Obdicut: Nabb1: 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.

Okay. It's just a whole new area. If Iran gets nukes, then, well, especially don't bomb them then.

The goal doesn't really change, if they get nukes. We still want the Mullahs out. We faced a much more dangerous, much more advantaged, much more foreign enemy in the Soviet Union, who had immense nuclear firepower, and survived, in fact, triumphed. We did it largely through culture, and through living up to our ideals-- and through our economy.

There isn't a lot that changes, it just becomes more difficult, and riskier. Can you explain why you asked the question?

America didn't destroy the Soviet Union, you had out competed them with weaponry since the late 50's. The USSR imploded from ethnic conflict and ideological cleavages.

===>8===== CUT HERE ====8<===

SeismicJizzer: Murkanen: You still need some refinement to use the stuff in nuclear reactors. It's the quality of the centrifuges that matter, not the quantity. Good luck getting the 90+% refinement you need using the sorts of craptastic centrifuges that they have working over there. The things would grind into powder before reaching even half that mark.

It is hilarious to see farkers with the "but but but they have centrifuges" without understanding how complicated and complex it is to build an atomic weapon.

Not to mention that Iran has a right to use nuclear energy under Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

HoboSong: Tigger: 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?


Americans hung on to slavery for a long time after the rest of the world had decided it was uncool.

Really Tigger? So the U.S were the last culture ever to practice slavery? Really? So there has been no form of slavery, anywhere, in 140+ years? Did the europeans who were capturing, shipping, and selling us the slaves think it was uncool?

Slavery, on a smaller scale, occurs in many, many places today, just not 'governmentally sanctioned".

Retired_Redleg: 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

First thing I noticed. The article cites it correctly, but maybe subby was thinking of Old MacDonald had a farm, E-I-E-I-O.

winterwhile: 2010 Iran nukes Israel

Thanks Chairman Obama, now get lost.

2010 you'll still be as dumb as you are today.

Sym_pathetic: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Well, to be fair, it is kinda fun to watch angry folk writher and red red whine about stuff.

As far as the actual topic, it seems like there are 3 sides:

1) Nothing to see here, move along.

2) Something to see here, move along.

3) Something to see here, do something.

4) throw bricks into the crowd and watch them fight.

I kinda like 4. Can we throw in some angry bees too?

While I agree that Iran & Pakistan were a greater threat, from a strategic point, Iraq was the better position to base future attacks from.

Iran is too vast for the US to just roll into and it would rally a massive population that would be more than willing to listen to the mullas and throw themselves at our bullets.

Pakistan is too batshiat crazy unless we forget about rules of engagement and just start shooting everything that moves.

Our best bet with Iran is to use information war tactics with their large young population.

Failing that, our only hope is that Iran has an 'accident' when testing their nuke and the rest of the civilized world can look to history books to find where Terhan was.

In the end, Islam will have to go through a reformation, much like the Catholics/Christians did hundreds of years ago. The religion of Islam will have to do this on their own or by force by the rest of the world, though this may only happen after they do something particularly horrific (nuke NY or DC). Failure to do so will lead to the outlawing of the muslim faith in all but the core muslim countries and then we will have the battlelines for a future war of civilized people against an uncivilized religion.

/just my .02

JDAT: 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.

That's right. Because Israel and the Palestinians can't get along, we shouldn't even try.

IEAE in 2003: "Iraq has no WMD"

Bullshiat conservative thinktank mouthpiecing for the Bush Administraton in 2009: "Iraq did so have WMD, though we offer no proof."


Submitter would take that to mean that the IAEA had contradicted itself.

SeismicJizzer: Murkanen: You still need some refinement to use the stuff in nuclear reactors. It's the quality of the centrifuges that matter, not the quantity. Good luck getting the 90+% refinement you need using the sorts of craptastic centrifuges that they have working over there. The things would grind into powder before reaching even half that mark.

It is hilarious to see farkers with the "but but but they have centrifuges" without understanding how complicated and complex it is to build an atomic weapon.

We're talking about people who are so bad at science that they think climate change is wrong because it's cooler outside today than it was yesterday.

To suggest science is over the heads of conservative farkers is a heinous understatement.

If (when) they get the bomb, they lose all protections granted under the NPT. Then it's simple. Target their cities as a hostile nuclear power. Sign a formal nuclear defense treaty with Israel, directed at Iran. Their leadership has no more of a taste for martyrdom than the Hamas leadership idiots had during this latest fracas (I'm sure they were plunked down in bunkers under schools and hospitals while their people took it on the chin). If Tehran KNOWS that a 10MT bomb will rain down upon it if they use (either directly or through proxies) a nuclear weapon....they won't do it. Deterrence works - even against the mullahs. They may scream all their scheisse about Allah, but they all really enjoy their temporal power. Nuking the country puts an end to it, and they know it.

Newsmax, really? Did anyone mention this? Cuz, like, they aren't even liberal. They're like Fauxnews or something. Show me this on MSNBC, CNN, HuffPo or from an authoritive news print magazine like Time, Hustler, Pedobear Weekly or Reader's Digest, and then I'll believe it.

3_Butt_Cheeks: Sym_pathetic: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Well, to be fair, it is kinda fun to watch angry folk writher and red red whine about stuff.

As far as the actual topic, it seems like there are 3 sides:

1) Nothing to see here, move along.

2) Something to see here, move along.

3) Something to see here, do something.

4) throw bricks into the crowd and watch them fight.

I kinda like 4. Can we throw in some angry bees too?

Screw it, release the dogs with bees in their mouths.

Silovik: America didn't destroy the Soviet Union, you had out competed them with weaponry since the late 50's. The USSR imploded from ethnic conflict and ideological cleavages.

Yes, well, I like to think a little subversive Western culture helped, as well. If only to portray a different way.

Mnemia:
Rodddxl: Because the US and Israel have shown such a propensity to use their nuclear arsenal over the last 60 years and Iran has officially expressed their desire to wipe Israel and "The Great Satan" off the face of the earth. Not to mention the investment in military technology the US and Israel have made in weapons to minimize civilian casualties while Iran gives money and technology to those groups that explicitly want to kill as many civilians as possible.

Great example of the "critical thinking" the left is so proud of.

I'll just say that a lot of your post is based on misconceptions.

Of course you will.

Subby is an asshat.

It takes talent to put together a headline that misrepresents and overblows an already misrepresenting and overblown article.

-1

Hell, -5

Nabb1: Persepolis: Nabb1: The state controls the media in Iran.



Bootleg satellites and the internetz FTW.

Sweet. Still, how much gets through?

They get better channels there than you do here. And for free. Directv pwns its customers.

WE DONEED NO STEENKIN EBIDENZE!!!

SVX: If (when) they get the bomb, they lose all protections granted under the NPT. Then it's simple. Target their cities as a hostile nuclear power. Sign a formal nuclear defense treaty with Israel, directed at Iran. Their leadership has no more of a taste for martyrdom than the Hamas leadership idiots had during this latest fracas (I'm sure they were plunked down in bunkers under schools and hospitals while their people took it on the chin). If Tehran KNOWS that a 10MT bomb will rain down upon it if they use (either directly or through proxies) a nuclear weapon....they won't do it. Deterrence works - even against the mullahs. They may scream all their scheisse about Allah, but they all really enjoy their temporal power. Nuking the country puts an end to it, and they know it.

You are relying on rational thinking. State sponsored terrorism, funneling money to terrorist groups who use women and childen as suicide bombers, and advocating publically the destruction of another nation does not lend their government alot of sympathy or leeway when considering nuclear weaponry.

Yesterday there was no evidence that I'd be getting an upset stomach. Today I can't stop farting.

/not sure where subby's going with this

Sym_pathetic: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Sym_pathetic: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Well, to be fair, it is kinda fun to watch angry folk writher and red red whine about stuff.

As far as the actual topic, it seems like there are 3 sides:

1) Nothing to see here, move along.

2) Something to see here, move along.

3) Something to see here, do something.

4) throw bricks into the crowd and watch them fight.

I kinda like 4. Can we throw in some angry bees too?

Screw it, release the dogs with bees in their mouths.

Ah, your post is full of win, with a side of fries.

Newsmax/Newsbusters = National Enquirer/Weekly World News

When UPI, AP, Christian Science Monitor or any other reputable news agency reports this I'll check it out.

Authoritarian leaders, with zealous aplomb, are hard to "negotiate" with.

Crap I forgot to say

"IEEEAAEEEE !!!"

Carpet bomb the cities. Civillians and all. Keep it simple, stupid.

Obdicut: Silovik: America didn't destroy the Soviet Union, you had out competed them with weaponry since the late 50's. The USSR imploded from ethnic conflict and ideological cleavages.

Yes, well, I like to think a little subversive Western culture helped, as well. If only to portray a different way.

Very true for the Warsaw Pact nations of Eastern Europe, but the republics hated Russians more than they loved Americans. Although I am sure Radio Free Europe and CIA aid to secessionist groups helped.

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

Given modern technology, it's almost impossible even for the most oppressive regimes to block the flow of information into their country.

North Korea does it. That's because they control the technology and only allow crappy little radios for its sheep to use. They set the radio on one frequency (to tune them into the borg), break the dial, and put a seal on the radio. Just like 1984, a citizen is obligated to report any lawbreakers. So if you break the seal and listen to VOA or whatever, and your seven year old sees the seal is broken, good bet he'll turn you in and you'll never see each other again.

Iran isn't nearly as oppressive as North Korea. Iranians at least "get it".

MooseBayou: To-day's your last day to bash Bush. I'm farking serious, and I'm farking tired of it.

Too bad for you. I'm planning on bad-mouthing that walking piece of shiat for the rest of my life.

Don't get me started on that unforgivable bastard Ronald Reagan.

/not sure which one I hate the most
//hate hate hate hate hate hate hate

Has anyone else noted that it has been 18 months since the neocons and zionists first claimed "Evil Iran will make and use a nuke within six months!!"?

Has anyone else noticed the way they also tried the same line a year ago, and again six months ago?

I get this strange feeling we will be seeing headlines from zionists and neocons saying "Evil Iran will have and use a nuke within six months!!" five years from now... and every six months between now and then.

Silovik: Radio Free Europe

Must we bring REM into this?

/obscure?

d_lebowski: When UPI, AP, Christian Science Monitor or any other reputable news agency reports this I'll check it out.

The news agencies that publish doctored photos to smear Israel? The news agencies that publish blatant Palestinian propaganda? Those "reputable" news agencies?

From the article:

Ahmadinejad announced to supporters at that time. "Iran's victory in this biggest political battle will lead to new international developments," the dictator warned.

This article has no credibility

TheMiddleFinger: Carpet bomb the cities. Civillians and all. Keep it simple AND stupid.

FTFY.

Great plan, it worked so well in Iraq. So, we'll just change one letter and it'll be even BETTER!!!!

3_Butt_Cheeks: SVX: If (when) they get the bomb, they lose all protections granted under the NPT. Then it's simple. Target their cities as a hostile nuclear power. Sign a formal nuclear defense treaty with Israel, directed at Iran. Their leadership has no more of a taste for martyrdom than the Hamas leadership idiots had during this latest fracas (I'm sure they were plunked down in bunkers under schools and hospitals while their people took it on the chin). If Tehran KNOWS that a 10MT bomb will rain down upon it if they use (either directly or through proxies) a nuclear weapon....they won't do it. Deterrence works - even against the mullahs. They may scream all their scheisse about Allah, but they all really enjoy their temporal power. Nuking the country puts an end to it, and they know it.

You are relying on rational thinking. State sponsored terrorism, funneling money to terrorist groups who use women and childen as suicide bombers, and advocating publically the destruction of another nation does not lend their government alot of sympathy or leeway when considering nuclear weaponry.

You guys don't even realize how you sound just like the radicals in Islam talking your propoganda.

A little bit of it is true, but it's all intentionally distorted to incite as much hatred and violence as possible.

No attempt to understand or reach out to each other. Only a desire to dehumanize and destroy the other side.

Tigger: 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?


Americans hung on to slavery for a long time after the rest of the world had decided it was uncool.

Dude, the rest of the world is just fine with slavery. Slavery is widely practiced in Africa and the Middle East. There is wide spread sex slavery here in America.

/wide spread, heh!

Newsmax?

boybunny: Has anyone else noted that it has been 18 months since the neocons and zionists first claimed "Evil Iran will make and use a nuke within six months!!"?

Has anyone else noticed the way they also tried the same line a year ago, and again six months ago?

I get this strange feeling we will be seeing headlines from zionists and neocons saying "Evil Iran will have and use a nuke within six months!!" five years from now... and every six months between now and then.

I would like to see a reputable (what you consider "neo-con") report claiming Iran will USE a nuke within 6 months. Not saying it doesn't exist, I simply have not seen it.

rathoth: Nuclear Iran you say?



/Aylar Dianati Lie, fyi

Aylar is hot, but I'm partial to Nazanin Afshin-Jam (new window)

Digital Communist: No attempt to understand or reach out to each other. Only a desire to dehumanize and destroy the other side.



/been looking for an excuse to post this
//crowbar linked

Israel is constantly threatening Iran (they asked the US for permission to bomb their facilities in October, and Bush said "nein!").

Certain members of the US Administration have made it clear that they believe Iran is very dangerous.

Iran has Israel right next door, as well as 150,000 US troops over on the other border.

The Iranian government would NOT be protecting its' own citizens UNLESS IT GETS THE BOMB.

Nukes are predominantly a deterrent. Iran is surrounded by tough-talking SELF-PROCLAIMED enemies of Iran. They NEED the bomb if just to have it as a deterrent to invasion. And they KNOW that once they have the bomb, it will almost guarantee them safety from invasion.

Ask Kim Jong-Il how pliant the West became once it was known that North Korea had enough materials to make nukes. Suddenly the West couldn't act fast enough to "deal".

Digital Communist: A little bit of it is true, but it's all intentionally distorted to incite as much hatred and violence as possible

Please enlighten us. How is funding bombers, paying a bounty on dead israelis, supporting terrorists a "distortion"?

Disagree all you wish, but please provide something to clarify your assumptions.

Give these unreliable clowns stand-by positions in a Hudson Bay weather outpost. Rely on govt info? NFW.

Rodddxl: The news agencies that publish doctored photos to smear Israel? The news agencies that publish blatant Palestinian propaganda? Those "reputable" news agencies?

There there. Don't get your undies in a knot. Go log into lgf so you can feel better about yourself.

\ass

SeismicJizzer: It is hilarious to see farkers with the "but but but they have centrifuges" without understanding how complicated and complex it is to build an atomic weapon.

Some idiots think you could build a nuclear weapon with 1940's technology...

jakomo002: Iran has Israel right next door, as well as 150,000 US troops over on the other border.



A Map, let me showz you it.

/cue Miss South Carolina.

3_Butt_Cheeks: Digital Communist: A little bit of it is true, but it's all intentionally distorted to incite as much hatred and violence as possible

Please enlighten us. How is funding bombers, paying a bounty on dead israelis, supporting terrorists a "distortion"?

Disagree all you wish, but please provide something to clarify your assumptions.

But it isn't irrational. Its perfectly rational for them to do it.

They may be terrorists, but they are rational. If I am sure my country is destroyed immediately afetr I fire a nuke, I'm not going to do it.


The Iranians are rational. They enjoy their power. To ussgest otherwise is a complete distortion and fearmongering of the right.