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

(Yahoo)   Iran to enrich Uranium to 60% levels if nuclear talks fail. Uranium is solely for "peaceful" purposes such as "nuclear submarines", which is sure to get a "peaceful" response from Israel in the form of a nice bouquet of missiles   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 137
    More: Unlikely, Iran, uranium enrichment, states with nuclear weapons, research reactor, Bushehr, Iran nuclear, Press TV, missiles  
•       •       •

2002 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Oct 2012 at 11:21 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



137 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-03 08:15:59 AM  
Iran has the same 2nd Amendment rights as everyone else.
 
2012-10-03 08:22:11 AM  
Khondab. Heavy water. Plutonium. Kill them now before they don't stop. Or they stop and all is well.
 
2012-10-03 08:42:35 AM  
This is almost as damning as Ileana Ros-Lehtinen saying America would go to war with Iran if talks failed.  Who's that? Exactly.
 
2012-10-03 09:39:00 AM  
As long as they pay for it themselves.
 
2012-10-03 09:48:10 AM  
Iran is the world's fourth largest oil producer.

Why do we hate them again?
 
2012-10-03 10:16:40 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Iran is the world's fourth largest oil producer.

Why do we hate them again?


Their fundies are in charge... There might be a lesson there.
 
2012-10-03 10:49:03 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Why do we hate them again?


Because they hate our boss and when the boss says "hate 'em back" we jump.
 
2012-10-03 11:23:27 AM  
It's worth noting that the Israelis have done this very thing before with the plant at Osharak. It seems relevant, and i seem to be the only person to remember it.
 
2012-10-03 11:23:40 AM  
An "Iranian sub crew" is a 100% certain one way mission of suicide. With no possible bang for their buck. Those are dead men walking.
 
2012-10-03 11:25:15 AM  

sno man: Marcus Aurelius: Iran is the world's fourth largest oil producer.

Why do we hate them again?

Their fundies are in charge... There might be a lesson there.


See what one nation under God can get you?
 
2012-10-03 11:25:39 AM  
I would rather Iran have nukes than the US. They are more stable and less aggressive.
 
2012-10-03 11:25:52 AM  
prop·a·gan·da/ˌpräpəˈgandə/Noun: 1.Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
2.The dissemination of such information as a political strategy.


At this point, it is my opinion that anyone who believes a single thing our intelligence or military says about this issue is a complete idiot. After the "yellow cake" issue where our intelligence agencies literally said "we can be pressured to lie", I am still shocked that people are so stupid as to believe this.

Why don't we ask Israel to prove they're not going to nuke us? Proving a negative is a stupid basis for war and we owe our troops and our taxpayers better treatment than this.
 
2012-10-03 11:26:10 AM  

fireclown: It's worth noting that the Israelis have done this very thing before with the plant at Osharak. It seems relevant, and i seem to be the only person to remember it.


I watched Iron Eagles II.
 
2012-10-03 11:26:55 AM  

fireclown: It's worth noting that the Israelis have done this very thing before with the plant at Osharak. It seems relevant, and i seem to be the only person to remember it.


It's only relevant if you've never looked at a map. Israel simply lacks the ability to meaningfully reduce Iran's nuclear capabilities using conventional weapons without massive US support.
 
2012-10-03 11:29:43 AM  

amoral: I would rather Iran have nukes than the US. They are more stable and less aggressive.


That is one awful troll
 
2012-10-03 11:30:12 AM  
Iran's currency just went in the toilet. But at least they don't have homos and will soon have the bomb, praise Allah.
 
2012-10-03 11:30:17 AM  

Ponzholio: fireclown: It's worth noting that the Israelis have done this very thing before with the plant at Osharak. It seems relevant, and i seem to be the only person to remember it.

I watched Iron Eagles II.



Stop showing off. We aren't ALL Rhodes scholars, ya know.
 
2012-10-03 11:31:18 AM  

threadjackistan: fireclown: It's worth noting that the Israelis have done this very thing before with the plant at Osharak. It seems relevant, and i seem to be the only person to remember it.

It's only relevant if you've never looked at a map. Israel simply lacks the ability to meaningfully reduce Iran's nuclear capabilities using conventional weapons without massive US support.


Well, sucks to be Israel then.
 
2012-10-03 11:31:21 AM  

amoral: I would rather Iran have nukes than the US. They are more stable and less aggressive.


Come on, you can do better than that.
 
2012-10-03 11:31:46 AM  
idunno. i know that Iran hates Israel and such. Israel is mostly Jewish folk......

memedepot.com
 
2012-10-03 11:32:14 AM  

Abuse Liability: amoral: I would rather Iran have nukes than the US. They are more stable and less aggressive.

That is one awful troll


The list of countries invaded and ruined by the United States is larger than the list of countries invaded and ruined by Iran.
 
2012-10-03 11:33:16 AM  

threadjackistan: It's only relevant if you've never looked at a map. Israel simply lacks the ability to meaningfully reduce Iran's nuclear capabilities using conventional weapons without massive US support.


And they would have it. IIRC, the attack at Osharak involved the US lending them F15s with extended range fuel tanks, and we did hook them up with those bunker busters about a year ago. But more importantly, I argue that it could happen tomorrow because it already has.
 
2012-10-03 11:33:30 AM  

Abuse Liability: amoral: I would rather Iran have nukes than the US. They are more stable and less aggressive.

That is one awful troll


He does have a point though, how many wars has the US been involved in over the last 20 years? Iran?
 
2012-10-03 11:33:41 AM  

fireclown: It's worth noting that the Israelis have done this very thing before with the plant at Osharak. It seems relevant, and i seem to be the only person to remember it.


Oh others remeber it, like me, but we are far more comfortable with a nulear armed Israel than a nuclear armed Iran for some reason.
 
2012-10-03 11:33:51 AM  

wedun: Abuse Liability: amoral: I would rather Iran have nukes than the US. They are more stable and less aggressive.

That is one awful troll

The list of countries invaded and ruined by the United States is larger than the list of countries invaded and ruined by Iran.


ohboyherewego.jpg

/grabs a bucket of popcorn and a front row seat
//How far back in Iran's history are we going here?
 
2012-10-03 11:35:41 AM  

gravebayne2: idunno. i know that Iran hates Israel and such. Israel is mostly Jewish folk......

[memedepot.com image 533x800]



How about Iranian Jews who even refuse payment to expatriate to Israel? Are they just self-loathing? 

Iran also has the second largest Jewish population in the Middle East outside of Israel.
 
2012-10-03 11:36:30 AM  
fark it, let the mideast burn.

Nothing of value will be lost.
 
2012-10-03 11:37:25 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Iran is the world's fourth largest oil producer.

Why do we hate them again?


They're not just letting the oil companies have all the oil for free. The heathens think it's THEIRS for some damn reason and they have the right to be compensated for it.

Doesn't they know that all oil bearing lands belong to good Christian western companies? Why else would God have put the oil under the ground?
 
2012-10-03 11:37:30 AM  
For the few of us who are interested in the opinions of people who know what they're talking about on this issue, here is a thought-provoking link:

http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2010/02/iran-israel-strike- p ollack
 
2012-10-03 11:39:31 AM  

super_grass: fark it, let the mideast burn.

Nothing of value will be lost.


oil
 
2012-10-03 11:40:17 AM  
Ahhh yes,our election year scare mongering troll - right on time. Better line up early democrats - those nasty Iranians are at it again!

//you'll do as you're told - you know you will!
 
2012-10-03 11:40:38 AM  
imageshack.us
 
2012-10-03 11:41:42 AM  
In fact, if you think about it, the US has been nothing but shiatty and belligerant to Iran for as long as it's been a modern state.
 
2012-10-03 11:43:22 AM  

Rich Cream: [imageshack.us image 677x267]


That's the internet.
It's a serious tubes.
 
2012-10-03 11:44:58 AM  

SN1987a goes boom: Abuse Liability: amoral: I would rather Iran have nukes than the US. They are more stable and less aggressive.

That is one awful troll

He does have a point though, how many wars has the US been involved in over the last 20 years? Iran?


Any country with any amount of power gets itself involved in many military actions, largely due to treatise with allies (e.g., Russians, Chinese). Iran is just run by a bunch of nutjobs that constantly threaten to wipe the infidels from the face of the Earth. I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say that in some circumstances we may be more 'aggressive', but I think we're a whole lot more 'stable'. Currently looking for a scientific article comparing american's to iranians as far as the aggressivity thing goes. I'm willing to bet though that aggressiveness is pretty ubiquitous as far as people go and probably represents similar percentages of people in each country.
 
2012-10-03 11:45:10 AM  

rko281: Ahhh yes,our election year scare mongering troll - right on time. Better line up early democrats - those nasty Iranians are at it again!

//you'll do as you're told - you know you will!


I'm sorry who's doing what now?
 
2012-10-03 11:45:20 AM  

logistic: prop·a·gan·da/ˌpräpəˈgandə/Noun: 1.Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
2.The dissemination of such information as a political strategy.


At this point, it is my opinion that anyone who believes a single thing our intelligence or military says about this issue is a complete idiot. After the "yellow cake" issue where our intelligence agencies literally said "we can be pressured to lie", I am still shocked that people are so stupid as to believe this.

Why don't we ask Israel to prove they're not going to nuke us? Proving a negative is a stupid basis for war and we owe our troops and our taxpayers better treatment than this.


Mmmmm.... Israel has had nukes for several decades. If you don't know that little "open secret" you just haven't been paying attention.
 
2012-10-03 11:45:33 AM  

Rich Cream: gravebayne2: idunno. i know that Iran hates Israel and such. Israel is mostly Jewish folk......

[memedepot.com image 533x800]


How about Iranian Jews who even refuse payment to expatriate to Israel? Are they just self-loathing? 

Iran also has the second largest Jewish population in the Middle East outside of Israel.


But the smallest gay population.
 
2012-10-03 11:46:16 AM  

Clemkadidlefark: An "Iranian sub crew" is a 100% certain one way mission of suicide. With no possible bang for their buck. Those are dead men walking.


An "Iranian sub crew" is a 100% certain one way mission of suicide. With no possible bang for their buck. Those are dead men walking sinking. 
ftfy
 
2012-10-03 11:47:08 AM  

logistic: prop·a·gan·da/ˌpräpəˈgandə/Noun: 1.Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
2.The dissemination of such information as a political strategy.


At this point, it is my opinion that anyone who believes a single thing our intelligence or military says about this issue is a complete idiot. After the "yellow cake" issue where our intelligence agencies literally said "we can be pressured to lie", I am still shocked that people are so stupid as to believe this.

Why don't we ask Israel to prove they're not going to nuke us? Proving a negative is a stupid basis for war and we owe our troops and our taxpayers better treatment than this.


Trying to decide if you're a complete moron (complete morons are rare) or just a typical Fark poster that doesn't bother to read the article before blathering in the comments. This isn't our military or our intelligence saying anything. It's an Iranian official saying it. Publicly. On the record. Out loud. It's not like the CIA is claiming they hid a microphone in his cornflakes and caught him saying this at a secret meeting between Iran, Al Queda, and the Taliban. And we're not asking Iran to prove they're not going to nuke us. We're asking them to stop developing things (like enriched uranium) that you would only need for nuclear weapons and would not need for civilian applications like a nuclear reactor.

For those of you who may be as clueless as logistic here, the most common civilian power generating reactors use uranium which is enriched 3 to 5 percent. The only three things 60% enriched uranium might be used for are weapons, creation of medical isotopes, and naval reactors. The west has already agreed to give Iran all the medical isotopes they want. That leaves two options, nuclear weapons and naval reactors. Hence Iran's sudden desire to have a nuclear powered submarine. Anyone who thinks Iran actually wants a nuclear submarine is an idiot. What they want is an excuse for having 60% enriched uranium other than "IT'S FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS!" Useful idiots like many of the people in this thread actually believe them. Others don't believe Iran and know that what Iran actually wants in nuclear weapons, and just don't have a problem with this. That also doesn't make much sense to me, but at least it's a reasonable difference of opinion, as opposed to people who still believe the Iran's nuclear weapons program is something other than a nuclear weapons program.
 
2012-10-03 11:47:20 AM  
"...The flame-throwing rake & the armoured tractor..."
 
2012-10-03 11:47:24 AM  

wedun: In fact, if you think about it, the US has been nothing but shiatty and belligerant to Iran for as long as it's been a modern state.


Its ok, you can stop arguing now
 
2012-10-03 11:47:25 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: logistic: prop·a·gan·da/ˌpräpəˈgandə/Noun: 1.Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
2.The dissemination of such information as a political strategy.


At this point, it is my opinion that anyone who believes a single thing our intelligence or military says about this issue is a complete idiot. After the "yellow cake" issue where our intelligence agencies literally said "we can be pressured to lie", I am still shocked that people are so stupid as to believe this.

Why don't we ask Israel to prove they're not going to nuke us? Proving a negative is a stupid basis for war and we owe our troops and our taxpayers better treatment than this.

Mmmmm.... Israel has had nukes for several decades. If you don't know that little "open secret" you just haven't been paying attention.


Whups. Never mind. Didn't really read your statement and I need another Starbucks before I post anything else this morning.

Why don't we ask Israel to prove they're not going to nuke us?
=/
Why don't we ask Israel to prove they're not going go nuke?
 
2012-10-03 11:48:32 AM  

amoral: I would rather Iran have nukes than the US. They are more stable and less aggressive.


-3 You're not even trying.
 
2012-10-03 11:48:36 AM  

fireclown: threadjackistan: It's only relevant if you've never looked at a map. Israel simply lacks the ability to meaningfully reduce Iran's nuclear capabilities using conventional weapons without massive US support.

And they would have it. IIRC, the attack at Osharak involved the US lending them F15s with extended range fuel tanks, and we did hook them up with those bunker busters about a year ago. But more importantly, I argue that it could happen tomorrow because it already has.


It's happened twice, actually, most recently in 2007.
 
2012-10-03 11:51:25 AM  

wedun: Abuse Liability: amoral: I would rather Iran have nukes than the US. They are more stable and less aggressive.

That is one awful troll

The list of countries invaded and ruined by the United States is larger than the list of countries invaded and ruined by Iran.


Not historically. Iran used to be called Persia, and was once the big kid on the block, and everybody was scared of them. I've heard that some Iranians still think about those times, fondly.
 
2012-10-03 11:51:33 AM  

fireclown: threadjackistan: It's only relevant if you've never looked at a map. Israel simply lacks the ability to meaningfully reduce Iran's nuclear capabilities using conventional weapons without massive US support.

And they would have it. IIRC, the attack at Osharak involved the US lending them F15s with extended range fuel tanks, and we did hook them up with those bunker busters about a year ago. But more importantly, I argue that it could happen tomorrow because it already has.


Okay, so they needed specialist fighters to attack a single, unarmored target. Now double the distance to the target and multiply the number of targets by 12.

One has nothing to do with the other. You saying they have done it before displays a total lack of understanding of the differences between the Iraqi and Iranian nuclear programs and the distance between the two countries.

tl;dr A map, look at one.
 
2012-10-03 11:52:15 AM  

wedun: Abuse Liability: amoral: I would rather Iran have nukes than the US. They are more stable and less aggressive.

That is one awful troll

The list of countries invaded and ruined by the United States is larger than the list of countries invaded and ruined by Iran.


And the list of countries that have used nuclear weapons in hostility has exactly 1 nation on it.

60% enrichment isn't weapons grade. This is the same "Iran moments away from teh bombz!" hysteria we've been hearing since the 80s.
 
2012-10-03 11:56:58 AM  
My favorite passage from that simulation:

"The Israel team believed (and hoped to convince the U.S. team) that Israel's strike had created a terrific opportunity for the West to pressure Iran, weaken it, and possibly even undermine the regime. The U.S. team, conversely, felt that Israel had opened a potential Pandora's Box and it was vital that they (the Americans) get it closed as quickly as possibly. Consequently, when the Israel team came in with a list of creative ideas to try to build on the success of the strike, the U.S. team told them, in so many words, that they had made a mess and should go sit in the corner and not do anything else while the United States cleaned it up.

Both sides' approaches created additional ill-will toward the other. The Israel team saw the U.S. team as strategically oblivious, hidebound, determined to squander a golden opportunity, patronizing, and obtuse. The U.S. team saw the Israel team as wild, undisciplined, oblivious to reality, arrogant, immature, and manipulative."

Pretty damn realistic for a simulation. They pretty much pegged the national character of two of the participants.
 
2012-10-03 11:57:07 AM  

wedun: In fact, if you think about it, the US has been nothing but shiatty and belligerant to Iran for as long as it's been a modern state.


When did it become modern?
 
Displayed 50 of 137 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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