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

(NewsMax)   IEAE in 2007 "There is no evidence at all that Iran is building any nuclear weapons." 2009 "Iran will have a nuke in six months."   (newsmax.com) divider line 523
    More: Fail  
•       •       •

11415 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jan 2009 at 4:59 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



523 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-01-19 05:27:15 PM  
Fail for subby. It's the IAEA, not the IEAE; and the IAEA did not issue the report you're pointing to.
 
2009-01-19 05:27:17 PM  
FTA: United States must move well beyond the initial missile defense deployments of recent years to deploy a system capable of comprehensively protecting the American homeland, as well as U.S. overseas forces and allies, the panel concludes.destroying the enemies of the American homeland, as well as those who might even think about posing a thread

fixed it for ya
 
2009-01-19 05:28:18 PM  
wilde_at_heart: particularly when all there is is right-wing fear-mongering.

Very narrow-minded view. If you could look past partisan thinking, it's clear Iran seeks non energy related nuclear technology. By saying "it's just right wing nonsense" doesn't make the problem any easier, nor does it make it just go away.
 
2009-01-19 05:28:20 PM  
The article did not say that the IEAE ever said this. The article is talking about a new draft report from The Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis.

Now, who is this IFPA?

The IFPA was founded in 1976 by a seed grant from the Scaife Family Trust to focus on "the danger of international communism and the need for a strong defense for the United States.
Link (new window)

Oops.
 
2009-01-19 05:28:54 PM  
HoboSong: Sort of like when we firebombed German cities or nuked cities in Japan.

The era where total warfare is considered acceptable for voluntary and wholly unnecessary military conflicts has been dead since the end of World War 2. It may eventually come back, but it would require another full-scale war on par with that global conflict to gain any modicum of acceptance.
 
2009-01-19 05:28:58 PM  
Nabb1: How do you do that? The state controls the media in Iran. It's not like you can run an ad campaign. So, you have to use subversive methods. And if those fail, and Iran goes nuclear and starts rattling sabers, then what?

I'm sorry, did you miss me talking about reaching out to the moderates? The mullahs do not control the media. They attempt to censor. Gee, I wonder where we've faced an enemy before that attempted to censor their media... can you think of any enemy power that America became familiar with that censored the information their citizens received?


And now you want to ask a question about "What should we do if Iran gets nukes and starts rattling sabers"? You do realize that's a completely different question than what to do about Iran trying to get nukes, right?
 
2009-01-19 05:29:19 PM  
trouzourt: Nabb1
Sweet. Still, how much gets through?

all of it.. WTF kinda of question was that.

its satellite service.


Oh, really:

Persepolis: Nabb1: Sweet. Still, how much gets through?

Depends on what you're looking for. From what my cousins tell me, a lot of subtitled new movies. (They're more up to date on the Hollywood scene I am)

Most their programming comes from Turkey and the UAE (which have much more relaxed airwaves, especially the PPV type stuff.) Also Voice of America does a lot of broadcasts into Iran.

Same with the internet. There's a countrywide filter that blocks a lot of everything. (Youtube being the most notable that I know of) but there's easy ways around that. Most internet savy Iranians know how to use proxies as a matter of necessity.

(Also, it's worth it to note that the above picture seems to be from Southern Tehran, which is a very poor part of the city. The people to the north probably have better access.


I guess you'd be farking wrong wouldn't you?

Thank you, Persepolis.
 
2009-01-19 05:29:21 PM  
Silovik: I agree, but they would threaten, and use MAD as a deterrent. But Iranian foreign policy shouldn't get the benefit of MAD therefore if Israel and America are smart they would knock off Iran's nuclear capability right away.

It's not exactly easy to "knock off" the nuclear capability of a nuclear-armed state.

Senescent Dawn: Of course, but that doesn't mean that nuclear arms aren't a very powerful negotiating tool.

Of course they're a very powerful negotiating tool...that's why any country wants them. What would happen is that the U.S. would lose the ability to (for example) go for regime change in Iran via a conventional war. In other words, I think they would be primarily a defensive weapon for Iran, not an offensive one. Just like for virtually every other country with nukes.
 
2009-01-19 05:29:27 PM  
uh, wrong pic :/ I guess it's still sorta've relevant though.
 
2009-01-19 05:30:51 PM  
Apik0r0s: The IFPA was founded in 1976 by a seed grant from the Scaife Family Trust to focus on "the danger of international communism and the need for a strong defense for the United States.

They don't call them "bomb-toting Bolsheviks" for nothing, you know.
 
2009-01-19 05:31:12 PM  
scwewywabbit: as well as those who might even think about posing a thread

Wow...watch out, Subby...
 
2009-01-19 05:31:38 PM  
Obdicut: And now you want to ask a question about "What should we do if Iran gets nukes and starts rattling sabers"? You do realize that's a completely different question than what to do about Iran trying to get nukes, right?

Yes, I realize the question I asked, Obdicut. If you don't want to answer the farking question, don't. Besides, I have to leave, so it's irrelevant at this point.
 
2009-01-19 05:31:38 PM  
Am I only the only one who read it as IKEA?

/was really confused
 
2009-01-19 05:31:41 PM  
Murkanen: HoboSong: Sort of like when we firebombed German cities or nuked cities in Japan.

The era where total warfare is considered acceptable for voluntary and wholly unnecessary military conflicts has been dead since the end of World War 2. It may eventually come back, but it would require another full-scale war on par with that global conflict to gain any modicum of acceptance.


So it's only cool when we do it?
 
2009-01-19 05:31:42 PM  
Am I the only one who noticed the IEAE instead of IAEA in the headline, or is this not the International Atomic Energy Agency we're talking about?

/maybe I'm crazy
 
2009-01-19 05:32:31 PM  
Nabb1: I guess you'd be farking wrong wouldn't you?

Thank you, Persepolis.


He's not technically wrong. You can get pretty much whatever you want between the satellites and internet.

Western news sources can be accessed without censorship. Skinimax and stuff like that too. Everything else I'm sure you could get off the internet.
 
2009-01-19 05:32:45 PM  
tweekster:
Well, they have a policy of "blow up the jews", and the americans too. The jewish part is practically written into their constitution.

Considering how many millions of jews live in Iran they seem to be doing a Bushesque job at it.


There is a population, but its likely not in the millions, high hundred of thousands maybe. Total population is 65 million, 2% of the population consists of other(Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian, and Baha'i). At least according to the CIA fact book so take it for what its worth.
 
2009-01-19 05:32:59 PM  
Amazingly, it's as though it's the exact opposite of:

World leaders, World leaders, > 2001: oops...we mean, Bush acted alone! America is evil!

whatever. Make this shiat any more thinly veiled, and it would be outright naked.
 
2009-01-19 05:33:43 PM  
HoboSong: Murkanen: HoboSong: Sort of like when we firebombed German cities or nuked cities in Japan.

The era where total warfare is considered acceptable for voluntary and wholly unnecessary military conflicts has been dead since the end of World War 2. It may eventually come back, but it would require another full-scale war on par with that global conflict to gain any modicum of acceptance.

So it's only cool when we do it?


We also used to have slaves. We also used to have poll taxes. We also used to believe that maggots spontaneously appeared out of rotten meat. Times change, buddy.
 
2009-01-19 05:33:44 PM  
AmazingRuss: JDAT: I've said it before. We should have gone in to Iran ..... not Iraq.

Why not both? We're infinitely powerful and have God on our side, after all.


Iraq was NEVER a threat to us, nor Israel. It was controlled by a secular leader (thanks to us) who's primary concern was self preservation.
 
2009-01-19 05:34:38 PM  
Mnemia: Iran will never nuke Israel. Never. They care about their own self-preservation, and there is no reason to believe that MAD will not apply to them somehow.

But yeah, I've never understood why people are so willing to believe that the second Iran gets a nuke their leadership will commit political (and probably literal) suicide by launching it at Tel Aviv. The vague insinuations about the Iranian president and some 12th Imam end-of-the-world cult don't seem very convincing to me, especially considering he's not really the Big Kebab.

/Mullah's Against Deterrence
 
2009-01-19 05:34:41 PM  
3_Butt_Cheeks: it's clear Iran seeks non energy related nuclear technology.


You may want to go share your evidence with the intelligence community, Israel's in particular. I'm sure they'd absolutely love your ability to prove something that they haven't managed to despite harping on about the 'imminent danger of Iran's nuclear weapons' for over 6 years now.
 
2009-01-19 05:34:47 PM  
maotig: There is a population, but its likely not in the millions, high hundred of thousands maybe.

The highest population of Jewish people in the middle east outside of Israel.

/And more Iranian that most. Judaism has been a part of Persia for much longer than Islam.
 
2009-01-19 05:34:48 PM  
3_Butt_Cheeks: Persepolis: misleading headline is misleading. IAEA isn't saying Iran will have a nuke in 6 months. Vague "Leaders" are. Now, they never really get in depth into who these "leaders" are, but they may be the same ones that said Iran WILL have a nuke by 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008.

/Ho-hum. Wake me when right wing publications AREN'T publishing this crap. Then that's time to worry.

So we should ignore the report?


Yes, we should. If I post a "report" on my interblag regarding Iran's nuclear status, why shouldn't any of you ignore it? Without reputable citation (and vague "experts" don't fit the bill), it'd have the same credibility as this garbage.
 
2009-01-19 05:35:48 PM  
(bah!)

Amazingly, it's as though it's the exact opposite of:

World leaders, < 2001: Saddam has WMDs and must be removed!
World leaders, > 2001: oops...we mean, Bush acted alone! America is evil!

whatever. Make this shiat any more thinly veiled, and it would be outright naked.
 
2009-01-19 05:35:49 PM  
maxwellhauser: What does IKEA have to do with nuclear arms?

You can't hug your children with nuclear arms.

/obscure?
 
2009-01-19 05:36:07 PM  
It looks like a perfect time to liberate Iran.
 
2009-01-19 05:36:23 PM  
Lumber Jack Off:
hopefully they'll use it against Israel Hamas.

Fixed that for yo jew-hatin' ass
 
2009-01-19 05:36:37 PM  
Murkanen: You may want to go share your evidence with the intelligence community

The IAEA is on top of it. That was their conclusion (for now, they're doing continual studies, as they should) as well.
 
2009-01-19 05:36:51 PM  
Gameshot911: HoboSong: Murkanen: HoboSong: Sort of like when we firebombed German cities or nuked cities in Japan.

The era where total warfare is considered acceptable for voluntary and wholly unnecessary military conflicts has been dead since the end of World War 2. It may eventually come back, but it would require another full-scale war on par with that global conflict to gain any modicum of acceptance.

So it's only cool when we do it?

We also used to have slaves. We also used to have poll taxes. We also used to believe that maggots spontaneously appeared out of rotten meat. Times change, buddy.


So, like slavery, we (Americans) expect the rest of the world to give it up at the exact same time we decide it is uncool?
 
2009-01-19 05:38:05 PM  
HoboSong: So it's only cool when we do it?

No actually. I'm very, very much opposed to the deaths of civilians regardless of which country or organization is the one responsible for the carnage.
 
2009-01-19 05:38:53 PM  
The mullahs would have to be batshiat suicidal not to develop nuclear arms. Thanks, George! Heckuva job.
 
2009-01-19 05:38:59 PM  
I wonder what would provide motivation for a country to get nuclear arms in the first place

Countries that have nuclear weapons = nobody farks with

Countries without nuclear weapons = everybody tries to get up in their bizness

maybe we should just stay out of everybody's business
 
2009-01-19 05:39:24 PM  
HoboSong: So, like slavery, we (Americans) expect the rest of the world to give it up at the exact same time we decide it is uncool?

Wait. Slavery is uncool?

:heads down to the basement with set of keys:

So much for the new Nikes...
 
2009-01-19 05:39:27 PM  
winterwhile: 2010 Iran nukes Israel

Thanks Chairman Obama, now get lost.


Unfortunately, anyone who nukes Israel is going to have a lot of radioactive waste blowing onto their soil as prevailing winds blow from the West (to the East). Yes, large tracts of lands are relatively uninhabited, but if the cloud hits the tropopause its going much further than just a couple hundred miles.

Jordan/Syria/Iraq and even Iran are not going to be too pleased.

If we get a situation where a weather system moves North or North West there is going to be a really big problem in Southern Europe.

Iran would be foolish to bring them out on a national level. However, some nutjob just might.

The problem has nothing to do with Obama. The problem is the Iranian leadership.

Even your most die-hard war hawk isn't going into Iran. It would be political suicide on a global scale.

However, Iran has been relatively progressive (although it doesn't look like it on the news) and many are happy that Iraq is turning towards Democracy (or dying while trying - which is something we must not forget).

If Iraq can succeed then, perhaps, so can Iran.

The oil won't last forever so they're going to be needing some pretty good friends in the years to come: one's with large tracts of land for food, a pretty good, but imperfect, government.

Don't forget that regardless of how you feel about Obama, he has instilled a sense of hope in people from many backgrounds. Take advantage of that hope and do something positive instead of spewing vitriolic nonsense (he is not even in office yet).

That is your duty as an American: you don't always get what you want, but that's how Democracies work. You work to change what you don't like, but you must accept that you are part of a national team and work to do what is right and just in the 4-8 years of strategy that you accept when you cast your vote.

It is imperfect. Move on. Do something good. Stop complaining.
 
2009-01-19 05:39:32 PM  
Tissot: Shaggy_C: At least our new president will try to talk to them before sadly continuing our policy of 'blow up the brown people' if they step out of line.

Well, they have a policy of "blow up the jews", and the americans too. The jewish part is practically written into their constitution.


They want to blow us up because of our history of meddling in their affairs (hello Shah) and our unwavering support of Israel (thanks a lot Truman).
 
2009-01-19 05:39:36 PM  
Mnemia: Silovik: I agree, but they would threaten, and use MAD as a deterrent. But Iranian foreign policy shouldn't get the benefit of MAD therefore if Israel and America are smart they would knock off Iran's nuclear capability right away.

It's not exactly easy to "knock off" the nuclear capability of a nuclear-armed state.


Israel did it to Iraq, and Syria last year. Russian Anti-Air in Iran could be penetrated by Israeli bombers, but hitting underground sites might be difficult. In any case, I have no doubt that Israel will strike Iran before they have nuclear warheads. Whether that destroys Iran's capability is possible, maybe even likely, but not definite.

But Israel, in terms of her ability to conduct foreign policy and defense, has to do it.

/That doesn't mean I disagree with Persepolis' famous pro/con graphic, but Israel won't care either way
 
2009-01-19 05:40:27 PM  
Obama should allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. If we have nuclear weapons, other countries should have nuclear weapons.
 
2009-01-19 05:40:33 PM  
X76 "srael must expect other countries to be lying at least as much as they do regarding nuclear energy and weapons. Israel is a theocracy with a bizarre hold on UN foreign policy and a history that would make Nazi Germany blush"

Really? That would make Nazi Germany blush?

You are a farking tool. That is a horrible statement. Have over 6 million Palestineans(sp) died in gas chambers or by firing squads?

Grow up.
 
2009-01-19 05:40:36 PM  
IXI Jim IXI: HoboSong: So, like slavery, we (Americans) expect the rest of the world to give it up at the exact same time we decide it is uncool?

Wait. Slavery is uncool?

:heads down to the basement with set of keys:

So much for the new Nikes...


Happy Martin Luther King Day!!!
 
2009-01-19 05:41:26 PM  
Murkanen: 3_Butt_Cheeks: it's clear Iran seeks non energy related nuclear technology.


You may want to go share your evidence with the intelligence community, Israel's in particular. I'm sure they'd absolutely love your ability to prove something that they haven't managed to despite harping on about the 'imminent danger of Iran's nuclear weapons' for over 6 years now.


Persepolis: The IAEA is on top of it. That was their conclusion (for now, they're doing continual studies, as they should) as well.

Do you think we advertise all the intel we gather? We let international orgs do it via leaks, as to protect any assets we have in place.

What do you think the centrifuges they are using, and tout publically, are for?
 
2009-01-19 05:42:24 PM  
Al Sicandar:
Israel has proven it doesn't give a shiat about innocent civilians deaths as long as it's targets get detroyed too (some would argue the innocents have been the targets in punishment attacks but i digress)...

Hamas has proven that IT doesn't give a sh*t about civilian casualties either. The pussies hide amongst the women and children for cryin' out loud.
 
2009-01-19 05:42:26 PM  
brainiac-dumdum: Tissot: Shaggy_C: At least our new president will try to talk to them before sadly continuing our policy of 'blow up the brown people' if they step out of line.

Well, they have a policy of "blow up the jews", and the americans too. The jewish part is practically written into their constitution.

They want to blow us up because of our history of meddling in their affairs (hello Shah) and our unwavering support of Israel (thanks a lot Truman).


Our aid to Saddam throughout the 80s while they were dropping chemical warheads on Iranians, might be a sticking point as well.
 
2009-01-19 05:42:43 PM  
IEAE IAEA in 2007 "There is no evidence at all that Iran is building any nuclear weapons." 2009 "Iran will have a nuke in six months."

'Cause they ordered it from the Sharper Image catalog.

Oh, and rathoth: Aylar Dianati Lie, fyi

Would it be appropriate for me to say "Oy vey!"?
/nicely assembled bit of equipment you have there
 
2009-01-19 05:42:47 PM  
Silovik: /That doesn't mean I disagree with Persepolis' famous pro/con graphic, but Israel won't care either way

I agree. See: Lebanon, Gaza.

They seem to be a big fan of putting out grease fires with buckets of water. It SEEMS like such a good idea. If it fails, it must only be because they didn't use wet enough water.
 
2009-01-19 05:43:20 PM  
Who cares if/when they get the bomb. We can park an Ohio-class sub out in the Indian Ocean and just wait for them to twitch.

/MAD worked before -- it can work again
 
2009-01-19 05:43:39 PM  
IXI Jim IXI: HoboSong: So, like slavery, we (Americans) expect the rest of the world to give it up at the exact same time we decide it is uncool?

Wait. Slavery is uncool?

:heads down to the basement with set of keys:

So much for the new Nikes...


Slavery is cool provided it is done in distant lands that occupy the far ends of our quasi-capitalist supply chain... you can't just indenture someone at Denny's to the tune of 40 cents an hour to make your Grand Slam... but you can buy your stuff at Wal-Mart and have them do it for you to people in China.

havaniceday: Countries that have nuclear weapons = nobody farks with

Countries without nuclear weapons = everybody tries to get up in their bizness

maybe we should just stay out of everybody's business


But the only way to ensure that we do that may be to provide all other nations with nuclear weapons; so that future administrations don't get in their bidness.
 
2009-01-19 05:43:40 PM  
Rashnu: But yeah, I've never understood why people are so willing to believe that the second Iran gets a nuke their leadership will commit political (and probably literal) suicide by launching it at Tel Aviv. The vague insinuations about the Iranian president and some 12th Imam end-of-the-world cult don't seem very convincing to me, especially considering he's not really the Big Kebab.

...Not that I think it would be a good thing for Iran to get a nuke. Frankly, I'd rather as few governments as possible have access to that kind of weaponry, especially nutso religious or authoritarian governments. I just don't believe the doomsday scenarios and scaremongering that gets floated one bit. I think all this talk about Iran's nukes is really more about lessening Iran's regional influence (and hence their control, direct and indirect, over the oil). The "nuclear doomsday for Israel" stuff is mostly propaganda put out for consumption by us plebes. Ironically though, the propaganda may well become a self-fulfilling prophecy in that it may well encourage Iran to develop a nuclear weapon to protect themselves from the constant threats they're receiving from Israel and the United States.
 
2009-01-19 05:43:49 PM  
Funk Brothers: Obama should allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. If we have nuclear weapons, other countries should have nuclear weapons.

Esteeflowerpot is that you?
 
2009-01-19 05:44:26 PM  
bingo the psych-o: winterwhile: 2010 Iran nukes Israel

Thanks Chairman Obama, now get lost.

It's a legacy Bush left for him to deal with.


To-day's your last day to bash Bush. I'm farking serious, and I'm farking tired of it. You don't know what you're talking about, you're parroting someone you consider "cool", but in reality, they don't know what they're talking about either.

Thank God we had Bush, and not Gore or Kerry, or your kids would probably have wound up speaking Farsi.farking dickhead. Go back to beating off in your mom's basement. Or, are you of the new generation that just whips it out in the kitchen?farking dickhead.
 
Displayed 50 of 523 comments

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



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report