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 04:04:08 PM  
IEAE needs to be more careful in what they choose to release. I was a fan of the Billy line, but the Inreda system just smacks of overkill and the Lack series is just way too understated. It's like Billy lite. The Bjursta, Bombe, and Biby represent some solid work and clear foresight, but the Aspvick...I just don't know about that one. And don't even get me started on Hemnes. And Hopen. And Kullen. Oh my god, Kullen. It's hard to believe anything an organization might have to say about Iran when they're releasing things like Kullen.
 
2009-01-19 04:07:58 PM  
6 months ? Again we have to wait. How's Yellowstone doing, any change ?
 
2009-01-19 04:17:47 PM  
What does IKEA have to do with nuclear arms?
 
2009-01-19 04:27:52 PM  
newsmax? uh huh... riiiiight.
 
2009-01-19 04:37:54 PM  
Pie. I like pie.
 
2009-01-19 04:38:51 PM  
maxwellhauser: What does IKEA have to do with nuclear arms?

Well luck for us they never ship the tool need to put together the nuke!
 
2009-01-19 04:40:25 PM  
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.
 
2009-01-19 04:41:39 PM  
"The Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis" =/= IAEA
 
2009-01-19 04:42:58 PM  
Persepolis: Vague "Leaders"

Experts, not leaders. Sorry.
 
2009-01-19 04:45:22 PM  
What with the upcoming military decline of the United States and the increased spread of nuclear technology to the third world, I would opine that living in Israel probably isn't a great long-term idea. Regardless of all this silly Iran stuff.
 
2009-01-19 04:48:53 PM  
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.


Ever find that graphic?
 
2009-01-19 04:52:44 PM  
Obdicut: 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.

Ever find that graphic?


img119.imageshack.us

Here it is, typos and all.
 
2009-01-19 04:55:22 PM  
Persepolis -- I've seen you use that graphic in other threads. I have to take issue with the 6th point -- fundamentalist leaders around the world would have another instance to cite during recruitment.

That should play absolutely no role in the decision making progress as fundamentalist leaders will always have something to point to that makes the US/the West "bad" in their eyes. Doing or not doing something because of the reaction of fundamentalist leaders leads to us capitulating to their demands and avoiding doing anything that might piss them off. Bad idea, IMO.
 
2009-01-19 04:57:19 PM  
Persepolis: Here it is, typos and all.

Thanks, I missed it. And it is a very, very valid argument.

My textual restatement of it is:


It is inevitable that Iran, and any nation that seriously tries, will gain nuclear weapons. Technology is not preventable. You can slow it, but you cannot stop it.

Therefore, it is in our best interests to make sure that either Iran reforms into a nation that does not desire nukes, or that when they do acquire nukes, the people in charge are "good guys".

The way to do that is to support the democratic, anti-theocratic movement in Iran, and not by bombing them.

Anyone arguing for military strikes to slow their nuclear weapon program should have to explain why they want the mullahs to stay in power.
 
2009-01-19 05:00:15 PM  
Obdicut: Therefore, it is in our best interests to make sure that either Iran reforms into a nation that does not desire nukes, or that when they do acquire nukes, the people in charge are "good guys".

You are pre-supposing that it would be impossible to change a nation's desire to gain nuclear weapons. South Africa, Libya, and Brazil would all disagree.
 
2009-01-19 05:00:16 PM  
KaponoFor3: That should play absolutely no role in the decision making progress as fundamentalist leaders will always have something to point to that makes the US/the West "bad" in their eyes. Doing or not doing something because of the reaction of fundamentalist leaders leads to us capitulating to their demands and avoiding doing anything that might piss them off. Bad idea, IMO.

When we had segregation in America, the Soviet Union was able to very successfully point it out as a flaw in our society, and used it to attack us, to show nations that we wanted to ally with that we had our evils too, and that we were hypocrites. When we integrated, they lost a powerful propaganda weapon.

Just because our opponents will attempt to propagandize against us, does not mean we should hand them propaganda issues on a silver platter. It is definitely a subsidiary reason not to do something unethical or stupid, but it does exist as a valid reason.
 
2009-01-19 05:00:55 PM  
KaponoFor3: You are pre-supposing that it would be impossible to change a nation's desire to gain nuclear weapons. South Africa, Libya, and Brazil would all disagree.

Did you read my sentence backwards, or something?
 
2009-01-19 05:02:11 PM  
KaponoFor3: That should play absolutely no role in the decision making progress as fundamentalist leaders will always have something to point to that makes the US/the West "bad" in their eyes.

True, but it is something to take into consideration as well. If we're lining up the pros and cons, we have to look that the WHOLE picture. What are all the positives to be gained, what are all the negatives.

Ultimately, the biggest weapon we have against the government of Iran is the moderate youth of Iran. If we give the government there legitimate reasons to paint us as evil. (I.e. their bombs blew up your family) and not have them reach for it. (I.e. They put out this movie, 300) we'd be making things harder for ourselves.
 
2009-01-19 05:02:20 PM  
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.
 
2009-01-19 05:02:52 PM  
I've said it before. We should have gone in to Iran ..... not Iraq.
 
2009-01-19 05:03:04 PM  
I was so close to getting a tattoo of that caterpillar from Alice in Wonderland.
 
2009-01-19 05:03:15 PM  
Maybe we can bait Iran and N Korea into a fight.
 
2009-01-19 05:03:39 PM  
maxwellhauser: What does IKEA have to do with nuclear arms?

Well, the problem is that well-crafted nuclear weapons that last a lifetime have just gotten pricey, and people are willing to settle for bland, modular, self-assembled nuclear weapons, largely because of slick marketing.
 
2009-01-19 05:03:47 PM  
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.

Yeah, after all, look how effective talking has been for Israel.
 
2009-01-19 05:04:09 PM  
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? This is not a situation where we can simply say "oops, we were wrong, dropped the ball on that one...sorry".
 
2009-01-19 05:04:12 PM  
Obdicut: Did you read my sentence backwards, or something?

I'm responding to your "either-or" proposition -- it pre-supposes that other nations could never convince a nation to change its desire to acquire nuclear weapons. At least, that's an implicit acknowledgment that I read within the either-or proposition. If that was wrong, then I take it back.

Persepolis: True, but it is something to take into consideration as well. If we're lining up the pros and cons, we have to look that the WHOLE picture. What are all the positives to be gained, what are all the negatives.

Fair enough -- I'd just hate for the US (or any other country) to not do something because they worry it could be used by fundamentalist leaders as a recruitment tool.
 
2009-01-19 05:04:15 PM  
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.

Yes. Talk to the crazies before we do all that stuff.
 
2009-01-19 05:04:29 PM  
who cares if they have one? Pakistan has many and they are less stable than Iran It's inevitable they get the bomb unless we really want to invade and occupy a country that would make Iraq look like a cakewalk
 
2009-01-19 05:04:55 PM  
NewsMax, subby? Really?
 
2009-01-19 05:05:01 PM  
Um, NewsMax? NewsMax has been wrong about absolutely everything they have ever reported.

So color me a weeeeee bit skeptical.
 
2009-01-19 05:05:16 PM  
DNRTFA, but it's Newsmax, so I bet it finishes with a rant about the Clintons.
 
2009-01-19 05:05:30 PM  
Greenlighting a NewsMax article = img1.fark.net
 
2009-01-19 05:05:48 PM  
FlashHarry: newsmax? uh huh... riiiiight.

At least they warn you with the tag.
 
2009-01-19 05:05:56 PM  
Hobodeluxe: It's inevitable they get the bomb unless we really want to invade and occupy a country that would make Iraq look like a cakewalk

Which is it? Is it inevitable or should we invade and occupy?
 
2009-01-19 05:06:12 PM  
KaponoFor3: I'm responding to your "either-or" proposition -- it pre-supposes that other nations could never convince a nation to change its desire to acquire nuclear weapons. At least, that's an implicit acknowledgment that I read within the either-or proposition. If that was wrong, then I take it back.

No, it doesn't. It clearly states that as one of the eithers. You're just somehow reading the opposite into the statment.

Either we change their desire to have nuclear weapons, or we change who's in charge when they get them. That's what I said. I really don't have any clue how you're misinterpreting that.
 
2009-01-19 05:06:31 PM  
KaponoFor3: "The Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis" =/= IAEA

Nor is it a reputable source.
 
2009-01-19 05:06:32 PM  
maxwellhauser: What does IKEA have to do with nuclear arms?

Nøøk... only $39.95

Goes well with Sprůnglï couch.
 
2009-01-19 05:06:41 PM  
Subby conflates the IAEA with one of Richard Scaife's pet paranoia projects?

FAIL
 
2009-01-19 05:07:02 PM  
3_Butt_Cheeks: So we should ignore the report?

No not at all. But keep in mind, this isn't an IAEA report. (Which have been making continual reports for almost a decade now, and last I read have repeatedly said that it cannot be proven that Iran is working towards weapons.

This is a random special interest group's report. These groups have been putting out reports that Iran was going to have a weapon within the year since 2002ish.
 
2009-01-19 05:07:07 PM  
rodeofrog: Which is it? Is it inevitable or should we invade and occupy?

what part of unless don't you understand?
 
x76
2009-01-19 05:07:10 PM  
You guys are farking nuts. You can't attack some country because it has nuclear POWER -- Iran is working on nuclear POWER and allow inspections, which is something that Israel does not do with it's NUCLEAR ARSENAL.

Israel 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.

Did you know that US law clearly states that nations who do not allow UN inspections of their nuclear facilities are banned from receiving a dime of US aid? Oops! Guess Israel will have to give all that money back... what? You spent it bribing US politicians?!?! OH NOES!!!!
 
2009-01-19 05:07:22 PM  
Don't worry, they're Friedman months, so in 6 months, Iran will still be 6 months away from a nuke...
 
2009-01-19 05:07:24 PM  
OMFG!!!! I can't believe this!

Well let's spend more billions on military spending and keep devaluating/inflating the dollar so that VERY FEW individuals stay rich and in power!

Let's all work, die, and bleed for those that already have everything!

March on my fellow idiots!!

I really see no other solution! Do you?!
 
2009-01-19 05:07:42 PM  
illegal.tender: Um, NewsMax? NewsMax has been wrong about absolutely everything they have ever reported.

So color me a weeeeee bit skeptical.


RIMS.

/And they be spinnin' my nee-grow!
 
2009-01-19 05:07:59 PM  
Obdicut: Either we change their desire to have nuclear weapons, or we change who's in charge when they get them. That's what I said. I really don't have any clue how you're misinterpreting that.

When you say "we change who's in charge," are you suggesting a "regime change" if it comes down to it?
 
2009-01-19 05:08:26 PM  
Persepolis
Ho-hum. Wake me when right wing publications AREN'T publishing this crap. Then that's time to worry.


Watching Glen Beck a couple of times kind of inoculated me against worrying about Iran.

Wake me when they actually have one ready to lob at Israel.
 
2009-01-19 05:08:28 PM  
Nuke Iran!!

wow, that took me all the way back to 1979.


just kiddin' (:
 
2009-01-19 05:08:36 PM  
You can't keep 60 year old technology from people who have the know how.
 
2009-01-19 05:08:45 PM  
Marcus Aurelius: Pie. I like pie.

filesmelt.com
 
2009-01-19 05:09:23 PM  
Obdicut: I really don't have any clue how you're misinterpreting that.

Reading it over again, I don't really know either. I think I mis-read it the first time. Apologies.

/need caffeine
 
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