and burn,
return, listen to yourself churn. Lock him in uniform and book burning,
blood letting. Every motive escalate. Automotive incinerate. Light a candle,
light a motive. Step down, step down. Watch a heel crush, crush. Uh oh,
this means no fear - cavalier. Renegade and steer clear! A tournament,
a tournament, a tournament of lies. Offer me solutions, offer me alternatives
and I decline.

It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.

The other night I tripped a nice continental drift divide. Mount St. Edelite.
Leonard Bernstein. Leonid Breshnev, Lenny Bruce and Lester Bangs.
Birthday party, cheesecake, jelly bean, boom! You symbiotic, patriotic,
slam, but neck, right? Right.

It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine...fine...

(It's time I had some time alone)

whyarefartslumpy		2005-09-15 07:21:20 PM

moops = Condi?

/send us a resume, maybe.

Mugato		2005-09-15 07:21:43 PM

whyarefartslumpy
GASH,
Many people would also call the USA a quasi-democracy after watching its last two elections.

Oh, Really? Like what kind of people?

Well anyone who knows what the definition of "democracy" is, actually. Even if you ignore the voter count debacle, you can't deny that Gore won the popular vote in '00 and if we were a true democracy instead of the representative republic that we are, Bush would not be president. I'm not saying that's good or bad, it's just our system of government.

TommyymmoT		2005-09-15 07:23:47 PM

Oh, thank God.

The flurry of copy and pasted song lyrics for us to scroll through has arrived.

They're deep ya know. A life changing intellectual experience.

whidbey		2005-09-15 07:23:55 PM

simon_magus: Now, do you want to keep calling me a bigot or do you want to have a serious discussion of the problems of Islamic theology?

You have not proven that any of the actions you disagree with are anything but those of a radical element.

Your comments are insulting to Muslims who walk a straight line. You compare the actions of a few to the millions who are no problem whatsoever.

That's the bottom line.

Anagrammer I apologize. I thought you were simon again... I'm having caffeine overdose action here...;)

whidbey		2005-09-15 07:24:30 PM

And of course, that was meant for cot...

MrBigglesworth		2005-09-15 07:24:55 PM

Everyone with nonsensical patriotic stickers on their cars can suck it, you caused the death of your empire. You had a chance in 2004, but you re-elected Bush. Diplomacy is dead and the world is united against us

An..another person with all the answer.

Never mind the fact that Iran and NK were working on Nuke tech long before Bush was in office. The WTC and various American targets were also attacked before Bush, but somehow, this is ALL Bush's fault.

whyarefartslumpy		2005-09-15 07:25:18 PM

Mugato,

I agree with you on voter count debacle, but don't understand the "quasi" comparison, just because teh electoral collage and the popular vote still (not the first time) didn't match.

thanks for any input....

ekdikeo4		2005-09-15 07:25:19 PM

So, in Iran, the mullahs choose who can and cannot run, and in the U.S., the Democratic party and the Republican party choose who can and cannot run. Woot!

Sloth_DC		2005-09-15 07:25:24 PM

Mugato:

Even if you ignore the voter count debacle, you can't deny that Gore won the popular vote in '00

That's like winning the Kessel Run - the joy of victory is somewhat offset by the fact that competition doesn't farking exist.

and if we were a true democracy instead of the representative republic that we are, Bush would not be president.

Well, duh. We wouldn't have a President in a democracy.

space_cadet_28		2005-09-15 07:25:52 PM

1) islam is screwed up - bloody borders, more than their fair share of fanatics, somewhere in the religious culture there is a fearlessness, and an attitude all non-muslims are aliens on this planet

2) israel occupation of a foreign people is screwed up. the US and occasionally britain are the only countries on the planet that support this. the us loses plenty for not seeing the obvious. (clinton said he would fight and die for Israel) (bush is even more supportive of israel)

3) iran is a screwed up state. mullahs running the government not the best choice for a modern civilization, but the US can not get a single country outside of europe to side with the US against iran. the biggest non-nuclear US complaint is they support hezbollah but if that is the biggest complaint who gives a s---. (unless you care about israel to the death)

4) the US survived the soviet union having the bomb, the world will survive if iran gets the bomb

5) iranian leader said this in turkey, a supposed strong US ally.

cot		2005-09-15 07:27:25 PM

space_cadet_28: 4) the US survived the soviet union having the bomb, the world will survive if iran gets the bomb

I flipped a coin yesterday and got heads. If I flip a coin today, I'll get heads again.

cot		2005-09-15 07:28:19 PM

ekdikeo4: So, in Iran, the mullahs choose who can and cannot run, and in the U.S., the Democratic party and the Republican party choose who can and cannot run. Woot!

Hahaha, exactly.

Data Pimp		2005-09-15 07:29:04 PM

Faethe
Suitcase nuke = fiction

I hope you are right, but I fear you are wrong ...
a different opinion.

Anagrammer		2005-09-15 07:29:05 PM

whidbey: Anagrammer I apologize. I thought you were simon again... I'm having caffeine overdose action here...;)

Apology accepted.

You may have also convinced me to finally make the switch to decaf. ;)

2wolves		2005-09-15 07:30:51 PM

TommyymmoT

Should everyone chip in to buy you a mouse with a scroll wheel?

I'm sure Bush has a program just for you.

MrBigglesworth		2005-09-15 07:33:10 PM

Well, duh. We wouldn't have a President in a democracy.

Ah..someone else who knows that the US is not a democracy!

Good show old man!

whyarefartslumpy		2005-09-15 07:33:17 PM

I'm sure some bleeding heart socialist has a program just for you
/George Bush doesn't like cut and paste

sal-paradise		2005-09-15 07:33:36 PM

The only marginally functional aspect of the US government is that the elected officials trend towards type A personalities that _tend_ not to be these damaged psyche's with deep inferiority complex's that you would never in a million years want near any type of military command authority.

Bush is borderline, since I'm sure he's always had a feeling that people look down on him. But at least he isn't your typical 'glass parking lot' farker who needs a spectacular way to express is (self) hatred.

Sandwyrm		2005-09-15 07:33:44 PM

Ferruz: 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.

I'd like to bet on that. I say it begins somewhere around North India, South east East Pakistan and South south west China.

Any takers?

simon_magus		2005-09-15 07:33:57 PM

Ok whidbey, here goes

The Koran, much like the Bible (any frankly any other religious scripture) is filled with contradictions. It preaches love of Christians and Jews, but also endemic to Islam is a thing called dhimmitude.

Here is the best definition I can find:

Dhimmitude: the Islamic system of governing populations conquered by jihad wars, encompassing all of the demographic, ethnic, and religious aspects of the political system. The word "dhimmitude" as a historical concept, was coined by Bat Ye'or in 1983 to describe the legal and social conditions of Jews and Christians subjected to Islamic rule. The word "dhimmitude" comes from dhimmi, an Arabic word meaning "protected". Dhimmi was the name applied by the Arab-Muslim conquerors to indigenous non-Muslim populations who surrendered by a treaty (dhimma) to Muslim domination. Islamic conquests expanded over vast territories in Africa, Europe and Asia, for over a millennium (638-1683). The Muslim empire incorporated numerous varied peoples which had their own religion, culture, language and civilization. For centuries, these indigenous, pre-Islamic peoples constituted the great majority of the population of the Islamic lands. Although these populations differed, they were ruled by the same type of laws, based on the shari'a.

This similarity, which includes also regional variations, has created a uniform civilization developed throughout the centuries by all non-Muslim indigenous people, who were vanquished by a jihad-war and governed by shari'a law. It is this civilization which is called dhimmitude. It is characterized by the different strategies developed by each dhimmi group to survive as non-Muslim entity in their Islamized countries. Dhimmitude is not exclusively concerned with Muslim history and civilization. Rather it investigates the history of those non-Muslim peoples conquered and colonized by jihad.

Now, this is a two way street. While it often means non-Muslims are protected under shariah law, it also means non-Muslims must be prosecuted under shariah law.

From a good article by Bat Yeor:

Recent examples of active resistance are noteworthy. The repression of the Christian rebellion against the establishment of sharia in the Sudan in 1983 caused more than two million dead and over four million displaced. Lebanese Christians fought against the Islamization of their country during the civil war that began in 1975. At the dawn of the 20th century, Armenian and Assyrian Christians were punished by genocide for their attempts at independence. In the present day, active Christian resistance against Islamization in Indonesia, Nigeria, and other African countries is manifest in the massacre of Christian civilians, the burning of villages, the flight of populations. Westerners, and especially Europeans, turn a deaf ear to the sufferings of Christians who actively resist Islamization, frequently blaming them for their own misfortunes.

PASSIVE RESISTANCE
Examples of passive resistance can be found in Egypt, Pakistan, and Iran. Egyptian Christians denounce the violence of which they are victims and strive to protect their dignity, reduce legal and professional discrimination, and secure basic rights such as permission to build or renovate churches. Here again, the West prefers to ignore their dire situation or underplay it with episodic attention. Christians engaged in active or passive resistance exhaust their meager resources in vain efforts to alert their fellow Christians and enlist their help.

COLLABORATIONIST CHRISTIANS
Collaborators are recruited among Christians who identify themselves as Arabs. This type of collaboration, which caused endless fratricidal battles over the centuries, has been denounced by dhimmis struggling for centuries against an Islamic domination that progressed with the help of Christians.

Christian collaborationism has taken different forms in the course of history, according to circumstances and political opportunity. It is expressed today in a two-pronged political and theological project. The political project is implemented in a trans-Mediterranean fusion, with the construction of an economic, cultural, political, geographical entity composed of the European Union and Arab and African countries. This policy of association and integration, active in all international forums, works to counterbalance American policy, under cover of a notion of "international legitimacy," albeit a legitimacy of sanguinary totalitarian Arab dictators.

According to Islamic dogma, Islam encompasses Judaism and Christianity, both of which are falsified posterior expressions of the first and fundamental religion, which is Islam. All the characters of the Bible, from Adam to Abraham, Moses to David, the Hebrew prophets, Mary, Jesus, and the apostles, were Muslim prophets who preached Islam, and it is only in their quality as Muslims that they are recognized and respected. They belong to the Koran, not to the Bible. From this viewpoint the bond between Judaism and Christianity is a falsification, because the filiation of Christianity is Islamic, not Judaic. Christianity descends from Islam, the first religion of all humanity (din al-fitra). Christianity is a falsified expression of Islam, and belongs to Islam. According to a hadith, when Isa, the Muslim Jesus, returns, he will break the cross, kill the pig, abolish the jizya (poll tax for infidels), and money will flow like water. Exegetes interpret the destruction of symbols attached to Christianity the cross and the pig as the extinction of that religion; the suppression of the jizya means that Islam has become the only religion; and the abundance of wealth refers to the booty taken from infidels. In other words the return of the Muslim Jesus could lead to the destruction of Christianity.

The global jihad has made the problems of dhimmitude a worldwide reality. Europe's creeping dhimmitude, expressed in a refusal even to mention in its proposed constitution the "Judeo-Christian" values of its civilization, is one of the major elements of the current European-American divide.

Dhimmtude isn't a radical concept. Although the english term was coined recently, this concept is found in regular mainstream Islam. This often means theologically mandated genocide.

Now, on a more personal note, there are much better ways of having an honest discussion than by dismissing someone else's arguments as bigoted. If you disagree with me, get in the trench's and dish it out. Don't play internet tough guy skeptic. Come on man, unprofessional.

space_cadet_28		2005-09-15 07:34:06 PM

space_cadet_28: 4) the US survived the soviet union having the bomb, the world will survive if iran gets the bomb

cot: I flipped a coin yesterday and got heads. If I flip a coin today, I'll get heads again.

believe it or not countries do not want to die.

TommyymmoT		2005-09-15 07:37:04 PM

2wolves
TommyymmoT
Should everyone chip in to buy you a mouse with a scroll wheel?
I'm sure Bush has a program just for you.

No thanks, I already have a couple. That crap just clutters up the thread with stuff that no one will ever read, no less reflect upon. They sure as hell won't appreciate your "depth".

No, I'm not pro Chimpy, but if he has a program that will block random garbage in threads, I'm all ears.

What? No PWND pictures yet?

tinyarena		2005-09-15 07:38:23 PM

Okay children, gather round. Let me explain how it works:

The Romans said A politicians job is to give the people bread and circuses. This has been the way ever since. The Cold War was an example. The current War on Terror is another example.

The powerful must keep the attention of the masses focused and have long known that the best focus is an Enemy. There must be an enemy. This allows the powerful to restrict and control in the name of the greater good. This keeps the masses from being able to decide for ourselves what really matters to us as individuals. Were we to have the freedom to decide for ourselves then society would become much less manageable and direct able.

We live in a global civilization. The Iranian government and ours are cooperating to create the next focus of fear. The timing of these announcements are planned to have the maximum impact and to draw the attention of the masses. The Chinese arent truly that interested in Taiwan. They are keeping it in reserve to use when there is no other focus available.

What scares me is when we reach the point where automation can effectively replace human labor. At that point the powerful may decide to make the earth a much more quiet place.

Good Luck, and do try the veal.

Shadowlore		2005-09-15 07:39:14 PM

This is just Iranian chest-thumping nonsense. Its the kind of thing DESIGNED to stir up fearful or 'Bush Done It' talk like what's going on here at Fark.

Its just news-cycle fodder.

Iran isn't going to do anything. They know better...

whidbey		2005-09-15 07:40:00 PM

simon_magus: Now, on a more personal note, there are much better ways of having an honest discussion than by dismissing someone else's arguments as bigoted.

And, tossing it right back to you, there are better ways of expressing your sentiment other than painting them with a broad brush.

I still say that my mainstream Muslim friends would take exception to your belief that ALL Islam is headed the way of intolerance and destruction of the infidels.

Until you furnish me with HARD figures that say, a THIRD, or HALF or 45% percent of Muslims believe the extremist element, you really have no leg to stand on here, simon.

You DO come off like a bigot. It's not just a flame or an insult.

I am cautioning you that you need to understand that there is an OVERWHELMING number of people that do not feel this way.

Unless you can prove otherwise, which I am sure you cannot.

All I'm seeing from your posts is a general sense of ignorance. You WANT to believe that all Islam is that way because of some fringe element, which, according to the articles you linked, is all I'm seeing.

So the cliche goes "One bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch, (girl)."

2wolves		2005-09-15 07:40:11 PM

TommyymmoT

I didn't know you were speaking for "everyone."

In the future I'll keep that in mind.

(dude, time to cut back on that egocentric lifestyle, its only Fark)

DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke		2005-09-15 07:40:38 PM

Suicide mullah.

monster87		2005-09-15 07:40:54 PM

It's this simple. Israel could be made uninhabitable for decades with four good size bombs. If any of the Islamic nations which are funding the Palestian Itifada get a Nuclear Weapon, Israel will feel they have no choice but detonate. It only takes one detonation to screw Israel.

cot		2005-09-15 07:41:07 PM

space_cadet_28: believe it or not countries do not want to die.

A country is not a being, and has no will, not to mention the ability to die.

People, however, do have a will, and in fact some people are quite willing to die.

Oh, about 4 years or so ago a handful of people decided they'd like to die so long as they took some of us with them. If you took the same handful of people at the very top of a government's control structure, I'm quite sure they could instigate a nuclear war.

I'd rather not rely on a madman not taking control of another country, as it's quite possible for it to happen. And even in a non-muslim country! See germany in the 1930s-40s. Do you think Hitler would have used nukes? Do you think the next one will hesitate?

General Zang		2005-09-15 07:42:29 PM

KaponoFor3 said:

They [iran] 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.

Iran's democracy is deeply flawed, and the results oof their elections do not reflect the true will of the voters... or else the hard-line Mullahs would have lost in a landslide to the reformist candidates for the past few elections.

That being said... America is of course, completely different. Here in America, we don't have unelected religious leaders determining who can or cannot run for office. Instead, we have donations of millions of dollars by unelected corporations determining who can or cannot run for election, and have a ghost's chance of actually winning.

Completely different... if you ignore Pat Robertson, and the hard-core religious right, and don't look at the money that blatantly disregards the 1st ammendment (In God we trust????), and don't listen to the pledge of allegiance that also blatently disregards the 1st ammendment (Under God????), and if you also ignore the scandal about mandatory prayer and proselytizing at the Air Force Academy.

But anyway... who wants the Iranians to have nuclear power? Can you imagine the chaos if some sort of nutjob who thinks God talks to him had control over nuclear reactors???

Oh... wait... never mind ;)

cargrrl82		2005-09-15 07:43:15 PM

If it hasn't been said already, other Arabic nations? Iran isn't an Arabic nation. They don't speak Arabic, have a different culture and history, and have at times not exactly gotten along with those of the Arabic penninsula. And if you ever want a long lecture, just call an Iranian Arabic.

BlindMan		2005-09-15 07:43:16 PM

Come on israel, kick some Iranian ass.

control		2005-09-15 07:43:21 PM

simon_magus: Now, do you want to keep calling me a bigot or do you want to have a serious discussion of the problems of Islamic theology?

I assume you see plenty of violence in the Koran.

And we all know Republican Christians with no problem finding Bible verses to justify warlike behavior.

Here's the hypocrisy: Republican Christians can't IMAGINE a Moslem would pick out those same verses and say the Bible encourages a holy war to end the world.

KnickKnolte		2005-09-15 07:43:37 PM

Israel should start earning its keep and get busy knocking out Iran's nuclear facilities. Like now before it's too late.

The Great Mutato		2005-09-15 07:44:29 PM

If there's one thing I hate, it's weirdo foriegn countries which are retarded and fark everything up.

cot		2005-09-15 07:45:10 PM

I must be up to at least 5 by now.

Twitch OSX		2005-09-15 07:45:23 PM

Out government needs to get in on this quick. Cant file share, but Nuculer Sharing is ok?

noneyourbase		2005-09-15 07:45:29 PM

I'm thinking Iran is going to learn the same lesson that we did: Don't sell weapons to the enemies of your enemy. It'll only come back to bite you.

General Zang		2005-09-15 07:46:00 PM

cot said:

I'd rather not rely on a madman not taking control of another country, as it's quite possible for it to happen. And even in a non-muslim country! See germany in the 1930s-40s. Do you think Hitler would have used nukes? Do you think the next one will hesitate?

So far, the new one has hesitated to use nukes.

He did start a "pre-emptive" war based on lies though... so who knows what he'll do next.

;)

/rimshot. Thanks, I'll be here all day. Try the veal.

Hiro-ACiD		2005-09-15 07:48:34 PM

Given America's naked agression as relates to oil producing nations I can hardly fault the Iranians for seeking a nuclear deterrent, and frankly I hope the build it. American hegemony knows no restraint, except nuke capable nations it appears (consider North Korea.. if ever there was a case for pre-emptive war in the name of human rights and freedom it is sure NK).

So, yeah, Iran, you go girl!

cot		2005-09-15 07:48:57 PM

General Zang: So far, the new one has hesitated to use nukes.

He did start a "pre-emptive" war based on lies though... so who knows what he'll do next. ;)

Yeah, I know I asked for that. But to be reasonable for a moment, Bush is a prick, but he's no Hitler/Stalin/Mao/etc. However, clearly those people exist and you'd be naive to think that someone like that can't or won't come to power in a nuclear capable country at some point in the future.

Biggie Thang		2005-09-15 07:49:28 PM

Pleased to meet you

Hope you guess my name..

Anagrammer		2005-09-15 07:49:56 PM

The Great Mutato: If there's one thing I hate, it's weirdo foriegn countries which are retarded and fark everything up.

You've just described every country on Earth.

control		2005-09-15 07:50:08 PM

I always liked Mutual Assured Destruction. It was a great excuse to get high all the time.

towel head		2005-09-15 07:53:28 PM

Ummmmm, Iran is not an Arabic nation. They don't speak Arabic there. Just sayin'
Didn't RTFA.

BlueDog		2005-09-15 07:54:03 PM

I thought we wanted to get away from oil?

cot		2005-09-15 07:54:38 PM

BlueDog: I thought we wanted to get away from oil?

No, we want to get away WITH oil.

heap		2005-09-15 07:55:00 PM

pssssst. i heard this rumor - keep it on the downlow, tho.

apparently, Iran isn't an Arab nation. i know! the mind boggles.

just keep it to yourselves - something like this getting out could change the very fabric of society.

towel head		2005-09-15 07:55:36 PM

Sorry, didn't read cargrrl82's message :)

BaconatedGrapefruit		2005-09-15 07:56:23 PM

Ferruz: 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.

Do you try to maintain such ignorance in every aspect of your life, or just religion?

DarkPrincess		2005-09-15 07:57:51 PM

We're just a stone's throw
From Burning Hellfire
Does anybody know,
Where did all the heroes go?
We've had our fill of
This gallery of scoundrels,
The leaders of the world,
Those power hungry liars
Rise up and sound the sirens,
Send out the searching powers,
All we need is a few good men
Send the S.O.S. and red alerts
All across the universe
Calling your honest men?
S.O.S. emergency,
Sinking fast and getting worse.
Where's your honest men?
In some village, far away,
Or in a little town pub.
High on a mountain top
There must be an honest man
Calling all honest men
Throw out the tyrants,
The aged fat cats
Outlived their usefulness
They have led us to this mess
Make them answer,
Hold them to their promises,
And throw them in the street
If they won't tell the truth
S.O.S. and red alert
All across the universe,
Calling all honest men
S.O.S. emergency,
Sinking fast and getting worse,
Where's your honest men?
To your stations,
Man the ramparts,
The barricades
We need new heroes urgently
We need a few good honest men
Calling all honest men
Calling all honest men
Call to him
He lives next door,
Across the street
On the upper floor.
It's our only hope we need him now
Send the S.O.S. and red alert,
All across the universe,
Calling all honest men
S.O.S. emergency,
Sinking fast and getting worse,
Where's your honest men
Strike a blow,
Save the ship,
We need a few good honest men
Calling all honest men
Calling all honest men
Calling all honest men
S.O.S. across the universe
Where's your honest
We need your honest
Calling all honest men
Calling out all over the world,
Where's your honest men
Looking out all over the world,
We need your honest men

-ELO

Antho		2005-09-15 07:59:11 PM

simon_magus

I have to say, I don't see anything in your arguments against modern Islam which is without an appropriate analogy in Christian history.
Some points:
1. "Manifest Destiny" and the "White Man's Burden" are strong parallels to dhimmitude, per your description.
2. Pointing out Muslim retconning of the Bible and Torah doesn't make much of a point, considering the New Testament retconned Hebrew tradition, and even the priests who wrote the Old Testament retconned Jewish polytheistic legends from before the Babylonian exile. Monotheism by definition must explain away everything competing faiths offer, from the nature of previous holy men to the significance of the Winter Solstice.
3. Genocide is not exlusive to religious groups, and if you think for a second that the momentum for such a practice stems from theology , you are a fool. Theologically-sanctioned anything fulfills a preexisting need - that's why it was theologically sanctioned.

Cyoung265		2005-09-15 07:59:14 PM

Ahmadinejad repeated promises that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons, the report said. Then he added: "Iran is ready to transfer nuclear know-how to the Islamic countries due to their need

There is a line that scares the hell outta me.

ekdikeo4		2005-09-15 08:00:25 PM

Data Pimp:
I'm reading that article, and some supporting articles about some things i'm not familiar with in it right now (and let me also state, i'm not a nuclear scientist, either), and will comment along as I find fit...
Initially that article is talking about a 60x40x20cm suitcase bomb, which it says is roughly the size of a W54 nuclear warhead, that was used with a recoiless rifle. Further research shows that a W54 warhead weighed approximately 55lbs, and had a blast roughly equivalent to 10 tons of TNT.
Need to add 10% to that to get a minimal reaction, so we're either increasing the size of the unit, or decreasing the amount of fissile material. Let's just say we want to stay with a 10 ton explosion, so we'll have a bit over 60 lbs of nuclear bomb.
The article then says that this could be increased to "well into the kiloton range" by use of fusion boosting. Further research shows that the reason they were able to MAKE a 60lb nuclear bomb that had any useful effect whatsoever was because of fusion boosting. So, we can throw that right out, because it's already done for such a compact device.
He then goes on to theorise that by using a beryllium deflector, you can decrease the weight of the bomb but at the sacrifice of the size of the bomb. He then states that through that method, you can now get the bomb down to 15kg, or approximately 33 pounds. OK, so now we've got a 33 pound nuclear bomb, that no longer fits the 60x40x20cm requirements. (and i'm going to convert that to imperial measurements now, because i'm not so good on metrics) ... 23in H x 15in W x 7in D...
Now, since he doesn't make a statement on how MUCH the size of the unit goes up as you decrease the weight by using the beryllium deflector, I guess I have to make some assumption. To try to be fair, I'll assume it's near a 1 to 1 weight/size tradeoff. So, we've decreased the weight of the bomb by about 50%, so we'll increase the size of the bomb by about 50%. So, now we have a 30(+/-) pound bomb, that is going to be around 35in H x 22in W x 11in D. That's a pretty big fuggin suitcase we're talking about here.
He also goes on to talk about smaller ones, saying the U.S. developed one that was a cylinder, 5" around, length of 24", but weighed 96lbs. And, its mass was insufficient to set the whole thing off.

So, you're either going to get something a hell of a lot larger than a suitcase, or you're going to get something that is completely impossible to be carried around like a suitcase.

Try to remove any more weight, in shielding and such, and you're going to end up with a dead package delivery person, before they ever get the bomb there.

Oh, forgot to add in something, you need some regular high explosives included in with all this stuff to start off your nuclear bomb reaction.

I don't think we'll see a legitimate portable nuclear bomb. Ever.

Unsung_Hero		2005-09-15 08:00:36 PM

We've had it too easy, too long in the West. We've forgotten how to deal with nations of crazies.

When the shiat hits the fan, we're going to have to de-nancy ourselves and wipe out anyone who might be the enemy without fearing collateral damage. If we have to kill everyone from Pakistan through Saudia Arabia, then we have to. There will be trouble for 'arabic' people in the West, hate crimes against muslims who are genuinely nice people, and all sorts of other evil.

History can hate us, but the haters will be our decendants.

sal-paradise		2005-09-15 08:00:43 PM

tinyarena

Yes, because the romans minted a concept it must be prescient. I'm sure those funny tree's on the via appia have some place in todays society.

The truth is, politics as theatre is the symptom of corruption. The worse the Play the more corrupt the government. In Canada, when we're not wincing at the lunatic shiat going on in the south our news is boring, esoteric and wholey informative. Our political discourse tends to be nuanced and debated in a way such that conversation doesn't devolve into "uh-huh, Nuh-uh, uh-huh, Nuh-uh, Communist!"

So hyperbole and shiney baubles aren't the norm around the world. It just seems like that because no american considers other western democracies as having the capability of superiority in any way.

space_cadet_28		2005-09-15 08:02:32 PM

cot: A country is not a being, and has no will, not to mention the ability to die.

People, however, do have a will, and in fact some people are quite willing to die.

Oh, about 4 years or so ago a handful of people decided they'd like to die so long as they took some of us with them. If you took the same handful of people at the very top of a government's control structure, I'm quite sure they could instigate a nuclear war.

I'd rather not rely on a madman not taking control of another country, as it's quite possible for it to happen. And even in a non-muslim country! See germany in the 1930s-40s. Do you think Hitler would have used nukes? Do you think the next one will hesitate?

good point.
but to the best of my knowledge not even madmen are suicidal/crazy. was any past leader capable of irrational mass suicide? i dont believe hitler went into war he knew would assure his destruction. ditto stalin, mao, even the clown (occasionally cannibal ) african dictators would not qualify. the future is scary and mass destruction will get easier but i doubt the biggest danger of mass destruction is from organized nations.

solemn_shade		2005-09-15 08:02:51 PM

What's the big deal? They're only going to use the technology to build nuclear power plants.

cot		2005-09-15 08:04:02 PM

ekdikeo4: I don't think we'll see a legitimate portable nuclear bomb. Ever.

All it has to do is fit in the back of a van.

With the millions of pounds of drugs smuggled into the US each year, it's probably not hard to get a nuke of that size in. Then you just rent a van, drive it to your target and there you go.

Why would you really NEED it to be suitcase sized? Are you going to try to carry one on a plane?

Also, with the shielding, I'm quite sure they could find someone who would be willing to spend the last 15 minutes of their lives carrying a bomb someplace. They'd probably sit there and evaporate rather than going through the slow death from the radiation.

Antho		2005-09-15 08:06:14 PM

Unsung_Hero
If we have to kill everyone from Pakistan through Saudia Arabia, then we have to. There will be trouble for 'arabic' people in the West, hate crimes against muslims who are genuinely nice people, and all sorts of other evil.

Doesn't Fark have some sort of age requirement for posters?

Brennan-Monster		2005-09-15 08:08:10 PM

cot
I'd rather not rely on a madman not taking control of another country, as it's quite possible for it to happen. And even in a non-muslim country! See germany in the 1930s-40s. Do you think Hitler would have used nukes? Do you think the next one will hesitate?

I'm certainly not defending Hitler but he had the option of using chemical and biological weapons (as the Japanese actually did use) and he did not use them in combat, to my knowledge.

ekdikeo4		2005-09-15 08:10:00 PM

cot:

true, true. could've been a nuke in Oklahoma City instead of a fertilizer bomb.

I'm thinking that nuclear technology is a hell of a lot harder to get ahold of and/or to develop than we've generally been led to believe, otherwise SOMEONE would've got away with a nuclear car bombing SOMEWHERE.

Who would the U.S. go after then?

cot		2005-09-15 08:11:57 PM

Brennan-Monster: I'm certainly not defending Hitler but he had the option of using chemical and biological weapons (as the Japanese actually did use) and he did not use them in combat, to my knowledge.

Maybe he didn't think they were worth the trouble?

Also, they were most certainly pursuing nuclear weapons, they just didn't get there before they lost it all. Do you think they were pursuing them to use as a deterrent? I'm thinking they would have hesitated even less than we did.

Unsung_Hero		2005-09-15 08:13:08 PM

Antho;

That's an excellent counterpoint. Wow. I'm stunned. It becomes completely obvious that my worst case senario is entirely implausable after reading your concise posting.

Asshat.

cleverloginname1		2005-09-15 08:13:43 PM

"Iranian president willing to share nuclear technology with other Muslim states"

Here, let me fix that for ya:

"Regional leader in nukulur power industry seeks to increase exports and grow local industry"

ekdikeo4		2005-09-15 08:13:47 PM

CNN just announced there's to be a presidential address in 45 minutes... what's up with that? is this scheduled?

HotWingConspiracy		2005-09-15 08:15:00 PM

I'm all for it. More nukes = less war.

Antho		2005-09-15 08:16:12 PM

Brennan-Monster

Hitler's use of chemical weapons was dictated by the nature of military technology of the day. Fast, mobile armor units do not mesh well with what are essentially seige weapons from World War I, so naturally the Nazis only used them on a more suitable enemies: locked warehouses full of naked Jews.

ekdikeo4		2005-09-15 08:16:25 PM

oh, cnn.com has preview up. Bush to pledge nation's help for Gulf Coast
Federal government to lead rebuilding, president will say

ScienceGuy		2005-09-15 08:17:19 PM

ekdikeo4

CNN just announced there's to be a presidential address in 45 minutes... what's up with that? is this scheduled?

Yes, I think it is about the Gulf Coast hurricane stuff.

Biggie Thang		2005-09-15 08:17:33 PM

2005-09-15 08:06:14 PM Antho [TotalFark]
Unsung_Hero
If we have to kill everyone from Pakistan through Saudia Arabia, then we have to. There will be trouble for 'arabic' people in the West, hate crimes against muslims who are genuinely nice people, and all sorts of other evil.
Doesn't Fark have some sort of age requirement for posters?
.............................................................................. ..............................
Maybe unsung was a little over the top but you can bet your burka that if those fools set off a dirty bomb in one or several US cities at once and we suffer 10's of thousands of deaths, be assured the war on terror needle will go straight to red instantly and 100's of thousands will die on whoever's side they came from.. the people of this and other free nations will demand nothing less..

Smart Ass		2005-09-15 08:20:28 PM

Maybe we should be really nice to them.
Like a child, they don't know how to ask for help and are 'screaming out' for the attention they need.
Being the 'Super Power' that we are, we should lead the charge to invite them to share our technology, and in doing so, make them feel better about themselves-which will make the Middle East a more accepting reigon.
I, personally, think Jimmy Carter is just the man for the job.

He had that 'problem' originally, and by going with gifts of love-will secure a peaceful, thoughtful, friend , we so desperatly need for the 21st century.

With him, he should take the progressive leadership to show we are serious. Kennedys, Clintons, etc, you know..the 'more gifted' communicators of our, troubleingly, powerful Nation.

Leftist should gather world wide to personally witness the historical event.

Sean Penn could be the 'entertainment interface' and invite all the 'more gifted' artist to ensure their glee.

Sorta like what we have done for the progressive North Koreans but with much better intentions.

And then....

whammer		2005-09-15 08:25:41 PM

A few axioms:

1) The Iranians are probably developing or have developed nuclear weapons.
2) The Iranians have missiles capable of delivering these nuclear weapons as far away as Paris.
3) The most likely targets of Iranian nuclear missiles are Tel Aviv; a US fleet in the Mediterranean, Persian Gulf, or Arabian Sea; US forces in Iraq; Europe; and the Saudi Arabian oil fields.
4) The US, with or without the support of Israel, is probably not able to totally neutralize the nuclear development, deployment, and delivery systems of Iran with conventional means. (Exception, with the use of space-based weapons systems, such as "The Rods of God".)
5) The international community, especially the nuclear powers and the UNSC, are unwilling to tolerate a unilateral US attack on Iran for this purpose, UNLESS the Iranians launch a pre-emptive nuclear attack.
6) Existing Cold-War era nuclear war protocols created by the UNSC permit almost unlimited retaliation against a nation that launches a pre-emptive nuclear attack.
7) The US has been actively establishing anti-missile defenses against both a possible Iranian and a possible North Korean nuclear attack. These are "defenses in depth" that substantially reduce the probability of a successful nuclear attack either against Iran's probable targets or the continental United States, in the case of North Korea.
8) Iran may either announce that it has nuclear weapons, conduct a test of its nuclear weapons, or launch one or more nuclear weapons to prove to the world that it has nuclear weapons.
9) If Iran either announces or tests a nuclear weapon, it will probably not change the status quo, except giving the US more international support against Iran.
10) However, the US has probably reached agreement with all of the UNSC nuclear powers that if Iran launches a nuclear missile, then whether or not the US is able to intercept and destroy it, the US will have no opposition from anyone, for the following.

Ultimatum: The government of Iran is hearby declared illegitimate and is to be immediately placed under arrest. The UNSC instructs the Iranian army and Revolutionary Guard to immediately stand down and indicate surrender to any UN-authorized force entering Iran. All Iranian nuclear or missile activity must immediately cease. Failure to obey all of these directives authorizes any member of the UNSC to use conventional and nuclear weapons to insure compliance.

11) At that point, the US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are directed to secure the nuclear and missile infrastructure of Iran, secure its major cities and oilfields, and disarm the Iranian military and Revolutionary Guard. The nation of Iran will then hold the status of a "protectorate" of the UN, until such as as a transitional government can be established and free and fair elections be held.

cleverloginname1		2005-09-15 08:27:55 PM

Riche [TotalFark]:

are YOU out of your farking mind?

why the HELL would iran threaten the US? no one on the planet can win a war against the USA (please, no U!S!A! BS). Iranians may be fanatical theists (something many americans can relate to) -- but they are not totally insane.

do you think, just maybe, that the USA's bluster is causing them to become defensive? If someone came and told the USA anything *AT ALL* that they *MUST* do what would be the response?

Why should Iran GIVE UP "cheap" (dangerous and expensive in the long term) energy supply just because the USA *told them too*?

If I was Iran I'd tell you to fark off too. Sure, you guys could invade and obliterate their defenses... but if you were IRANIAN wouldnt you rather fight than be a farking slave?

Open your damn eyes!

panxerox		2005-09-15 08:28:54 PM

Glass em.. before they glass us.

Boorring		2005-09-15 08:29:43 PM

AgeOfReason

Is your name a take on that Sam Harris book "End of Faith"? If not, have you read it?

General Zang		2005-09-15 08:29:54 PM

cot said:

Yeah, I know I asked for that. But to be reasonable for a moment, Bush is a prick, but he's no Hitler/Stalin/Mao/etc. However, clearly those people exist and you'd be naive to think that someone like that can't or won't come to power in a nuclear capable country at some point in the future.

True. I couldn't resist the obvious set-up... but you're correct that Bush is no Hitler/Stalin/Mao/ect.

However, I think we're all missing the bigger picture.

Why do *WE* have 18,000 nuclear weapons? Are we planning on going to war with another solar system or something?

If we even used just half of the weapons that we have in our nuclear stockpiles, we'd fark up the global climate so badly that more than 1/2 of the Human Race would be dead within 5 years after use... hell, if we used 'em in just the wrong spots, we might have a good shot at wiping out a good chunk of ALL LIFE on Earth.

So, with the Soviet Union now dead and buried, and the Russians litterally *begging* us for spare change to help pay the cost of decommission their aging and leaking missiles... why in the world do we have 18,000 nuclear weapons?

While we're on the subject... why do we have a 300 ship navy, with 12 (TWELVE!!!) Aircraft Carriers, and about a dozen balistic missile submarines, and 50% of the combat naval firepower of the entire planet?

We need these for "defense"?

Who are what are we supposed to be defending ourselves against? Are we seriously afraid of the entire REST OF EARTH all ganging up on us one day, and trying a quick naval invasion of US soil???

So... when you take a nation that can find the spare cash to fund a 300-ship navy, and can afford the yearly upkeep on 12 aircraft carriers, and can find the cash to pay to maintain 18,000 nuclear weapons, while also developing new ones.... while at the same time, can't seem to work out how to build a society that doesn't leave the poorest among us living in ignorance and filth... then we're not exactly setting ourselves up as a moral compass for others to follow.

How many American children died of malnutrition last year? How many American children died from preventable diseases last year? How many Americans babies died last year, because theiir mother's were too poor to afford proper pre-natal care?

Do you think the hundreds of billions spent on "defense" is actually making us any safer?

Or is it all a big Ponzi scheme to fatten the pockets of the few thousand fat cats who own the armaments factories?

So, yeah, Bush is no Hitler. Hitler had the balls to talk about his hatred out loud, and to sit down and develop concrete plans to murder millions of innocent people... while Bush just sort of chugs along killing people "accidentally" or as "collateral damage", and doesn't seem to mind much if lots of people die, as long as he can a) claim it's not his fault, and b) make sure that his pals at Halliburton and other large corporations can make some money off the deal.

Hitler might have been a total scumbag, and is surely burning in Hell if there is such a place.... but at least he was honest about his intentions, and could actually articulate them.

DblDad		2005-09-15 08:31:24 PM

It is just a matter of time before random 3rd world country or Corporation or Fundamental Religious organization becomes a nuclear power.

So, who wants to open up a PayPal account to begin taking donations towards the Fark.com First-Strike Nuclear Capability Fund?

/Or should we make it the TotalFark FSNCF?

Smart Ass		2005-09-15 08:32:26 PM

"While we're on the subject... why do we have a 300 ship navy, with 12 (TWELVE!!!) Aircraft Carriers, and about a dozen balistic missile submarines, and 50% of the combat naval firepower of the entire planet?"

Ah..because it's all we can afford?

12 should be 20.

We should just be nice..

And then..

monster87		2005-09-15 08:32:51 PM

To everyone who continues to equate Bush with Hitler (or other despots), please realize that by definition you must think of yourself as you regard German citizens and their handling of Hitler and the Holocaust during WWII.

/Think they're full of Horse**** in regards to that bush-hitler comparisons.
/WHAMMER makes some good points

Boorring		2005-09-15 08:33:44 PM

GeneralZang

I was reading your post, and I think it would be wise if the US and/or a coalition would set up a defense for either the north or south poles. Wouldn't a nuke detonated in those area's raise the ocean level of the world? Or are my comic pages too sticky?

cleverloginname1		2005-09-15 08:33:57 PM

Oh, who wants to see a good flick?

Try this:

Threads -- a BBC documentary made in 1984 about post-nukulur war UK. The start is a bit slow, but it is complete and detailed. Highly recommend.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090163/
http://static.thepiratebay.org/downloadtorrent/3317759.torrent/threads_(nuclea rwarmovie_conflict_discharge_crass)_avi.3317759.TPB.torrent

Johnny Golgotha		2005-09-15 08:37:02 PM

boorring

AgeOfReason

Is your name a take on that Sam Harris book "End of Faith"? If not, have you read it?

Thomas Paine

Antho		2005-09-15 08:37:45 PM

Unsung_Hero

The only worst-case scenario I am imagining is if someone with your outlook on the situation is given authority over nuclear weapons.

Glass parking lot, is it? If we have to "kill everyone" from "Pakistan to Saudia Arabia" is it? Hmm let's game this out, shall we.

There are about half a billion people living in the region to be destroyed. So, the initial strikes alone will immediately make you the greatest mass-murderer in the history of the world, having killed about 8% of humanity. I say "initial strikes" because I don't think it has made it through your thick head that those will not be the only weapons launched. Pakistan has nuclear missiles. It's very likely China or Russia would launch against us simply because the intense radiation now blowing into their countries will soon make them uninhabitable. North Korea would most certainly launch against the United States, so best-case retaliation we lose our population centers. Most likely, everyone on earth will die in the insuing nuclear firestorm.

But, let us take the best-case scenario and run with it. Well, now that we've killed all the terrorists in the Middle East, along with Iran and Pakistan, we now have...about...300 million more terrorists now living in Southeast Asia, North Africa, Europe, South America, and Norht America...because of course everyone who has family in the Middle East now wants you to die a horrible death, and is willing to give up their own lives to do so.

Now, besides the problem that now everyone whose survived wants to kill you, you have to deal with the fact that you have just ruined the global economy. Ruined it. As in, its time to go back to waterwheels for power. You've destroyed the largest nonrenewable energy source on the planet, and that little oil that is left outside the Middle East is now worth preemptive nuclear war over. After all, you established the preceedent.

So, now that most of the people on earth are dead, the rest of them hate you with a burning passion, and the world economy is now starting to resemble the Road Warrior, humanity begins its slow extinction thanks to the enormous nuclear fallout that will poison the earth for millions of years. Best case scenario.

Asshat.

Duck0987		2005-09-15 08:40:30 PM

Sutcase bombs are not a stretch if we could pack an atomic bomb into an 11 inch shell in 1949 I'm sure we could back one into some samsonite now.

http://www.inventionandtechnology.com/xml/2005/1/it_2005_1_feat_5.xml

Antho		2005-09-15 08:42:31 PM

whammer

Quite an imagination you have here. You do realize that we are in the real world, not in a game of "Command and Conquer"?

Nemo's Brother		2005-09-15 08:43:05 PM

Mutually Assured Destruction doesn't work when one side doesn't care about dying.

deadapostle		2005-09-15 08:43:07 PM

Russia has about 18,500 atomic warheads (who knows how many are actually capable of being activated, as the money for maintaining them is rather short) US has about 7500 atomic warheads followed by China's 1000 and France's 350. If the $hit is going to hit the fan, I highly doubt it's going to be that a nation sends a bomb to one of those countries. Not that we still don't have a potential for "total thermonuclear war" it's just that we need waaay more weapons for this to be successful.

control		2005-09-15 08:43:34 PM

European countries are building shopping malls, dams, schools, high rises, refineries, pipelines and factories in Iran.

Makes you wonder, with as much as other countries have invested in Iran, maybe they're not as worried about the Iranians as the fearmongers on FoxNews.

Animatronik		2005-09-15 08:45:05 PM

this is good news. Give crazy muslims cheap energy and they'll abandon their dire ways and turn democratic. After all, when China was exposed to free trade and prosperity, they learned the value of a free and open government, right?

control		2005-09-15 08:45:08 PM

I bet Cheney gets a nice commission if he helps Halliburton find a way to sell Iran the tritium.

DarkPrincess		2005-09-15 08:47:12 PM

This thread is scaring me. I think I need to be held....
All I can do is cover my eyes and ears and pray it all goes away or that death is quick.

How much time do you think we have left? Seriously?

cheapdaddy		2005-09-15 08:47:21 PM

Iranians + technology = scary
Nuclear and share are just bonus points

Nemo's Brother		2005-09-15 08:49:03 PM

Hitler was only able to fully come into power and threaten Europe because of Clintonesque pussies who declared "Establing Peace in our Time" all the while Hitler was invading Poland. After several year of our allies looking at Hitler in their back yards, pussies like this in America still wouldn't go to war. Then we get attacked by Japan, partially in retaliation to a trade embargo for something as petty as the Chinese Holocaust the Japs were performing. Even then, Liberal pussies did not want us to go to war. This has nothing to do with the article but everything to do with those who insist Bush is Hitler.

catdrchris		2005-09-15 08:49:04 PM

whidbey...

From the July 2005 Pew Poll of 6000 Muslims in muslim countries:

Linky

"Confidence in Osama bin Laden to do the right thing in world affairs"

Category "A lot/ Some"

Indonesia sample size 1,022; 35% (2003 - 58%)
Morocco sample size 1,000; 26% (2003 - 49%)
Lebanon sample size 1,000; 2% (2003 - 14%)
Turkey sample size 1,003; 7% (2003 - 7%)
Jordan sample size 1,000; 60% (2003 - 55%)
Pakistan sample size 1,225; 51% (2003 - 45)

(Bold is my emphasis.)

Violence against civilian targets justified in defense of Islam (Muslim respondents only)...

Category: "Often/Sometimes"

Lebanon 39%
Morocco 13%
Pakistan 25%
Indonesia 15%
Turkey 14%
Jordan 57%

My conclusion is that a friggin' frightening percentage of Muslims want infidels dead or converted.

heap		2005-09-15 08:49:18 PM

towel head: Sorry, didn't read cargrrl82's message

eh. she apparently didn't read the 50 statements of similar content prior to her's, either.

it was an omni-directional slice of snark. sorry if i got any on ya.

spyderbc		2005-09-15 08:50:27 PM

"Never charge more than the price to have you killed"
-Unknown

My opinion...
< conspiracy theory >
is that the only thing that would deter us from invading Iran in the next decade or so (provided that Iran doesn't give it up and becomes a puppet state) is the PUBLIC development of a cheap, safe, powerful, and renewable energy alternative.... So long as oil demand continues to increase in competing contries such as China, we will desire more control over the source (not only to secure the resource for our use, but also to sell for ever increasing dollar amounts). In order for China or India to become a superpower and go toe-to-toe with us, they require cheap energy. It is in our intrest as the only super-power to deny them these resources.
< /conspiracy theory >

Nemo's Brother		2005-09-15 08:51:07 PM

Any Muslim that hasn't been to the West is very susceptible to the lies of their failed theocracies. The West is the Devil they say, as they publically execute their daughters for dishonoring the family by being raped. The West has its faults, for sure, but come on. The fact that so many here can say "Bush is Hitler" and not be in a concentration camp says something about us.

monster87		2005-09-15 08:51:29 PM

The more I think about it, let Iran build the nukes. NK too. If I was President, I would welcome them to the Nuclear Club, and then I would let them know that each nation now has their own target package of about 6000 MIRV's. Neither one of those countires can afford a Cold War Scenario, but with all their blustering they would be vaginas if they didn't follow through. Bankrupt both of them.

Anagrammer		2005-09-15 08:52:16 PM

If we all die from bubonic plague, we won't have to worry about nuclear war.

General Zang		2005-09-15 08:52:51 PM

Smart Ass said:

Ah..because it's all we can afford?

12 should be 20.

We should just be nice..

And then..

You intentionally miss the point.

Life isn't a yes/no, black/white, on/off, choice between Neville Chamberlain appeasment and Pax Americana.

Do we NEED 50% of the entire naval firepower on Earth to *defend* our shores?

Are the British and French and the Australians and the Dutch and the Italians and the Brazilians and the New Zealanders and the Chinese all planning some uber-seeekriit conspiracy to invade us from the sea???

Anyone who maintains a navy that is five times the size and twenty times the firepower of their closest rival is, mosyt assuredly, NOT doing it to "defend" themselves.

It's about "force projection". That is to say, a sword held at the throats of everyone else on Earth, to make sure that we get to take stuff that we want, when we want it, with no interference or back talk.

Now, would you rather the few thousand fat-cats in charge of the US used all that tax money to bully and steal from other nations?.. or would you rather that YOUR tax money got used to stop Americans from dying in the streets of preventable diseases?

Heck... how about they just cut the Navy back to merely TWICE the firepower of all nations that don't like us combined? That'd leave us with a 150 ship navy and 6 aircraft carriers.... and the resulting savings could be split three ways between a) $5,000 per child for each school in the country plus a $20,000 raise for every teacher in America, b) Canadian-style health universal health care and a $20,000 raise for every Doctor and Nurse in America, c) a tax rebate.

So... what's more important? Having a military big enough to threaten other people and take their stuff? Or having a healthy, happy and educated American populace?

Nemo's Brother		2005-09-15 08:55:24 PM

Aside from extreme overkill, we have that many nukes to ensure that we will always have second strike capabilities. This no longer really applies unless China launches a full nuclear assault on us or something but say: Russia (Cold War era) really decides they've had enough of our blue jeans and Bon Jovi. They figure that they have the firepower to wipe out every major city in the US at once.

Fortuanly for us and them (read about M.A.D), they will still perish in a glass parking lot, as we have nukes all over the world pointing at their asses. If DC, NY, LA and every other land operation gets obliterated before they can respond, we still have enough nukes globally to make sure that they don't live to change the ending of Rocky 5. In the end, we all die. Russia had the same set up, so we couldn't all of a sudden pull a John Wayne on their nonmaterialistic, Papa Joe loving Pinko asses.

Lord_Baull		2005-09-15 08:58:53 PM

if the nuclear tech is for peaceful means, why not share it with all nations, not just muslim ones?

Antho		2005-09-15 08:59:59 PM

catdrchris

My conclusion is that a friggin' frightening percentage of Muslims want infidels dead or converted.

And your conclusion is of course wrong. "Violence against civilian targets to defend Islam" != "all non-Muslims should be killed or converted". You are equating two things that are completely unrelated.

That's just an elementary fallacy of argumentation.

milk_plus		2005-09-15 09:00:17 PM

1. List an "Axis of Evil"
2. Lie to justify invading a member of this axis
3. Invade

Result . . .

Smart Ass		2005-09-15 09:00:39 PM

General Zang..

"a sword held at the throats"

Hey Bro..You do get it..
Just don't forget it.

What would you suggest?

Sloth_DC		2005-09-15 09:02:02 PM

General Zang:

Do we NEED 50% of the entire naval firepower on Earth to *defend* our shores?

You do realize that we also enforce the peace of the high seas, right?

So... what's more important? Having a military big enough to threaten other people and take their stuff? Or having a healthy, happy and educated American populace?

The two are more complementary than exclusive. The fact that we should not engage in unnecessary foreign wars does not mean we should not maintain the military might that secures the world economy. Besides, we only spend ~3.5% GDP on our military, which is well below many nations, and has been our yardstick for most the last 100 years. There are other worthy federal expenditures to cut first.

General Zang		2005-09-15 09:02:38 PM

catdrchris said:

From the July 2005 Pew Poll of 6000 Muslims in muslim countries:

Violence against civilian targets justified in defense of Islam (Muslim respondents only)...

Category: "Often/Sometimes"

Lebanon 39%
Morocco 13%
Pakistan 25%
Indonesia 15%
Turkey 14%
Jordan 57%

My conclusion is that a friggin' frightening percentage of Muslims want infidels dead or converted.

What are the numbers on the percentage of conservative American evangelical christians who want democratically-elected leaders in South America assasinated?

How about the percentage numbers of Americans who support giving the President power to detain anyone (including American citizens siezed on US soil) without charges, without trial, forever?

What about the percentage of Americans who thought that shoving glow-sticks in prisoner's anuses, and using unmuzzled attack-dogs to menace naked and blindfolded prisoners at Abu Ghraib was "just a frat prank"?

I'd be a bit more scared of *those* numbers if I were you.

jafiwam		2005-09-15 09:03:25 PM

Shaddup about the Arab/Persian thing. The headline has been corrected.

/you guys are a bunch of farking tools sometimes

Smart Ass		2005-09-15 09:05:48 PM

general zang..you almost had me!

I thought you were serious..til now.

Nobody could be that 'near sighted'

/canadian health care? (that's what exposed you)

control		2005-09-15 09:06:16 PM

I just don't want to die a virgin.

Litterbox		2005-09-15 09:07:33 PM

MrBigglesworth:

BZZZT Wrong. We certainly do. It people on the left, and their farking hand wriging about not wanting to upset "muslims" if a mosque that is hiding terrorists and weapon caches is destroyed. Don't wanna offend anyone. If we took off that leash, we wouldn't be in the situation where we are today. The ROE should be changed to reflect this. If terrorists are hiding in "holy" sites, then screw em and take the safety off the trigger.

So, when you signing up there, killer? If you need help finding a recruiter, just holler.

consdubya		2005-09-15 09:07:41 PM

A nation with nukes is a nation that feels secure.

Works for everyone, and islamic countries are not excluded.

If I were Iran, I would be building nukes as well, due to constant threats of military aggression from the US and Israel. Both of whom have nukes.

If Iran gets nukes, it will be MAD all over again, and I dont ahve a problem with that, seems to be a safe arrangement.

Data Pimp		2005-09-15 09:08:30 PM

milk plus
2. Lie to justify invading a member of this axis

Uh, you know I hate Bush more than a lot of people, but I don't think he or any of his staff knowingly lied to invade. I think they wanted to invade, yes, but lied? Knowingly distorted the truth? Keep that tinfoil hat on.

spazzm		2005-09-15 09:09:14 PM

It's a faith-based initiative

Finally, Iran is getting on-board of BushCo's vision.

Anagrammer		2005-09-15 09:10:22 PM

Does the Iranian president really think this is the best way to help the Muslim world's exploding population?

/Should've submitted this story with a funnier headline

General Zang		2005-09-15 09:13:10 PM

Sloth_DC said:

You do realize that we also enforce the peace of the high seas, right?

You're saying that we need 12 aircraft carriers, thier attendant frigates and cruisers, and over 900 carrier-based attack fighters.... to comabt PIRACY????

Um... ok.... please provide a link showing sea pirates (not smugglers) using anything more sophisticated or well-armed than the equivalent of a coast-guard cutter.

Pirates have frigates and cruisers??? and are threatening shipping on the high seas???

Did you just come through a time-warp from the 1700s?

consdubya		2005-09-15 09:13:10 PM

Data Pimp:

Uh, you know I hate Bush more than a lot of people, but I don't think he or any of his staff knowingly lied to invade. I think they wanted to invade, yes, but lied? Knowingly distorted the truth? Keep that tinfoil hat on.

Lied? Knowingly distorted the truth? Both were done.

There is a lot you can do with language, and the people in this administration know that. There is a big difference between saying "We know specifically where the WMD's are", and "lets just say we have a very very good idea where they are".

Both statements give the same message, whereas one is an outright lie, and the other can never be proven as a lie.

This administration lied about Iraq, and if you cannot accept this, it is you who needs to take the blinders off.

consdubya		2005-09-15 09:15:29 PM

General Zang:

Pirates have frigates and cruisers??? and are threatening shipping on the high seas???

Well, with the rise of Pastafarianism and more and more accepting the Flying Spaghetti Monster as their lord and saviour, Pirate numbers are exploding..... gaining more stregth every day.

milk_plus		2005-09-15 09:21:11 PM

Data Pimp
While there is a strong argument for ignorance, he was told that the proof they had was junk. His administration "fixed facts", ignored evidence to the contrary, and attacked people that disagreed with their plans.

He lied.

atlanta_ufo		2005-09-15 09:21:16 PM

i wouldn't worry about nuclear technology. biological attack will have a much more wider impact.

Gin_Fueled_Farking		2005-09-15 09:25:52 PM

Sigh, normally I am a pretty liberal and peace loving guy. But with the current state of affairs, I think that if all muslim nations have nuclear technology, the probability of an attack against US interests is damn near 1. Unfortunately, if it comes to that, us or them, I vote we nuke them all.

/I'm serious
//sadly

General Zang		2005-09-15 09:26:31 PM

Smart Ass said:

general zang..you almost had me!

I thought you were serious..til now.

Nobody could be that 'near sighted'

/canadian health care? (that's what exposed you)

I am serious.

As serious as a heart attack... when you have no health insurance, and can't afford either open-heart surgery or expensive medication.

Why is it that we can all pitch in and "donate" our tax-money in a "socialistic" scheme to provide for the common defense, but any attempts to pitch in to "provide for the common welfare" is seen as eviiiil and "socialistic".

I mean, it's all about "limited government" and "personal responsibility"... until it comes time to give billions to armaments companies, and give billions in bail-outs and loans to companies that are going bankrupt through mismanagement. Then it suddenly becomes about "how we're all in this together".

How about remembering that last part more often?

RandomExcess		2005-09-15 09:31:51 PM

This will not stand, you can be sure of that.

rosemary's steamer		2005-09-15 09:32:42 PM

2005-09-15 08:49:18 PM heap [TotalFark]

it was an omni-directional slice of snark. sorry if i got any on ya.

I like cardioid snark myself. Less bleed from the hats.

Try the FAS's Nuclear Weapon Effects Calculator

General Zang		2005-09-15 09:32:49 PM

consdubya said:

Well, with the rise of Pastafarianism and more and more accepting the Flying Spaghetti Monster as their lord and saviour, Pirate numbers are exploding..... gaining more stregth every day.

Ramen.

;)

HenryJames		2005-09-15 09:33:54 PM

Hi!

Anagrammer		2005-09-15 09:34:05 PM

atlanta_ufo: i wouldn't worry about nuclear technology. biological attack will have a much more wider impact.

Or even a biological accident, like 3 missing mice that are infected with bubonic plague.

NarrMaster		2005-09-15 09:36:28 PM

I think we should talk to them. I think we should teach them phenomenology.

/obscure?

elweedz		2005-09-15 09:36:55 PM

think about this....
Does anyone think that the last nuclear bomb has exploded on earth for the rest of time? (testing doesnt count)
Its been 50+ years since the last one, how long do you think it will be before the next. If the iran/iraq war where to happen 5-10 years from now, would you be willing to bet against it?

MrBelvedere		2005-09-15 09:37:24 PM

I'm not an Islamic scholar, but the history of the Middle East since Mohammed arrived doesn't seem to have any notion of tolerating minorities. You guys go on and on about how "progressive" Dhimmitude was, but it sounds more like the Jim Crow era in America and I don't see you raving about that period. Western Europe started to give Jews and other Christian sects their due around the early-mid 1800's. Do we have to wait another 200 years for these guys to get with the program?

Ninjawitch		2005-09-15 09:37:31 PM

My what troubles have been released when the seal of Pandora's box was tampered and the cover opened with work done during the second world war research of the Manhattan Project and the lazy protection of its secrets thereafter.

Might have been wise for America that soon as the atomic bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima they should have destroyed all research, prototypes, papers and details to prevent them from falling into sensitive hands like what was done with the Avro Arrow to prevent the haunting of such power in the hands of those unable or unreliable to handle that much power.

Nah .... then we wouldn't have cheap nuclear power :-) Looks like America will have to up the stakes and invent another more powerful weapon. Oh wait ... it already exists and every country fears it and none have invented it yet and it's secrets still are guarded.

It's called the neutron bomb. Destroys people and animals but leaves property and the environment untouched.

Most countries might have a nuclear option but only America has a neutron option. Just waltz into a country after dropping a neutron bomb, no glass parking lot no people to attack you and no radiation to contend with ... just a ghost of a country ripe for plunder.

What good is a nuclear bomb to your enemy if a neutron bomb takes out all biological lifeforms including those about to detonate a nuclear bomb or sell it!

Imagine small battlefield weapons. It would be a lot like the BFG in Quake! One shot and all within the radius are turned into sand. :-)

What good is the palace of the North Korea dictator if he is in it when a stealth fighter shoots off a neutron tipped phoenix missile hitting the palace and detonating vaporizing him.

Take off the head and the dragon dies. So really is every rogue country having the nuclear bomb really a worry to America?

Atomic weapons are bulky to move but neutron ones are not so heavy and large. I'm curious if America's government hasn't thought of just go over Iran in the middle of the night and drop a small neutron bomb over the political center? That would cut down alot of ranting and raving from Iran for awhile.

Okay my quizical trolling is over :-)

Throbbing_Space_Pickle		2005-09-15 09:41:16 PM

Iran is acting up again?

/scratches chin

Let's appease them! Call the UN!

Let's all write the Iranian Mullahs, and tell them that we're sorry that we're the Great Satan, it's all Bush's fault, and that we deserve anything that they decide to do to us. Where's John Kerry when you need him? He's so good at that kind of stuff.

I shall call my plan "Peace in our Time".

raging lahar		2005-09-15 09:43:04 PM

Farking hypocrites. America is the only country that has ever actually used Nuclear Weapons. Yet you guys seem to think other countries shouldn't have them? Doesn't make any sense.

R5D4		2005-09-15 09:43:24 PM

MrBigglesworth: Ah..someone else who knows that the US is not a democracy!

Actually it is. A representative republic is one (of many) forms of a Democracy.

/why do you right-wing douche bags hate America?
//or is it just some stupid semantic thing?

NarrMaster		2005-09-15 09:43:36 PM

Throbbing_Space_Pickle:

As opposed to taunting them and saying "Bring it"?

moriarty23		2005-09-15 09:44:16 PM

I am a very liberal and compasionate person, but lately I'm thinking we should shoot all the homos and nuke Persia. Who's with me? I mean, I'm a staunch conservetive, but the failures of this administration have me thinking we should all vote Libertarian, I even found a website! Who's with me? I'm just a 20 something hip kid on a cool message board called Fark, I gotta say that Pepsi One tastes as good as pussy, everyone should drink Pepsi One! Who's with me?

Flatulent_Flea		2005-09-15 09:44:20 PM

Pendulous but otherwise unremarkable.

And I say that as a penised individual.

.<

worldbeater		2005-09-15 09:45:30 PM

Unsung_Hero

"How can you kill women and children?"
"Easy. You don't lead 'em so much. Ain't war hell?"

tinyarena		2005-09-15 09:47:48 PM

sal-paradise

thanks for responding. Canada sounds nice. here in the states we constantly hear our leaders - who are often highly educated - say the most stupid things. they act suprised a lot
OMG NK
OMG Iran
OMG Tiawan
OMG etc,etc,etc...

it is clearly an act, but to what end? all I can think is it is crowd management, nobody could be THAT stupid

:)

consdubya		2005-09-15 09:49:22 PM

Throbbing_Space_Pickle: and that we deserve anything that they decide to do to us

OOOOOhhhhh a booogie boogie BOO!

Get scared easily?

WTF is Iran going to do to the US? I mean really......

General Zang		2005-09-15 09:49:29 PM

Throbbing_Space_Pickle said:

Iran is acting up again?

/scratches chin

Let's appease them! Call the UN!

Let's all write the Iranian Mullahs, and tell them that we're sorry that we're the Great Satan, it's all Bush's fault, and that we deserve anything that they decide to do to us. Where's John Kerry when you need him? He's so good at that kind of stuff.

I shall call my plan "Peace in our Time".

Cool plan.

Of course, when you come from a country that has dozens of nuclear power plants, and thousands of nuclear weapons.... including some nuclear bombs stored in non-nuclear countries (Belgium to name one) in direct violation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, it might be just a wee bit difficult to get the UN to agree that building power plants is "acting up".

Then again.... I guess we could send Condoleeza Rice to adress the UN security council and talk about our "confirmed intelligence" and "photographic proof" that Iran has somehow been working on nuclear weapons.

I'm sure that'll go over well... what with our immense credibility at this sort of thing and all.

/that whole "cried wolf" fairy story comes to mind.

Smart Ass		2005-09-15 09:49:52 PM

General?

Who in-the-fark ever told you life was fair?

I'd rather be sick and free than healthy and opressed. Life is tough, it's tougher if you're stupid.

You really want the Government to wipe your ass? Sweep up your broken glass? Make you feel better about yourself?

Prepair yourself for the following reallity check:

Ain't gonna happen.

Give up your freedoms and it still ain't gonna happen.

Do you hate your country? Was someone mean to you? Are you mad at God? Were you abused? Were you liked by other children? Are you having a substance problem? Do you hear voices? Do they tell you things? Not making the $$ you want? Do you work hard? Do you think everyone owes you something because you got good grades inspite of your rebel-like need to be different?
Should everyone depend on Demo's or whoever for their Health?

You think the Iranians will cut you some slack?
You think we can count on other-envious-countrys to help us?

We still want the opportunity to argue and disagree, right?(kinda need a country for that)
Would you like some pitty?
OK, you have mine. I'm sorry whatever happened that made you this way. You poor thing. Everyone appreciates you and cares about your happiness. We would be better served by Leaders who consult you first.

/group hug.

smoovement		2005-09-15 09:50:15 PM

Wow isn't this a Democrat moment.

Europe has sure done itself proud - if only we had their aid in Iraq. What else can you throw at a REAL religious theocrat besides free fuel, financial aid, and exlcusive contracts - well, apparently throwing your arms in the air and pulling a Ray Nagan "We need help!, we don't need no school buses - get some greyhounds in the biatch or sum'n!"

Thanks EU! We appreciate all that effort, now its time for the real peace makers in this world to step in and save your sorry arses again.

Throbbing_Space_Pickle		2005-09-15 09:51:05 PM

raging lahar: Farking hypocrites. America is the only country that has ever actually used Nuclear Weapons.

So? Your people have killed people in war, too. Somehow, it's supposed to matter how the enemy died, when it comes to nukes.

Yet you guys seem to think other countries shouldn't have them? Doesn't make any sense.

Let's let individuals have nukes. Some individuals can use nukes, but others can't? That doesn't make sense. People who can afford nukes should be able to buy them. I bet you're against gun control laws, too.

You're my kind of guy.

knobmaker		2005-09-15 09:51:32 PM

whorehopper: Everyone with nonsensical patriotic stickers on their cars can suck it, you caused the death of your empire. You had a chance in 2004, but you re-elected Bush.

To be fair, Bush might have cheated.

elweedz		2005-09-15 09:51:42 PM

2005-09-15 09:43:04 PM raging lahar

Farking hypocrites. America is the only country that has ever actually used Nuclear Weapons. Yet you guys seem to think other countries shouldn't have them? Doesn't make any sense.

...and what language would you be speaking if we didn't?
Since, you are posting in english, iwill assume that your country falls under our broad umbrella of protection. You should be a little more respectful.

tinyarena		2005-09-15 09:52:03 PM

NarrMaster

DarkStar
John Carpenter
USC? or UCLA? forgot which
nice one

megram		2005-09-15 09:52:49 PM

Imagine this. Iran wants to build a nuclear power plant, they want to generate electricity, they have huge desalination plants to run, large electricity demands etc. The UK has enough Gas, coal and oil in the north sea and inland to run its national grid but we have nuclear power plants too. Why not give them the benefit of the doubt, be nice to them, and say that we are nervous about the situation but if they agree to any random spot checks and have the security in place to keep an eye on the fuel. So far the Iranians haven't been doing anything that Bush or Blair wouldn't do. They complied let visitors / inspectors in, then when that didn't get them anywhere they went ahead anyway... kinda sounds like Bush in the run up to the Iraq war, in the search of the WMD's which never appeared.

I think the west should help them (keep an eye) and stop telling middle eastern countries what to do.

knobmaker		2005-09-15 09:53:56 PM

MrBelvedere: I'm not an Islamic scholar, but the history of the Middle East since Mohammed arrived doesn't seem to have any notion of tolerating minorities.

Get an education. Then when you're wrong, you can blame it on your teachers.

smoovement		2005-09-15 09:54:16 PM

/for all you idiots that think this is bad for the US......

//Europe has an immigration problem with millions upon millions of Arab muslims occupying ghetto's and more coming to take advantage of the "aid to the poor" that these nations offer.

///You think we have an immigration problem because Mexicans come here to WORK, think about the time bomb that Europe has.

Throbbing_Space_Pickle		2005-09-15 09:54:57 PM

General Zang: Of course, when you come from a country that has dozens of nuclear power plants, and thousands of nuclear weapons.... including some nuclear bombs stored in non-nuclear countries (Belgium to name one) in direct violation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, it might be just a wee bit difficult to get the UN to agree that building power plants is "acting up".

We'll just slide some cash their way, give some cushy jobs to many key UN diplomat's families, and clear up that bad attitude right away. We can work with Kofi, I just know that we can.

We should get Hollywood involved in this.

mynamebackwards		2005-09-15 09:56:05 PM

Please...can we just go ahead and wipe out the Middle East. I know it's extreme, but can anyone outside of the Middle East convince me it wouldn't make the world a better place?

knobmaker		2005-09-15 09:56:55 PM

monster87: To everyone who continues to equate Bush with Hitler (or other despots), please realize that by definition you must think of yourself as you regard German citizens and their handling of Hitler and the Holocaust during WWII.

Some Germans were smart enough to leave. Others protested the Nazi policies until they were killed. The rest were patriots. Do I have to draw you a picture?

smoovement		2005-09-15 09:57:27 PM

This is so insane to me:

Iran has legitimate needs for nuclear technology - when we can't even build a nuclear plant in the US!

Iran, is "safe" with nukes and the "US" is the danger?

///I'm sure you Jew hater's out there are high fiving yourselves and smiling at the thought of the mushroom cloud that will be Israel.

sod213		2005-09-15 09:57:59 PM

Haven't read the whole article yet, but didn't see this one:

To Bart, on getting kicked out of school and getting enrolled in a private school:

"Yeah, and if you get kicked out of that one you're going straight in the army where you'll be sent straight to America's latest military quagmire. Where will it be? North Korea? Iran? Anything is possible with Commander Cuckoo-Bananas in charge."

smoovement		2005-09-15 09:58:03 PM

Throbbing_Space_Pickle		2005-09-15 09:58:29 PM

knobmaker: Some Germans were smart enough to leave. Others protested the Nazi policies until they were killed. The rest were patriots. Do I have to draw you a picture?

I'd like a picture. That would look really cool.

knobmaker		2005-09-15 10:01:52 PM

Unsung_Hero: That's an excellent counterpoint. Wow. I'm stunned. It becomes completely obvious that my worst case senario is entirely implausable after reading your concise posting.

It was implausible before. Sorry.

NarrMaster		2005-09-15 10:02:19 PM

tinyarena:

5 points.

knobmaker		2005-09-15 10:04:42 PM

Data Pimp: Uh, you know I hate Bush more than a lot of people, but I don't think he or any of his staff knowingly lied to invade. I think they wanted to invade, yes, but lied? Knowingly distorted the truth? Keep that tinfoil hat on.

As long as you never take off those rose-colored glasses.

Bush supporters have an unpleasant choice. Either Bush was incredibly inept or incredibly untruthful. Could be both, I guess. But has to be at least one.

theboogeyman		2005-09-15 10:05:13 PM

I also heard that Iran is going to switch to the Euro for oil payments next year.

Man...they must really want to be invaded.

Anagrammer		2005-09-15 10:06:30 PM

knobmaker: Some Germans were smart enough to leave. Others protested the Nazi policies until they were killed. The rest were patriots. Do I have to draw you a picture?

"Nazi" - that's short for "National Socialist Party, isn't it? I know modern American socialists are pretty bad, but that's no reason to call them Nazis.

consdubya		2005-09-15 10:06:49 PM

smoovement:

Thanks EU! We appreciate all that effort, now its time for the real peace makers in this world to step in and save your sorry arses again.

No no, thanks America and Israel for being complete wankstains and enraging the muslim world so they hate us all now. Cheers. Thanks heaps.

Oh, and we dont want your "help" this time. Just enjoy buying your oil in Euro's from march onwards.... gonna get expensive for you guys :D

Crazytree		2005-09-15 10:07:18 PM

Dear President,

Thanks for making the world safer.

Signed,
Little Billy

Crazytree		2005-09-15 10:08:04 PM

commking		2005-09-15 10:08:16 PM

faethe:
What is it about these assholes that makes them so special?

Take a look in the mirror and ask the same question!

Bohemian		2005-09-15 10:09:47 PM

There is a simple solution, only allow them to have nuke material ready for power production use, monitor it closely. Give them the plans used for Chernobyl. Wait a few years, let the glow die down, drill for oil. Profit.

consdubya		2005-09-15 10:09:53 PM

smoovement:

///I'm sure you Jew hater's out there are high fiving yourselves and smiling at the thought of the mushroom cloud that will be Israel.

Aaaah, I see, you are a super number 1 fantastic Israel cheerleader.

I do not trust arabs with nukes. Thus, I believe Israel should not have nukes.

snoringtoad		2005-09-15 10:10:19 PM

What does Iran need with Nuke power?
Not enough Oil?

knobmaker		2005-09-15 10:12:29 PM

Throbbing_Space_Pickle: Let's all write the Iranian Mullahs, and tell them that we're sorry that we're the Great Satan, it's all Bush's fault, and that we deserve anything that they decide to do to us. Where's John Kerry when you need him? He's so good at that kind of stuff.

Yeah, John Kerry. That pussy! All he did was go kill actual commies, when real men like Dubya were trying to protect Texas from the VC. And he'd a done it, too, if it hadn't been for the drinkin' and the politickin'. And the moral retardation.

I love pointing that out.

consdubya		2005-09-15 10:12:31 PM

Anagrammer:

"Nazi" - that's short for "National Socialist Party, isn't it? I know modern American socialists are pretty bad, but that's no reason to call them Nazis.

Huhu grrr, stompa stompa. Me anagrammer, me not know what difference between socialism and national socialism is!

Throbbing_Space_Pickle		2005-09-15 10:12:39 PM

knobmaker: Bush supporters have an unpleasant choice. Either Bush was incredibly inept or incredibly untruthful. Could be both, I guess. But has to be at least one.

Well, I'm glad that we cleared that up. So, what are you up to until the next presidential election? You have any good impeachment leads? I wonder who's the next Supreme Court Nominee that Bush will push through after Roberts?

I can't wait until the 06 elections. Bush is as least as unpopular as he was during the last election that he won. Even though he's still in office for 3 long years, I pretty much expect that his low popularity will cause the Democrats to gain as many seats as they did last election, at least.

Wolfanoz		2005-09-15 10:13:52 PM

Yeah, I definitely see conflict brewing here within months, possibly weeks.

Sucks because if Iran does have anything, they'll lob it at us in Iraq as well as Israel. They know we're right next door.

Lusiphur		2005-09-15 10:14:56 PM

I don't see what the big deal is. We are, at least officially, still pretending to be a completely capitalist free market economy. So, the demand is there, kudos to iran for meeting it.

I really kinda hope this country gets nuked. Sad, but true.

consdubya		2005-09-15 10:14:59 PM

Wolfanoz: Yeah, I definitely see conflict brewing here within months, possibly weeks.

Definately before March anyway......

knobmaker		2005-09-15 10:16:04 PM

Throbbing_Space_Pickle: and that we deserve anything that they decide to do to us

consdubya: OOOOOhhhhh a booogie boogie BOO!

Get scared easily?

Hey, ever attended a Young Republican meeting? Pencil necks and nervous grimaces as far as the eye can see. It goes along way toward explaining why so few in Bush's administration actually served in the military.

Wolfanoz		2005-09-15 10:16:52 PM

I really kinda hope this country gets nuked. Sad, but true.

Wow... just wow.

knobmaker		2005-09-15 10:17:44 PM

Smart Ass: I'd rather be sick and free than healthy and opressed. Life is tough, it's tougher if you're stupid.

It must be extremely tough for you.

Throbbing_Space_Pickle		2005-09-15 10:17:50 PM

knobmaker: Yeah, John Kerry. That pussy! All he did was go kill actual commies, when real men like Dubya were trying to protect Texas from the VC. And he'd a done it, too, if it hadn't been for the drinkin' and the politickin'. And the moral retardation.

He's a real hero! We really need his services today! He should go and meet secretly with the Vietnamese and negotiate for peace behind the administration's back! We could even drop him behind enemy lines, just like he did back in his heroic youth. I bet he's not thought of that great idea before.

itdood		2005-09-15 10:18:28 PM

Iran has to now live with a doctorine that other nuke states have to live with. mutual assured destruction

The doctorine the U.S. should adopt now to deal with a rouge nuke popping in the name of islam is to make it clear there will be retaliation for such action, and Anti U.S. states (with nukes) are in the targeting system. Perhaps then those governments would be incented to not let a small nuke get into the wrong hands.

catdrchris		2005-09-15 10:18:49 PM

Lolol. What a pathetic knee-jerkian lib.

General Zang thinks that Osama (how many thousands has al Q murdered? 7? 10? )and suicide bombers (more thousands, 177 just murdered today) are...

LESS threatening...

than the prisoners at Abu Grabbed (how many dead-by-glowstick-in-the-butt?), the prisoners at Club Gitmo (how many dead by air-conditioning overdose?)

lolololoser!!!!one!eleven!

Throbbing_Space_Pickle		2005-09-15 10:19:13 PM

I mean, 'meet secretly with the Iranians', not Vietnamese. I don't know what I was thinking!

MasterLaw		2005-09-15 10:20:13 PM

You're all idiots, I seriously wanted to shoot myself to get all this stupidity outta my head. That is all I really have to say on this topic you panseys.

knobmaker		2005-09-15 10:21:38 PM

Anagrammer: "Nazi" - that's short for "National Socialist Party, isn't it? I know modern American socialists are pretty bad, but that's no reason to call them Nazis.

I see that you're a patriot.

Throbbing_Space_Pickle: He's a real hero! We really need his services today! He should go and meet secretly with the Vietnamese and negotiate for peace behind the administration's back! We could even drop him behind enemy lines, just like he did back in his heroic youth. I bet he's not thought of that great idea before.

Or, we could get Chimpy to put on his flight suit and strafe Austin, like he shoulda done while Kerry was over in Vietnam getting those fake medals. That'll solve the problem! Plus, it'll look so cool!

knobmaker		2005-09-15 10:22:56 PM

Throbbing_Space_Pickle: I mean, 'meet secretly with the Iranians', not Vietnamese. I don't know what I was thinking!

Nobody else does either!

Lusiphur		2005-09-15 10:23:00 PM

Wolfanoz: Wow... just wow.

I'd prefer it if no one died, but fark, man, we need something to happen or we'll all just rot away from the inside. Personally, I'd rather go out in a giant, firey nuclear holocaust.

snoringtoad		2005-09-15 10:23:03 PM

Chimpy? Ahh haha thats a good one!

knobmaker		2005-09-15 10:25:05 PM

snoringtoad: Chimpy? Ahh haha thats a good one!

Yeah! He's more fun than a barrel of monkeys!

The Liberal Media		2005-09-15 10:31:38 PM

altrocks:

I wonder if people who lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis are more or less scared these days.

If nobody else has answered this, I will. I'm old enough to have lived through both.

Today is like reading a page 16 article that someone you fear might have a gun. Some time in the future. Mildly alarming, but no big deal.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis it was like you were looking up the barrel and there was an extremely dangerous man behind it.

No comparison. The Cuban Crisis was terrifying.

Data Pimp		2005-09-15 10:32:27 PM

Well, whether or not the bozo-in-chief or his staff knowingly lied about Iraq's WMD, I think they've set a precident now which will make the Iran question harder...

Like it was said earlier, what makes Iran so special?

BRB -- gotta go stock up on survival supplies...

I predict mandatory military service for 18-19 year olds in 3... 2... 1....

VitaminH		2005-09-15 10:33:07 PM

Has anyone yet mentioned that Iran isn't Arab and said Muslim states, not Arabs?
/snickers

catdrchris		2005-09-15 10:33:52 PM

From the Nuclear Weapons Archive re: Neutron bombs

"The common perception of the neutron bomb as a "landlord bomb" that would kill people but leave buildings undamaged is greatly overstated. At the intended effective combat range (690 m) the blast from a 1 kt neutron bomb will destroy or damage to the point of unusability almost any civilian building. Thus the use of neutron bombs to stop an enemy attack, which requires exploding large numbers of them to blanket the enemy forces, would also destroy all buildings in the area. "

General Zang		2005-09-15 10:34:15 PM

Smart Ass said:

General?

Who in-the-fark ever told you life was fair?

My kindergarten teacher, and my first and second grade teachers too.... but I think they were lying to me.

I'd rather be sick and free than healthy and opressed.

Me too... if those were the only two choices. But they're not.

Life is tough, it's tougher if you're stupid.

True. For instance, if people are stupid enough to imagine that they only have two choices between bad and worse, then life will be tougher.

You really want the Government to wipe your ass? Sweep up your broken glass? Make you feel better about yourself?

No. I don't want the government to wipe my ass... and they don't need to sweep up my broken glass. I'd just be happy if they stopped puposely breaking the glass, and then charging me triple for it, while awarding the glass-sweeping contract to Halliburton.

As for the government making me feel better about myself... heck, they're making everyone on EARTH feel better about themselves... because, who hasn't looked at Bush's smirky little tongue-stumbling on TV and realized to themselves "Damn, I'm smarter than the leader of the free world!!"?

Prepair yourself for the following reallity check:

Ain't gonna happen.

Give up your freedoms and it still ain't gonna happen.

Absolutely correct.

Giving up your freedoms to the PATRIOT act, and ripping up the constitution in order to try and be "safer" is stupid. We are no safer against a 9/11 style attack than we were on the morning of 9/11.

We've spent Trillions on the war on terror and Homeland Security, and the only thing preventing another 9/11 is exactly what stopped flight 93 over Pennsylvania: Common Americans getting stuff done while the morons in charge of the government dithered.

Do you hate your country?

Nope. My country was a place called The United States of America. It had a constitution and a Bill Of Rights. People in that country had the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to peaceable assemble, the right to a trial by a jury of their peers, and the right against unreasonable search and siezure.

It was a real cool country... but it's been missing lately. Could someone please let me know if they find it wandering around, and let it know that we want it to come back?

Was someone mean to you? Are you mad at God? Were you abused? Were you liked by other children? Are you having a substance problem? Do you hear voices? Do they tell you things? Not making the $$ you want? Do you work hard? Do you think everyone owes you something because you got good grades inspite of your rebel-like need to be different?

Yes. No. Yes. Yes. No. No. No. Don't care. Yes. No.

Should everyone depend on Demo's or whoever for their Health?

Should everyone depend on Repubs or whoever for making us all perfectly safe and snugly wrapped up in our beds where the boogeyman can't get us?

It'll only cost a few more trillions, and Bush says we're making progress ;)

You think the Iranians will cut you some slack?
You think we can count on other-envious-countrys to help us?

The Iranians never suspended the right to trial by jury on American soil. The Iranians aren't running torture camps on foreign soil. The Iranians never used their friends who own electronic voting machine companies to rig an American election. In fact... the Iranians have been responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans.

So, the Iranians are looking a lot more friendly to the average American than Bush and his cabal are.

Would you like some pitty?

No... save your pitty for the United States of America that generations of Americans shed blood for, and generations of Americans worked to make the freeest nation on Earth.... only to have it all turned into a mockery of it's former self in only 4 years.

We would be better served by Leaders who consult you first.

True. Consulting the people who are governed... every 4 years... something called an election. We'd all be better served by a system of government that worked like that.

/group hug.

No.. you're not very huggable. :P

whammer		2005-09-15 10:34:48 PM

Okay, question one: If Iran launches a nuclear weapon at Israel, a US target such as a fleet or division, or Europe, should the US retaliate with a nuclear weapon? Whether or not their missile blows up its target or is shot down.

This one if for the liberals out there.

Question two: If Iran launches a nuclear missile at someone, will it be George Bush's fault?

cot		2005-09-15 10:35:58 PM

Throbbing_Space_Pickle: I'd like a picture. That would look really cool.

Here's one for ya.

Throbbing_Space_Pickle		2005-09-15 10:36:41 PM

knobmaker: Hey, ever attended a Young Republican meeting? Pencil necks and nervous grimaces as far as the eye can see. It goes along way toward explaining why so few in Bush's administration actually served in the military.

I know what you mean. Those frail and weak people aren't very smart at that military stuff. They shouldn't voice an opinion on such things. If you want to fight a war, do it yourself. Chickenhawks!

I like that idea. If you want to fight a war, do it yourself. How about, If you want to promote a prescription drug plan, buy them yourselves. Chickenentitlers!

Wow!

If you want to feed the homeless, feed them yourself. Set a place at your table, you chickenfeeder!

If you think we need more police protection, you need to become an officer!

I could really get into this philosophy of yours, but I don't know if I can hold so many jobs down at the same time.

Fjornir		2005-09-15 10:39:20 PM

I want a new world. I think this one is broken.

/I need a hug

Le Petomane		2005-09-15 10:39:55 PM

Human population is growing exponentially. There are only three things that can control that: disease, warfare, and global government. Are we past our carrying capacity as a virally reproducing species with no natural predators? The "global" government isn't really authoritative enough to control exponential population growth yet, the disease is not pervasive enough, looks like warfare is the answer. Hopefully after one good war, enough of the world population will be incinerated such that the global government can see to it that it never happens again. Then we can enter the age of Aquarius, grow out our hair, smoke pot, and sleep around. If we aren't dead.

cot		2005-09-15 10:40:13 PM

whammer: Question two: If Iran launches a nuclear missile at someone, will it be George Bush's fault?

Of course not, he's a diplomat of the highest order and will be remembered at such.

cot		2005-09-15 10:41:51 PM

Le Petomane: Human population is growing exponentially. There are only three things that can control that: disease, warfare, and global government.

You forgot birth control.

Exponential growth = old and busted. Negative population growth = New hotness, at least amongst the educated and middle class and above.

Europe is facing a real crisis because of it. The US might be in danger long term if it weren't for all the immigrants.

skubwa		2005-09-15 10:43:27 PM

Dear Christians and Muslims,

Your god is so wonderful, especially when he lets you blow us all to smithereens.

Thanks for your compassion for life.

Signed,

Go fark YOURSELVES

milk_plus		2005-09-15 10:44:17 PM

One of the best things I've read in a long time: Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

HotWingConspiracy		2005-09-15 10:46:09 PM

"//I'm sure you Jew hater's out there are high fiving yourselves and smiling at the thought of the mushroom cloud that will be Israel. If only Hitler himself were alive to celebrate with you....."

Is this what is passing for trolling these days? The shark has been jumped.

catdrchris		2005-09-15 10:46:23 PM

Um, I believe successful "development" curbs the growth rate, Le Petomane.

"The more developed countries in Europe and North America, as well as Japan, Australia, and New Zealand, are growing by less than 1 percent annually. Population growth rates are negative in many European countries, including Russia (-0.6%), Estonia (-0.5%), Hungary (-0.4%), and Ukraine (-0.4%). -Population Reference Bureau

heap		2005-09-15 10:47:30 PM

Anagrammer: "Nazi" - that's short for "National Socialist Party, isn't it? I know modern American socialists are pretty bad, but that's no reason to call them Nazis.

by that logic, the democratic people's republic of china is both republican and democrat.

or lack of logic, really.

General Zang		2005-09-15 10:48:00 PM

catdrchris said:

Lolol. What a pathetic knee-jerkian lib.

General Zang thinks that Osama (how many thousands has al Q murdered? 7? 10? )and suicide bombers (more thousands, 177 just murdered today) are...

LESS threatening...

than the prisoners at Abu Grabbed (how many dead-by-glowstick-in-the-butt?), the prisoners at Club Gitmo (how many dead by air-conditioning overdose?)

lolololoser!!!!one!eleven!

Um... you Sir, are a shining example of the Bush crowd.

First off, we're talking about Iran.... NOT Osama Bin Laden.

Iran is primarally Shiite Muslim, and the population largely speaks Farsi.

Osama Bin Laden is a Wahabist Muslim, speaks Arabic, and is currently being sheltered by other Sunnis and Wahabists in the nation of Pakistan.

Pakistan, our ALLY, ***already*** has demonstrated that they possess nuclear weapons and also possess long-range missiles.

So... to recap for the silly Bush voters, Iran does not have nuclear weapons, and says that they are not working on nuclear weapons. They just want to have nuclear power plants.

Pakistan, our "ally", is the muslim country that is harboring Bush old family-friend and ex-CIA operative named Osama Bin Laden... and they **already** have nuclear weapons and loudly proclaim that they have them.

So, when I say that Bush and his supporter's destruction of constitutional rights in America, and their support of murder and torture across the globe, is a far far bigger threat than a few power plants in Iran.... it has fark all to do with Bush's old family friend who is currently hanging out in a nation that is our ally.

Simpler, for Red-Staters to figure out: Osama Bin Laden has fark-all to do with Iran, and a heck of a lot more to do with the Bush family who a) employed him when a Bush was head of the CIA, and b) who do lots of bussiness with Bin Laden's family.

Any questions?

knobmaker		2005-09-15 10:49:13 PM

Throbbing_Space_Pickle: I like that idea. If you want to fight a war, do it yourself.

Now you're talkin'! It's just an unfortunate coincidence that almost no one who served during the Vietnam war is in the White House today. No one knows why! They'd have all gone to fight in that noble cause, if only they hadn't had boils on their butts or other priorities! So take that, peaceniks!

geekpunk2		2005-09-15 10:51:24 PM

MrBelvedere: I'm not an Islamic scholar, but the history of the Middle East since Mohammed arrived doesn't seem to have any notion of tolerating minorities.

When Isabella reconquered Spain from the Moors in 1492 and burn all the Muslims and Jews in the name of the Church, guess where all the Jews fled too?

Tolerant London or Paris?

Nope.

square		2005-09-15 10:51:49 PM

I say we share with them some of our own nuclear technology!

Picolo		2005-09-15 10:55:35 PM

We're going to look pretty @$#@$ dumb when they cut off the oil and that Russian and China protect their butts

Throbbing_Space_Pickle		2005-09-15 10:58:06 PM

knobmaker: It's just an unfortunate coincidence that almost no one who served during the Vietnam war is in the White House today.

Yeah! Now you're talkin! If Kerry were elected, he wouldn't have to go on a secret mission behind enemy lines and negotiate with the Iranians behind the government's back! But, since he's not President, I'm proud that this true American hero isn't sitting idle, watching the world go to hell. He's probably with an A-Team of skilled UN negotiators, putting life and limb in peril to save the free world. We need to be punished for being the source of evil in the modern world. I get goosebumps thinking of the stories yet to be told of his heroic efforts!

I'd be proud to give him his medals back to him, so that he could throw them away all over again, or at least, borrow some else's so that he could keep his.

Ninjawitch		2005-09-15 10:58:28 PM

catdrchris:

From the Nuclear Weapons Archive re: Neutron bombs

"... Thus the use of neutron bombs to stop an enemy attack, which requires exploding large numbers of them to blanket the enemy forces, would also destroy all buildings in the area. "

Still what is better? Using a "neutron bomb" or an "atomic bomb" on rogue states?

Would America care if they can't never occupy an Iranian house or house of worship again? As long as they can enter the territory sooner than later and through nuclear ffallout out, radiation and of course dig through the glass parking lot to get at the oil :-)

Even if the "neutron bomb" took out people and property over all it is much safer to use than the "atmoic bomb" isn't it? Plus now there are "microwave weapons" so you can essentially fry the Iranian government in their palaces :-)

http://www.manuelsweb.com/neutronbomb.htm

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

http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/neutron-bomb.html

Ninjawitch		2005-09-15 11:00:15 PM

Damn I'm tired tonight, I'm making too many simple typos :-)

Throbbing_Space_Pickle		2005-09-15 11:01:37 PM

General Zang: Simpler, for Red-Staters to figure out: Osama Bin Laden has fark-all to do with Iran, and a heck of a lot more to do with the Bush family who a) employed him when a Bush was head of the CIA, and b) who do lots of bussiness with Bin Laden's family.

Any questions?

I have one.

I've already got Halliburton and Big Oil in my portfolio, now how do I cash in on this Bin Laden/Bush deal? Do you think that they'll be offering stock? I hope it's not an insider thing. That would just suck.

If the Illuminati and Freemasons are involved, I don't want anything to do with it, though.

General Zang		2005-09-15 11:03:26 PM

whammer said:

Okay, question one: If Iran launches a nuclear weapon at Israel, a US target such as a fleet or division, or Europe, should the US retaliate with a nuclear weapon? Whether or not their missile blows up its target or is shot down.

Did Israel join NATO while I wasn't looking?

Did Isreal become the 51st state while I wasn't looking?

Israel has their own army, their own air force, and their own nukes. I'm pretty darn sure that if someone launches a nuke at Isreal, that the Isrealis aren't going to be sitting around reading "My Pet Goat" while waiting for George Bush to leap into action to defend them.

So, your first question is moot. By the time Bush had figured out what to do, the Israelis would have responded an hour before.

This one if for the liberals out there.

Question two: If Iran launches a nuclear missile at someone, will it be George Bush's fault?

Depends.

If they just up and decide to fire a nuclear missile at.. say.. South Africa, for no possible reason that anyone could figure out? Then no, it would not be George Bush's fault.

If Iran nukes our amphibious assault force as we're preparing to do a sea invasion of Iran? Well yeah, that would be entirely Bush's fault.

NubianzWithAttitude		2005-09-15 11:05:08 PM

Uranium has a higher energy content than oil, and probably isn't as easy to sell on the world market. In short, switching from oil power to nuclear power and then selling the excess crude is an economically sound decision for Iran. Yeah, they're probably going to at least research nuclear weapon technology, but what are we going to do about it? Our troops are conveniently bogged down in Iraq when lo and behold, a legitimate threat might taking shape elsewhere.

I think we can categorically state that nothing Bush has done in the last five years has made us safer.

Scubateacher		2005-09-15 11:05:23 PM

One dozen ICBM's, coming right up! Enjoy the afterglow!

NarrMaster		2005-09-15 11:06:16 PM

I see the rewriting of history has begun.

"Bin Laden was never under the employ of the CIA!!!1!!one!"

whammer		2005-09-15 11:10:53 PM

General Zang: You raise an interesting point by saying that if Iran pre-emptively nukes a US military force it sees as a threat, then it is George Bush's fault.

However, Iran sees the US presence in the Middle East, to include our fleets in their vicintity, and our forces in Iraq as a threat, right now, too.

So does this mean if they attack any of them with nuclear weapons because they feel threatened by them, that it is George Bush's fault?

serutan		2005-09-15 11:13:27 PM

Sharing is scaring.

NarrMaster		2005-09-15 11:13:27 PM

whammer:

Who's fault would it be if [insert country here] had it's ships poised in attack range of the the Continental US, and we nuked their fleet because we felt threatened?

General Zang		2005-09-15 11:13:49 PM

Throbbing_Space_Pickle said:

I've already got Halliburton and Big Oil in my portfolio, now how do I cash in on this Bin Laden/Bush deal? Do you think that they'll be offering stock?

The most obvious answer would be The Carlyle Group. I believe that their stock is available for sale on public stock exchanges.

I hope it's not an insider thing. That would just suck.

A few minutes googling for past bussiness ties of the elder Bush and the Bin Laden family show that, unfortunatelly, it's larger an insider thing.

Unless, of course, you think that random guys who's daddies aren't heads of the CIA just happen to get TWO failing oil companies bought out at a profit by the Bin Laden family.

If the Illuminati and Freemasons are involved, I don't want anything to do with it, though.

I think the "illuminati" is a made-up thing.... but the Bush/Bin Laden connection is very much real and quite well-documented.

Neurochemist		2005-09-15 11:18:10 PM

The first hundred posts in this thread had me laughing my ass off. Bravo.

clevershark		2005-09-15 11:21:39 PM

I can't blame the Iranians for being a little jumpy. The preeminent imperial military power in the world today has them covered on two sides.

All of a sudden I'll bet that the idea of "preemptively attacking before being attacked" doesn't sound so good to Perle, Wolfowitz & co., at least insofar as Iran might decide to seize the opportunity to go with that "preemption" idea, backed with more and truer facts than the US could ever muster for invading Iraq.

MrBigglesworth		2005-09-15 11:21:51 PM

But because I know that the US is not a true democracy that makes me a right wing douche rag? Sorry..but try again.

knobmaker		2005-09-15 11:23:59 PM

Throbbing_Space_Pickle: Yeah! Now you're talkin! If Kerry were elected, he wouldn't have to go on a secret mission behind enemy lines and negotiate with the Iranians behind the government's back! But, since he's not President, I'm proud that this true American hero isn't sitting idle, watching the world go to hell.

Hey, we're on the same page! He can be joined by Bush, who can drink them under the table, share his coke, and play a few verses from Country Joe and the Fish on his new guitar! That'll teach them infidels not to mess with Texas! Or better yet, Bush can order an invasion of Poland. That'll put the fear o' god into them camel jockeys!

whammer		2005-09-15 11:25:37 PM

NarrMaster: The Soviet Union had its ships poised to do just that for many years, if you remember. And yet we never nuked them or threatened to nuke them. So your comparison is not a good one.

Now, if you said, "If Iran parked nuke carrying ships in range of the continental US and the US nuked them first, whose fault would it be?" I would give credit to George Bush for a job well done.

Which means you should ask yourself the question: "Why is even the Soviet Union, the ol' Evil Empire itself, less threatening than a bunch of religious fundamentalists who regularly chant "Death to U.S.A.!"?

Really ponder this one. Though I doubt you are capable of coming up with any answer that does not involve blaming George Bush.

General Zang		2005-09-15 11:26:51 PM

whammer said:

General Zang: You raise an interesting point by saying that if Iran pre-emptively nukes a US military force it sees as a threat, then it is George Bush's fault.

No, I did not.

You're the second person in this thread to attempt to put words in my mouth, and I don't appreciate it. If you can't respond to what I said, but must twist it out of shape before responding, then why are you even bothering?

Here are my actual words: If Iran nukes our amphibious assault force as we're preparing to do a sea invasion of Iran? Well yeah, that would be entirely Bush's fault.

The words "our amphibious assault force as we're preparing to do a sea invasion of Iran" is not the same as "a force it sees as a threat".

Some people, like Bush, see "threats" everywhere they look.... but that's not quite the same thing as a fleet full of amphibious assault craft loaded with Marines and amphibious tanks approaching your coast under air cover and bombardment.

However, Iran sees the US presence in the Middle East, to include our fleets in their vicintity, and our forces in Iraq as a threat, right now, too.

Gosh... really? Gee, maybe that's why I specifically *didn't* say "a force that they see as a threat"?

knobmaker		2005-09-15 11:30:25 PM

General Zang: Gosh... really? Gee, maybe that's why I specifically *didn't* say "a force that they see as a threat"?

General, you're arguing with idiots. There's probably no point to it, unless you can get a cheap giggle out of it.

Neurochemist		2005-09-15 11:32:24 PM

knobmaker: General, you're arguing with idiots. There's probably no point to it, unless you can get a cheap giggle out of it.

We have a winner.

smoovement		2005-09-15 11:32:48 PM

Jew Haters rejoice!

If only Hitler himself were alive to share your happiness and progress towards wiping Jew's from the face of the Earth.

NarrMaster		2005-09-15 11:34:49 PM

whammer:

Dude, first off, fark off.

Second, get your head out of your ass. I do not blame GWB for every little farking thing that comes along. I was attempting to get you to look deeper into General Zang's example.

Get Bush's cock out your ass. But for God sakes, don't put it in your mouth.

Neurochemist		2005-09-15 11:39:39 PM

NarrMaster: Get Bush's cock out your ass. But for God sakes, don't put it in your mouth.

I disagree, in this situation, I strongly encourage you to put in in your mouth and finish the job.

dirtyturtle		2005-09-15 11:43:54 PM

You know, before the US invaded Iraq, Americans spoke with just as much certainty about Saddam Hussein's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. That has got to be in the back of GW's mind.

I mean, come on! Iran has got America by the balls. The US doesn't have the troops or the national will for a protracted military conflict in Iran, nevermind the fact the Shi'a in Iraq are not going to hang back while the US is killing their brothers in Iran.

Futhermore, if you think Iraq's supply of suicide bombers isn't in danger of running out, what about Iran's? Go on. Click the link.

/As a Shi'a, I am very proud of them.
//Death to the Great Satan!
///Yes, I'm somewhat serious.
////But in a non-confrontational way.

NarrMaster		2005-09-15 11:44:01 PM

Neurochemist:

I never understood why someone would fellatiate a politician that has previously farked them in the ass.

The reverse, however, I can completely understand.

Sum Dum Gai		2005-09-15 11:44:02 PM

MrBigglesworth
News flash, oil rich ME countries have absolutely ZERO need for Nuke Power.

"peaceful civilian power generation" my ass.

NEED? There is very little people "need" -- by the strictest sense of the word, nobody NEEDS oil to begin with.

On the other hand, nuclear power makes a lot of sense for them economically. Every barrel of oil they burn is one barrel they can't sell. It's simply cheaper to use nuclear power, because the cost of producing the power is less than the profit made by selling the oil overseas.

Like everyone else, they want to earn money. And, as a second incentive to them, if peak oil experts aren't just crackpot tinfoil hat people, it may be to their best interest to reduce their consumption of oil as much as they can.

The Saint of Killers		2005-09-15 11:52:55 PM

smoovement

Jew Haters rejoice!

If only Hitler himself were alive to share your happiness and progress towards wiping Jew's from the face of the Earth.

You don't speak for me. Fcuk off and die you meladromatic motherfcuker.

file13		2005-09-15 11:53:31 PM

In other news, Israel has offered to share nuclear technology with Jewish states...

Neurochemist		2005-09-15 11:56:39 PM

dirtyturtle: The US doesn't have the troops or the national will for a protracted military conflict in Iran

You got that right...America is not at war with Iraq IMHO. War is about destroying everything....taking no prisoners....until your enemy is broken. We are not doing that. First off, I'm against going to war... with that said... I support an absolute slaughter more than what we are doing... We are fighting a politically correct war...using our military as a police force..

Most people knew going in it was a catch-22. Why we re-elected a dumb ass who led us into a guaranteed catch-22 is beyond me?

Neurochemist		2005-09-16 12:00:23 AM

And for those of you who will read that and not understand it...

Absolute slaughter > what is going on in Iraq

Not going to war > Absolute slaughter/what is going on Iraq

mychihuahuas		2005-09-16 12:03:42 AM

It's all a matter of perspective really

dirtyturtle		2005-09-16 12:07:30 AM

Well, yeah. I mean after about 2,000 dead most people in the US do not support the war. Iraq only has 25 million people minus the Kurds who would never attack American soldiers. So the US is basically tip-toeing(sp?) around a collection of neighborhoods and cities that are consistently problematic. Folks take potshots at them or leave booby traps around, but their is no standing army to fight.

Iran on the other hand, has about 60 million people. Most of them are very devout, and the ones who aren't *very* devout, are fairly nationalistic. The only Iranians who like America live in Tehran, so there is a huge country with lots of boom-booms and rifles and committed soldiers to go through.

Sum Dum Gai		2005-09-16 12:08:47 AM

Neurochemist
You got that right...America is not at war with Iraq IMHO. War is about destroying everything....taking no prisoners....until your enemy is broken.

The enemy did break. There was a war, and the war ended when Saddam's government collapsed.

What is left now is an occupation, and a resistance to an occupation. It's not a war, as the fighters are not an army fighting on behalf of a government.

Nemo's Brother		2005-09-16 12:11:10 AM

So General Zang, so it was Japan's fault that they got nuked under your rationale.

Neurochemist		2005-09-16 12:11:20 AM

America can get used to Vietnams.

It is highly unlikely we will ever win another war. The media reports to the citizens... The citizens support a politically correct war, but would never stand for an "absolute slaughter" ....

We tie our soilders hands... and then wonder why they can't win a catch-22...

From now on, whenever we consider going to war, the question posed to Americans should be: Are you willing to support the systematic killing of every man, woman and child until the remaining occupants are broken or everyone is dead?

consdubya		2005-09-16 12:15:50 AM

Sum Dum Gai:

It's not a war, as the fighters are not an army fighting on behalf of a government.

Indeed, I believe the correct definition of what is happening in Iraq right now is "Civil War".

Sum Dum Gai		2005-09-16 12:18:36 AM

consdubya

Or insurgence. I guess it's really a matter of degrees. I don't think the insurgent forces are large enough to really qualify this as a civil war, but as the conflict seems to only get worse, it may well reach that civil war status.

Neurochemist		2005-09-16 12:19:21 AM

consdubya - excellent profile btw... I like what you did to it.

General Zang		2005-09-16 12:19:35 AM

Neurochemist said:

We are fighting a politically correct war...using our military as a police force..

Most people knew going in it was a catch-22. Why we re-elected a dumb ass who led us into a guaranteed catch-22 is beyond me?

Exactly.

If I had been President on 9/11, this would never have become a "war on terror".

Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda gang would have been treated like the criminals that they are, and the enitre organization would have been hunted down, put on trial for their crimes, and then either executed or thrown in prison for their life sentences without parole.

If we had approached the issue of Al Qaeda as a police response to an armed and violent criminal gang, then our efforts would have yielded far far better results.

Within days of 9/11, the FBI published a list of the suspected high-jackers with pictures of each one.... and within weeks, there had been pieced-togetehr a pretty darn accurate picture of the money-trail and command-trail that led from Al Qaeda leadership to the hijackers.

And yet.... our government refused to follow the trail where it led, and refused to do the basic legwork that is expected of an investigation into murder. Why? Well, when the money trail leads to Saudi princesses cutting checks, and also leads to $100,000 wired from the head of Pakistan's ISI to Mohammed Atta... suddenly everybody in a Bush-led country gets cold feet at following the trail where it leads.

Why is it that Osama Bin Laden is *still* alive 4 years after 9/11, and hiding inside Pakistan... the same Pakistan who's head of military intelligence wired funds to Muhammed Atta? Why is it that none, zero, nada, zilch, of the Saudi hi-jacking suspects' families were interrogated about their relative's whereabouts?

This whole thing has been conducted like a scam and a whitewash, with everybody who was supposed to be investigating too busy turning a blind eye to links to our "good friends" and "allies" in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

It's total bullshiat... if I'd been President, I'd have conducted this as a police investigation, and kept investigating no matter who it led back to.... and if they were highly-placed in our "allied" countries, then I'd have demanded their extradition to stand trial for their crimes.

Instead... Bush did a half-assed job investigating, let the chief suspect slip away and find refuge, didn't have the balls to demand that the chief suspect be given up by Pakistan... and then, wandered off to attack Iraq, which had fark-all to do with 9/11.

It's been a monumental fark-up from the word go... and largely because Bush and his folks have consistently have made stupid, ignorant, and just-plain-wrong descisions from the beginning of this mess.

The turned what should have been a police search for people who murdered innocent civilians, into a "war on terror" and a "crusade"... thereby giving Osama Bin Laden everything he could have dreamed of.

Morons.

consdubya		2005-09-16 12:20:23 AM

Its sad that the lessons of WW2 have been forgotten.

It was not about fighting for freedom, it was not about liberation, the lesson WW2 taught us, or at least was supposed to teach us, is that there are no winners in War amougst civilians and soldiers. War should always be avoided, thus the concept of "preemptive strikes" is not acceptable.

War in retaliation? Fine. Preemptive? Not cool.

The whole preemtive strike idea is along the same lines as the schoolyard statement: "I hit him back first". And that is just where such a policy belongs, in the schoolyard.

consdubya		2005-09-16 12:23:26 AM

Sum Dum Gai: it may well reach that civil war status.

Fair enough, it is not all out yet, but it seems to be getting worse. The Shia - Sunni tensions are extreme, and i dont see them being resolved in the near future.

consdubya		2005-09-16 12:24:14 AM

Neurochemist: consdubya - excellent profile btw... I like what you did to it.

Cheers dude! :)

General Zang		2005-09-16 12:24:28 AM

Nemo's Brother said:

So General Zang, so it was Japan's fault that they got nuked under your rationale.

I'm not sure how you got that from what I said.

Please explain.

Neurochemist		2005-09-16 12:24:40 AM

Neurochemist: consdubya - excellent profile btw... I like what you did to it.

That part about America living beyond it means and trying to do everything in its power to ensure we can maintain = very accurate (to me)...

...I've come to the same conclusion.

Sum Dum Gai		2005-09-16 12:27:06 AM

General Zang

On the Pakistan aspect, I think the US won't press them because of a fear that it will topple the government. It's corrupt, petty, and very nondemocratic, but so far it's at least a tentative ally. The last thing we'd want is a fundamentalist government in control of nuclear weapons. The situation between India and Pakistan is bad enough now -- if a fundamentalist was in control, sooner or later one side would push the button and the atom bombs would fly.

On the Saudi aspect, it's partially the same. Al Qaeda is an anti-Saudi dissident group, and yes, a fair percentage of people in that nation (5-10%) support Al Qaeda, whose #1 aim is to depose the Saud family and establish a strict theocracy in Saudi Arabia. Part of the reason we don't push the Saudis too hard is because that would only help Bin Laden achieve his goals. More than anything else he seeks to undermine the alliance between the Saud family and the US, which is the largest obstacle to a full-blown coup.

Neurochemist		2005-09-16 12:36:39 AM

Off topic/ direct @ consdubya

I have a controversal theory that the problem in America is modern capitalism. Capitalism allows wealth to be gained but does very little to ensure it is redistributed. After several generations of saving wealth, it becomes lopsided..... It creates a society where a person who is very motivated to make themselves wealthy is born into a poor family and has no opportunity. On the other hand, you have unmotivated dumbasses, wielding tons of money / power... I know the America dream is about working harder and building yourself up, but this is a dream that is fading.

I've been working on some theories on altering capitalism to allow every one to fiscally start from the same point. Same principle as we have now, except somehow reducing inheritance to a small, set amount... I'd like your ideas

consdubya		2005-09-16 12:37:24 AM

Neurochemist:

That part about America living beyond it means and trying to do everything in its power to ensure we can maintain = very accurate (to me)...

Yeah, it not just America though, although, like with most things, it is the most extreme in the US. The entire western world has a problem in that we must either reduce our standard of living, or fight others for the resources that allow us to maintain our current standard.

Personally, I am prepared to miss out on pop-tarts and back street boys figurines in return for not being blown up.

Deep Hurting		2005-09-16 12:41:26 AM

Boy, it's a good thing we put the vast majority of our military resources towards taking out the ruling party in Iraq, which long acted as sort of a check (weak and broken though it was) against Iran!

This President conducts foreign policy worse than plastics conduct electricity.

dirtyturtle		2005-09-16 12:44:08 AM

Saddam needed a good ass-kicking. Iran is a somewhat democtratic nation that has the support of most citizens on most aspects of its government.

consdubya		2005-09-16 12:47:56 AM

Neurochemist:

I have a controversal theory that the problem in America is modern capitalism. Capitalism allows wealth to be gained but does very little to ensure it is redistributed. After several generations of saving wealth, it becomes lopsided..... It creates a society where a person who is very motivated to make themselves wealthy is born into a poor family and has no opportunity. On the other hand, you have unmotivated dumbasses, wielding tons of money / power... I know the America dream is about working harder and building yourself up, but this is a dream that is fading.

I completely agree that capitalism is as much a flawed theory as communism is. What you outlined is exactly right. In a capitalist society, greed helps you get ahead, and it is encouraged. However, greed is not sustainable, as if you are greedy, you are taking things you do not actually need. If you are taking things you do not actually need, you are most likely taking it away from somebody that does need it. Thus the person that does need it gets very pissed off. This in turn leads to conflict.

I've been working on some theories on altering capitalism to allow every one to fiscally start from the same point. Same principle as we have now, except somehow reducing inheritance to a small, set amount... I'd like your ideas

I think the best way to go about it is to realise that we are all on this planet together, and that we have to work together as a team. Instead of a fulfilling life consisting of having a nice car, house in the suburbs, big screen TV and a jetski, we need to make people want something else. For instance, how cool would it be if you considered the fullfillment of your life to see a man walk on Mars?

I think we need to ban all mass advertising, and have leadership on a global scale. Make everyone feel like they are a part of humanity, and that humanity is moving forward.

As for the inheritance thing, yeah, could work, but i dont like the idea because I am set for a pretty kickass inheritance in the form of a Farm in Western Australia :) But yeah, that is the type of hypocracy and human nature we need to find a solution to. And my theory is that it will only be possible when we have unified authoritative leadership on a global scale.

General Zang		2005-09-16 12:48:10 AM

Sum Dum Gai said:

General Zang

On the Pakistan aspect, I think the US won't press them because of a fear that it will topple the government. It's corrupt, petty, and very nondemocratic, but so far it's at least a tentative ally. The last thing we'd want is a fundamentalist government in control of nuclear weapons. The situation between India and Pakistan is bad enough now -- if a fundamentalist was in control, sooner or later one side would push the button and the atom bombs would fly.

Well... who has more to lose from the government being toppled in Pakistan? Us, or the general in charge of Pakistan?

If I was President, I'd sit him down and say "Well, old buddy, we want Osama Bin Laden. We want him within two months, we want him alive, and you're gonna do it for us."

Sure, he'd whine about upsetting this or that faction and say it was impossible.... whatever.

So, I'd give him a deal. "Hey, old buddy," I'd say, "We want him. You get him for us, and we don't have to go in ourselves. You have four weeks until we go in ourselves.... but hey, if it'll help you out, we'll SAY that we caught him in Afghanistan on our own... once you hand his ass over."

Then he'd whine about being overthrown.

Being all Presidential and such, I'd say: "Whatever. If you don't have what it takes to turn over the number one bad guy to your good friends and allies, then who gives a flying fark whether you get overthrown? It's not like you're any freaking use to us if you can't give us Bin Laden. Hell, you're a freaking military diictator... I should topple your ass on general principles, but I'll give you four weeks to figure out who your friends are. I'll give you a call in four weeks."

Heck, just do the lines with a Lyndon Johnson-style accent, and you're golden ;)

On the Saudi aspect, it's partially the same. Al Qaeda is an anti-Saudi dissident group, and yes, a fair percentage of people in that nation (5-10%) support Al Qaeda, whose #1 aim is to depose the Saud family and establish a strict theocracy in Saudi Arabia. Part of the reason we don't push the Saudis too hard is because that would only help Bin Laden achieve his goals. More than anything else he seeks to undermine the alliance between the Saud family and the US, which is the largest obstacle to a full-blown coup.

Same deal as Pakistan.

If they are our allies, then they need to help us track down the criminal gang who attacked us... and who, supposedly, is also against them.

I'd just let them know that the ONE thing keeping the House of Saud from being overthrown and hung from lampposts by the Jihadis was the protection of the USA.... and if they couldn't help us track the criminals that murdered 3000 Americans, then why should I shed a tear for a few thousand fat and corrupt Princes getting hung?

"Hell, good buddy, we overthrew our King in 1776... so I know how your people feel. Just be a good boy and help us track Al Qaeda, and you won't end up like King George did.... or the French King who got himself all beheaded and shiat."

"Oh, *NOW* our FBI guys are all cleared to come and do interviews? Great. Oh, and you got that Saudi princess who cut a check to the hi-jackers ready to talk to us? Great. Pleasure doing bussiness with you, old buddy."

See... just start talking in a psuedo-Lyndon Johnson voice, and it all becomes so simple :)

Well, that, and a pair of balls, a brain, a sense of right and wrong, and some actual concern for the deaths of 3000 fellow Americans (as something other than just a bussiness opportunity).

Sum Dum Gai		2005-09-16 12:48:24 AM

Deep Hurting
Boy, it's a good thing we put the vast majority of our military resources towards taking out the ruling party in Iraq, which long acted as sort of a check (weak and broken though it was) against Iran!

This President conducts foreign policy worse than plastics conduct electricity.

Eh, I don't see Iran as a threat. They talk about hating the US, but even if they could attack, I am certain they wouldn't. It would be a war they could not win, and they know it. Same goes with supporting Al Qaeda, etc. The Taliban did because the Taliban owed Bin Laden bigtime for his work in Afghanistan against the Soviets. Even if they hated his terrorist actions, they owed him enough that they wouldn't kick him out. No other nation in the Middle East would be so stupid; people in power tend to want to stay in power, and attacking the nation that is the militarily strongest on earth is a sure way to not stay in power.

SparksMcGees		2005-09-16 12:50:15 AM

I work at applebee's and there is this rule stuffed in the back of the manager's book. I'm not sure what the exact specifications of this is, but its something like this.

"In the even of a nuclear disaster or fallout, please welcome all customers with free food and non-alchohalic beverages."

So if anything ever happens, you've got free food waiting for you at applebee's.

Neurochemist		2005-09-16 12:52:49 AM

consdubya: I think the best way to go about it is to realise that we are all on this planet together, and that we have to work together as a team.

Yep, waiting for inheretance laws or people to turn into hippies = we're f.cked

But people like US who make plans to change and improve the system hopefully will prevail afterwards and lead us into a brighter day.

Sum Dum Gai		2005-09-16 12:58:04 AM

General Zang
Well... who has more to lose from the government being toppled in Pakistan? Us, or the general in charge of Pakistan?

I suppose that depends largely on whose side he was on when the government fell. Generals have a tendency to become either dead, or presidents, when a revolution happens.

And sending the Pakistani army in to secure Bin Laden would almost certainly result in a civil war. At some point one must question how many innocent casualties are acceptable when hunting a criminal. Is catching one man, even a murderer like Bin Laden, worth causing tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths? Possibly millions or tens of millions of deaths if it escalated to an Indian-Pakistani war.

Likewise in Saudi Arabia.

The governments are as stongly allied with us as they can be and still have enough popular support of their people. All governments answer to their citizens in some form, and either by peaceful votes or armed rebellion, a people will remove a government they hate. Right now, we have about the best possible governments in these nations -- they are far more US-friendly than their population. Meaning if they get replaced, they are certain to be replaced by something more "mainstream" for the society they represent. And, for us, that is a bad deal.

consdubya		2005-09-16 01:08:08 AM

Neurochemist:

But people like US who make plans to change and improve the system hopefully will prevail afterwards and lead us into a brighter day.

Not just in the US :) I hope we make it through the seemingly inevitable war, and have the chance to make these changes. But unfortunately, I believe that the only way for change to happen is after a horrific war, after which people are more prepared to cooperate, as they will have first hand experience of what happens when they cannot cooperate.

I hope we survive, as i have the feeling you will be one of those that will make a difference given the chance.

mychihuahuas		2005-09-16 01:09:19 AM

I'm still in the bath...REALLY.

flaknugget		2005-09-16 01:11:22 AM

The one thing that bothers me about America's response to stuff like this lately, is it's totally inconsistant.

A. Q. Khan has been spreading nuclear secrets from North Korea to Libya, and everywhere in between (including Iran). So how come nobody ever pays any attention to him? At least call him in for questioning. This guy has never faced any serious investigation into his activities.

He's officially an 'American Ally' right now.

None of this vindicates Iran, but when America gets a hard-on to attack any oil producing middle-eastern country that won't share its oil, and turns a blind-eye to others equally complicite in the same (or worse) crimes... the rest of the world sees less enduring intentions then 'peace, freedom, and democracy'.

And if war is the first and only option... everyone has already lost.

limeyfellow		2005-09-16 01:12:32 AM

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

Isn't that what the Bible says?

I don't think it be so impressive if it told us it would begin in a coffee shop in a small town in kansas when someone asked for one of those fancy coffees, and asking for wifi to people in the past, but it sure would be impressive today.

Smart Ass		2005-09-16 01:17:22 AM

General, you are a sickness unlike any nasty shait germ has ever created.
'don't care' about money-but worry about your insurance and other peoples money? (Jealous, selfish and puke green with envy) You'd do it so differently, right?
You feel cheated about something, it hurts, and I hope you get over it. No one should suffer like you.
Think about yourself and ask "do I want to introduce a child to the pain and suffering I am haveing now?" Maybe they will find a cure for it someday. If you have already reproduced, get help. Quick. Before your lifetime of failure and 'missed opertunitys' effects them. Please.
You understand so much, i.e. the danger Aircraft Carriers present-power projection, lack of pirates, Boolean Logic-but you just can't understand why people don't want to 'roll over' and submit to the agressivness of 3rd world terrorist countrys. But thats the way it's always been isn't it? They just don't understand that you 'already have it figgured out. Humm? Did you avoid-at all cost-the bully?
Did Jimmy Carter 'let you down'? It's ok. You can share with the group...Bitter? I know..you were suppost to 'be somebody' but the 'novility', of the worlds first ass-birth,just didn't last, did it?
/continue to buy your lottery tickets
/Don't develop such un-realistic un-reachable expectations
/You were before Roe v Wade, right?
/So special-the Doctors told your family. Now, you wonder.
/2 words: De program (and wipe that stupid Kool-Aide Smile from your face. Quit embarassing your family. Did they do this to you?)
/

mychihuahuas		2005-09-16 01:19:45 AM

I'm still soaking with no reason to get out unless someone can come up with some cogent arguments.

Smart Ass		2005-09-16 01:20:40 AM

"we overthrew our King in 1776"

/briliant.

consdubya		2005-09-16 01:28:00 AM

mychihuahuas:

I'm still soaking with no reason to get out unless someone can come up with some cogent arguments.

Now come on, you will get all pruned up if you stay in there much longer, you have made your point.

mychihuahuas		2005-09-16 01:29:33 AM

Please come up with something guys, the water is getting cold!

scalpod		2005-09-16 01:30:43 AM

Is this that diplomacery I keep hearing about? I hope these guys are good at it... Anyone? Anyone?

mychihuahuas		2005-09-16 01:31:18 AM

consdubya: Now come on, you will get all pruned up if you stay in there much longer, you have made your point.

Pruned really you cad. I use lotion.

consdubya		2005-09-16 01:35:35 AM

mychihuahuas: Pruned really you cad. I use lotion.

Cad?

mychihuahuas		2005-09-16 01:43:01 AM

consdubya: Cad?

Yes cad!

As defined by dictionary.com:
cad Pronunciation Key (kd) n.

A man whose behavior is unprincipled or dishonorable.

To imply that I soak in the tub without the aid of bath oilor lotion afterwards is toatlly reprehensible. You cad.

consdubya		2005-09-16 01:48:45 AM

mychihuahuas:

To imply that I soak in the tub without the aid of bath oilor lotion afterwards is toatlly reprehensible. You cad.

Cool. A new word for my vocab! Cheers! :)

And I humbly apologise for inferring you do not know how look after your own body.

mychihuahuas		2005-09-16 01:52:13 AM

consdubya: And I humbly apologise for inferring you do not know how look after your own body.

Totally forgiven. And by the way, it is getting cold in here!

cot		2005-09-16 02:07:33 AM

consdubya		2005-09-16 02:18:03 AM

Anyone keen on a sweepstakes to predict when the Iran war will start?

I am predicting January 2006, with a preemptive strike by Israel, followed up by the US.

Aias		2005-09-16 02:22:51 AM

balance of power.

Big Al		2005-09-16 02:31:21 AM

Neurochemist: But people like US who make plans to change and improve the system hopefully will prevail afterwards and lead us into a brighter day.

Good comments in general. I agree but unfortunately it will take a very big movement to change peoples minds, if such simple examples as slavery were so difficult to rid ourselves of.

CathrineOslo		2005-09-16 02:52:34 AM

2005-09-15 12:48:07 PM trashcancream [TotalFark]

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

Michael Jackson didnt molest those children....

...he made love to them;)

Gavino		2005-09-16 02:56:08 AM

The sooner the middle Eastern countries have nukes, the sooner America gets back in its box. Good news all round.

consdubya - March 19th is my bet. Agreed, Israeli airstrike on nuclear facilities. No retaliation, so either the Israeli's deliberately crash a jet and claim it was shot down or Bush starts sabre rattling and attacks anyway after generating a little nationalist fervour. At this point we see another clean invasion followed by absolute chaos and vietnam style casualty figures. Except that they'll be maimings rather than killings, because armour has improved so much. Oil at $120 a bbl. Lovely. And this is before the inevitable baby killing/village raping/summary execution stories have started to leak out of iraq.

consdubya		2005-09-16 03:04:05 AM

Gavino:

so either the Israeli's deliberately crash a jet and claim it was shot down or Bush starts sabre rattling and attacks anyway after generating a little nationalist fervour.

I dont think the Israeli's would bother trying to claim that a jet just happened to be shot down over a nuclear facility in Iran. I dont think many people would buy into that.....

I reckon Israel will just bomb the facility using airforce jets, and then sit back and declare that any retaliation for this would be a terrorist act of war, and then fight a war against anyone who retaliates with the backing and involvement of the US.

/Thinking about buying a scooter
//Sure, they look and sound crap, but they do get you from a to b on a thimble of gas.

Gavino		2005-09-16 03:19:20 AM

consdubya - my only problem with your theory is that I think the Iranians are clever enough not to retaliate, but instead appeal to the world about continued Israeli aggression in the region. And we know the Bush administration like to make the decision first and then get people's perception of reality to fit it.

consdubya		2005-09-16 03:29:00 AM

Gavino:

my only problem with your theory is that I think the Iranians are clever enough not to retaliate, but instead appeal to the world about continued Israeli aggression in the region

Yeah, that is true.....

Iran can count on support from China and Russia, as well as other assorted countries.

And Bush, well, not bush, but cheney, has already made up his mind. Iran will be attacked. The question is how.....

The only way I see it happening is with the use of the draft in the US to get sufficient soldier numbers. And the only way to make a draft work is if there is public support for it. Public support could easily come from another 9/11 style terror attack.

It is clear that the US is going to keep waging war on oil producing nations, as it is the only way to maintain its current standard of living.

It all seems so inevitable now.

Btw, March 19th? I bit close to the move to the Euro dont you think?

tkirby		2005-09-16 03:48:01 AM

look for history to repeat itself any time now.

ratboy		2005-09-16 03:56:57 AM

I'm surprised that there have been few comments about how France and the rest of the Euro-weenies are trying to negotiate some alternative to a total breakdown of dialog with Iran. You'd think after they were proven wrong in Iraq, they'd STFU and get back to stinky cheese making.

This is work for real men.
The kind of men who wear cowboy boots.

-do I have to point out the sarcasm?

consdubya		2005-09-16 03:59:26 AM

ratboy: -do I have to point out the sarcasm?

Yeah, cheers for pointing it out, without it I woud have gotten the wrong idea about you otherwise :)

cot		2005-09-16 04:14:02 AM

consdubya: /Thinking about buying a scooter
//Sure, they look and sound crap, but they do get you from a to b on a thimble of gas.

Buy a motorcycle. You can drive it like a scooter (ie slowly and not on the freeway) and they get great mileage too, but instead of looking like a dork you actually look cool.

consdubya		2005-09-16 04:18:44 AM

cot:

Buy a motorcycle. You can drive it like a scooter (ie slowly and not on the freeway) and they get great mileage too, but instead of looking like a dork you actually look cool.

Even better..... ill get a motorbike......

Heaps more fun than a scooter. Cheers for the recommendation!

consdubya		2005-09-16 04:29:30 AM

(More info on consequences of possible strike against Iran, as articulated by Rep. Leach)

Interesting reading......

itzhak		2005-09-16 05:37:11 AM

Why do I get the feeling the EU and US are playing good cop, bad cop with Iran?

chuckles5		2005-09-16 06:26:22 AM

If they have a bomb, will they use it?
The USA has the fine distinction of being the only nation to ever use one of these things on civilians. Ooops...sorry...TWO OF THESE THINGS!

whorehopper		2005-09-16 07:28:07 AM

Congrats Bush, the world doesn't seem to be sure who is worse now - us or Iran.

FU people who voted for this ahole amateur.

ratboy		2005-09-16 07:32:17 AM

-consdubya-

"Yeah, cheers for pointing it out, without it I woud have gotten the wrong idea about you otherwise :)"

I hate having to do it, but I don't want to be accused of parroting talking points from AM radio.

Haizum		2005-09-16 08:39:30 AM

...right because America forced Iran to do this.

/notevengonnabother

Colgate		2005-09-16 09:45:33 AM

'vernonFL [TotalFark]
Countries that can't get indoor plumbing working shouldn't be allowed to leapfrog like this.

Iran is actually a very modern country, its not like Afghanistan. Tehran is a very worldly city. '

They want to share. I was speaking of a nuclear armed I dunno, Kuwait! They are too farking lazy to get up and pour their own lemonade and yet they should have nukes? Did you see those schmucks moving the 55 gallon drums. Yeah, Iran is all modern and stuff. Pbbbt. They are from the ME. They can't do shiat right. Come on. Nuclear plants and nuke sites all over the ME. They'll make Homer and Springfield look like Lawrence Livermore labs. If nukes proliferate WE ARE SCREWED. THE WORLD IS SCREWED. That's why we had all those big friggin serious SALT talks and non-proliferation treaties, to keep this genie in the bottle.

EnormousJuan		2005-09-16 09:48:27 AM

I love the moralists. You magnify the little differences...see the US is so much better in these aspects. But it's not that much of a difference from 10,000 feet.
And the US has so many areas in need of improvement...who are we to judge? Might makes right? Hee hee...that's such a cute child-like view of the world. Simple people like that one. Easy to understand. It leverages those old monkey intuitions that they claim wer eplaced there by a god.

Colgate		2005-09-16 09:48:40 AM

Oh and Iran's President looks like a friggin bum. thought I'd get that in there.

Kangaroo_Ralph		2005-09-16 10:09:52 AM

Why the fark should we wait until they have lots of nuclear missiles and have shared them with other rogue states before wiping them off the planet?

I hate that we don't use our nukes. If we had taken out Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran on 9/12, we would already have lived down the outcries from other countries by now, it would have cost FAR less than the wars, and anyone else thinking about becoming rogue would have to stop.

/rant

frankbob		2005-09-16 10:12:11 AM

hey guys, stop beeing afraid...

when a dog is afraid it bites!!! it's the same with the US.
Iran i as poor country...as almost all muslim states.
Let the country develop I mean... in history the only ones that have used nuclear weapons is the US, so they should not have the right to produce more.

Iran's treat is like Iraq.... it's all lies.

lexslamman		2005-09-16 10:22:22 AM

There seems to be a building momentum for an Iran invasion. I hope everyone realizes that it will be at least 10 times as difficult to invade Iran than it was Iraq. And Iran actually DOES have the capacity to make and story WMDs.

chenry		2005-09-16 10:42:24 AM

[GIR]Hurray! We're doomed![/GIR]

retrofitme		2005-09-16 11:17:33 AM

Let's be clear about one thing - this could turn into a holy war. By invading Afganistan & Iraq, the US has inadvertantly taken on the entire Muslim world.

Most Muslim countries are poor - that's what makes them dangerous Let's take generally poor, uneducated people, with essentially nothing to lose, and give them the biggest weapons on the planet. Couple that with their willingness to attack civilian targets and the potential for things to get really really bad is too high to ignore.

Millions could die in a single attack.

Now who want's Iran to have nukes again?

/Sorry for the alarmist attitude, but this is scary stuff.
//Glad I don't live in Israel.

funmonkey1		2005-09-16 11:18:43 AM

Yeah! All heed to the American culture of fear.

Cuyose		2005-09-16 11:26:21 AM

Shoot, all we need to do is repeal all the womens and civil rights movements, have everyone in America convert to Islam, and force all schools to abandon most of thier science and math curriculums to preach Islamic texts and we should be fine right?

Heck and we wont need a military, most of our children will be more than happy to strap bombs on themselves after a few years of indoctrination into islamic fascism and clean up all those other "progressive" countries that dare try to keep advancing through the 21st century.

farkyouiwontdowhatyoutellme		2005-09-16 11:46:43 AM

Damn, so now we've got China, France, India, Russia, Pakistan, Iran, the UK and US with nukes. We've got about 2600 more than anyone else...

Someone please think of the flash cartoons!!!

farking kangaroos

Colgate		2005-09-16 11:55:38 AM

'frankbob

hey guys, stop beeing afraid...

when a dog is afraid it bites!!! it's the same with the US.
Iran i as poor country...as almost all muslim states.
Let the country develop I mean... in history the only ones that have used nuclear weapons is the US, so they should not have the right to produce more.

Iran's treat is like Iraq.... it's all lies.'

frankbob al-husseini-al-almadi is that you? thanks for weighing in.

Kangaroo_Ralph		2005-09-16 12:03:19 PM

Y'all remember when Yahoo took down the private chat rooms? I forget what their excuse was... something about lewdness and corporate sponsors, I think.

Before they took them down, I sent several emails to yahoo, CNN, and FOX about the yahoo private voice chat rooms. Every one of them had the title of TEHRAN or IRAN or something similar, and if you entered one, it was just a bunch of middle-easterners talking. I hope they were being monitored.

whammer		2005-09-16 12:15:09 PM

NarrMaster is a filthy person with a filthy way of expressing himself when he can no longer justify his arguments and political animosities.

General Zang has absolutely no grasp of politics, foreign relations, war, peace, or semantics. He evades the hard questions by parsing what he has said.

That being said, the axioms I originally wrote still stand. At this time, I foresee Iran lauching a nuclear missile in an act of belligerant war. This in no way will be George Bush's fault. The only question remaining is what the US response to this attack will be.

whidbey		2005-09-16 12:19:31 PM

catdrchris: My conclusion is that a friggin' frightening percentage of Muslims want infidels dead or converted

Dude--a friggin frightening percentage of....6000 people?

Hardly constitutes any kind of majority...

diseasd		2005-09-16 12:33:05 PM

dont worry, the UN will write a nasty letter to Tehran

Gavino		2005-09-16 01:27:28 PM

diseasd - why are brain donors like you so pissed that the UN doesn't have a standing army that goes around doing the bidding of the world? America would last about 15 farking seconds under that regime. As it is, America has about 60% of the say of what the UN does, and if it doesn't like it, does it's own thing anyway. What the fark is your problem? Really, I want to know? Is it something you heard on the radio or read on the internets?

Gavino		2005-09-16 01:29:55 PM

whammer - and there's something wrong with you too, the last time Iran attacked anyone it was called Persia and Herodotus wrote about it.

I don't like the regime, but that's beside the point. They aren't aggressive and never have been.

Rammek88		2005-09-16 01:33:06 PM

If only the US would stop dicking around with Iran all these years, you wouldn't be in this position.

Suckers.

B.P.		2005-09-16 02:09:55 PM

2005-09-16 01:33:06 PM Rammek88

You country doesn't matter. And, based on the amount of Canadians on FARK, I'd wager your nation doesn't even have a decent web site to visit.

Welcome to America. Enjoy your stay.

Colgate		2005-09-16 02:12:54 PM

'Gavino [TotalFark]

whammer - and there's something wrong with you too, the last time Iran attacked anyone it was called Persia and Herodotus wrote about it.

I don't like the regime, but that's beside the point. They aren't aggressive and never have been.'

*cough* marine barracks bombing lebanon*hezbollah*iran iraq war to control Shatt al Arab waterway*did I mention hezbollah*cough*

Sum Dum Gai		2005-09-16 02:35:51 PM

Kangaroo_Ralph
I hate that we don't use our nukes. If we had taken out Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran on 9/12, we would already have lived down the outcries from other countries by now, it would have cost FAR less than the wars, and anyone else thinking about becoming rogue would have to stop.

Yeah, we'll live down the outcries from other countries when we've annihilated the human race.

And sure, let's kill 125 million people because about 6000 are terrorists. Those other 99.995% are acceptable casualties, right? Sure, it's fine and dandy to kill 21,000 innocent people for every guilty person. Maybe we should try that approach to crime right here. Have a serial killer? Nuke the town. You'll probably hit someone guilty.

I love when people suggest we should fight terrorism by becoming the worst terrorists in all of human history.

unexplained bacon		2005-09-16 03:05:40 PM

Kangaroo_Ralph

Why the fark should we wait until they have lots of nuclear missiles and have shared them with other rogue states before wiping them off the planet?

using nuclear weapons is serious business, that's why we're worried ya know. to wipe iran off the planet is to do serious damage to everyone on it. you realize this don't you?
I'm not saying I have a solution, but I promise what you're suggesting is like using a shotgun to kill a fly. it's crazy and stupid.

I hate that we don't use our nukes. If we had taken out Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran on 9/12, we would already have lived down the outcries from other countries by now, it would have cost FAR less than the wars, and anyone else thinking about becoming rogue would have to stop.

this is just plain stupid. it's also total bullshiat. if we had done that we'd be a world outcast and possibly non-existent. think before you rant. you're coming off like a crazy person.

frankbob

hey guys, stop beeing afraid...

some fears are totally legit. we should definitely be worried about this. tell me why we shouldn't be.

unexplained bacon		2005-09-16 03:34:28 PM

Colgate

If nukes proliferate WE ARE SCREWED. THE WORLD IS SCREWED. That's why we had all those big friggin serious SALT talks and non-proliferation treaties, to keep this genie in the bottle.

ah, something I can agree with colgate about, a rare moment. unfortunately I'd say the genie is out. even if you can somehow be sure to keep countries like iran from enriching uranium you've still got all those russian warheads out there, oh, let's not forget NK.
this is one of those clusterfarks that gets way too complicated. I know a bad idea when I here one (like wiping them off the planet), but I sure as hell can't figure out the answer here.
i know this is way out there, but if there were some technology that could take the boom out of nuclear weapons, like a magnet takes the info from a tape, that would be nice. of course, back in reality now, I'm stumped.

UncleBuck4U		2005-09-16 03:44:51 PM

Can't we just save them the trouble and nuke the "Holy Land" ourselves?

36 hours notice and we'll even provide the buses to move them out!

General Zang		2005-09-16 04:57:37 PM

whammer said:

General Zang has absolutely no grasp of politics, foreign relations, war, peace, or semantics.

Oh really?

Well, since this is coming from a man who posts on Fark like it's his primarary duty in life to help George Bush evade responsibility for the plainly-visible consequences of his own actions, then I take this as high praise.

He evades the hard questions by parsing what he has said.

Nope. I say exactly what I mean, and I mean exactly what I say. Unless I mispell it or something ;)

If that makes it difficult for you to pull out the tired old right-wing strawman arguments, then too bad, so sad.

That being said, the axioms I originally wrote still stand. At this time, I foresee Iran lauching a nuclear missile in an act of belligerant war.

I can see why you see that.

I can foresee that a bee's nest that gets poked by a stick dozens of times will eventually have some bees fly out and sting the moron with the stick.

This in no way will be George Bush's fault.

Uh huh... so declaring that your nation has a policy of "preventative war", and putting through new rules that say it's ok for a US "first strike" using nuclear missiles, and then declaring that Iran is part of an "Axis of Evil"... and then invading one of the other two nations so designated, and then placing ground troops on both sides of Iran, and then stationing a huge naval presence within strike range of the Iranian coast.. all these things AREN'T like poking a bee's nest with a stick??

Hell, the only thing that George Bush *hasn't* done is shiat on an Iranian flag on national television while beating off on a copy of the Koran.

I guess he's saving that for after the 2006 elections.

The only question remaining is what the US response to this attack will be.

No... wondering what your response will be when the bees sting you for poking their nest is the STUPID question.

The SMART question is: "Why in the hell am I poking this bee's nest?"

Gavino		2005-09-16 05:00:19 PM

unexplained bacon & Colgate If nukes proliferate WE ARE SCREWED. THE WORLD IS SCREWED.

That's so 90's biatches. Actually, if nukes proliferate, only the US is screwed, because they will have to stay the fark at home. If missliles proliferate, then they might actually be used, so then Europe has to pay attention. It's no longer in Europe's interest to make sure that countries can't defend themselves because the only agression outside of Africa now has a distinctly badly articulated British Colonial feel to it. Remember who it was that armed Israeel, and the US didn't find out till 2005. Just think what France is up to now.

No, nobody else is retarded enough to actually explode the devices unless they have a foreign army on their own soil.

The biggest threat to the sovereignty and lives of ordinary people living anywhere near oil or pipeline gatewatys right now is America. It's hard to argue against giving people the means to defend themselves, particularly since Rousseau and my fellow Norfolk boy Thomas Paine argued so hard for the second amendment for exactly this kind of reason.

Gavino		2005-09-16 05:05:21 PM

Colgate - sorry, you mean the Syrian political party Hezbolah? The one that anyone who hates the US has contributed to, including most notably - THE CURRENT PAKISTANI ADMINISTRATION?

Get a farkin argument. You are relying entirely on racism if you want that bunch of semitic extremists tied up with Iran (who are non-semitic).

Gavino		2005-09-16 05:14:08 PM

That being said, the axioms I originally wrote still stand. At this time, I foresee Iran lauching a nuclear missile in an act of belligerant war.

Other people attribute axioms, usually some years after they've been proven to be correct, or at least expedient for someone who matters.

unexplained bacon		2005-09-16 05:17:00 PM

Gavino

No, nobody else is retarded enough to actually explode the devices unless they have a foreign army on their own soil.

nobody?
or somebody?
really you're guessing, you couldn't know that. it's a gamble.
iran's mullahs think they are in an epic struggle against the great satan. religious zealots the lot of 'em. as long as they're in control of that country we might want to worry a bit. yeah, yeah pakistan worries me too.
...and I'm not too happy about US foriegn policy right now either. I can worry about all of that, and I think I should...though it does nothing. well, I guess it raises my blood pressure. probably has something to do with all the heartburn too...

/oh yeah...biatch

General Zang		2005-09-16 05:29:20 PM

Kangaroo_Ralph said:

Why the fark should we wait until they have lots of nuclear missiles and have shared them with other rogue states before wiping them off the planet?

Chernobyll.

One nuclear reactor caught on fire in the mid 1980s in ByeloRussia. Tens of thousands who were sent to clean it up were dead within a year.

Millions of people were displaced from their homes, and could nevr return to that region. Tens of thousands of children from the region died within five years, and the incident of birth defects among the post-disaster-born children of the refugess is about 50x the normal rate of birth defects.

Eight hundred miles West of the disaster, the milk from cows who ate grass in GERMANY that had been contaminated by wind-borne radioactive particles was found to be itself radioactive and unsafe to drink.

Same thing across Scandinavia... they had to throw out milk production for three years in a row... in an area more than 800 miles from the disaster at Chernobyll.

Meanwhile, back in the region immediatelly surrounding Chernobyll, the forests glow at night, and to leave the road and walk into the trees is certain death within minutes... because they absorbed the radiation as they grew from the soil and water.

They also have 2 meter-long (6 foot long) catfish swimming in the surrounding bodies of water... and if you eat them, you'll die. Heck... if you *touched* them long enough, you'd get sick.

All that was from a single nuclear power-plant catching fire.... and releasing radiation that is about 1/20th (one twentieth) of what one of our big nukes would release when used.

And, you're wondering why we don't break out a bunch of our nukes that are 20 times more powerfully radioactive than what happened at Chernobyll, and start lobbing them about in highly populated regions?

Newsflash: Nuclear weapons are the weapons to end all wars. No one can afford to actually use them, and whover uses them first will become a pariah nation, with every other nation on Earth lining up to topple their regime... out of sheer self-preservation.

So, how about we NOT be that nation?

breed		2005-09-16 05:30:38 PM

Ummm... the only one I see crazy enough to launch a nuclear missile against the united states is North Korea. I see a trend that if its bad but not so bad people yell and scream and really fearmonger. But if its reaaaalllly bad, most americans wont even look at it or consider it. Like possible election fraud in the United States - dead serious but people wont really investigate because electronic voter fraud would have enormous consequences and shake peoples insulated oh so soft world. Then North Korea is starving its people, has a dictator, and could possibly hit California. Nobody says anything. Tooo big. Ahh Americas not that bad, or aggressive, just because the land is so big and diverse. It's just the loudest are the war birds. But its mostly talk. Cause they are pussies.

sunlion		2005-09-16 08:26:51 PM

Many people would also call the USA a quasi-democracy after watching its last two elections.

In the Padilla case, the court just ruled that the president has the right to declare ANYONE an "enemy" and have them killed or imprisoned without access to legal representation.

If a democrat wins the next election, Bush could simply declare him an "enemy combatant" and have him killed. Legally. And there's nothing anyone can do about it.

Displayed 602 of 602 comments

Redisplay/refresh comments

This thread is closed to new comments.