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  
•       •       •

1996 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Oct 2012 at 11:21 AM (1 year 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 01:26:39 PM
www.ghandchi.com

Are you scared enough now? Let them wipe each other out...destroy each other...then the US, Russia, China, England and Germany can go in a divvy up the spoils.
 
2012-10-03 01:40:56 PM

Rent Party: Abuse Liability:
I'm in the same boat. I can respect Rent Party's argument and even concede that we're aggressive assholes. I'll even agree to the point that we 'bully' Iran. However, My point was that we don't threaten genocide, if given nuclear capability and this makes us the more STABLE (read - less likely to use a nuke). I believe it is in our best interest to make sure Iran does develop nuclear weapons.

We don't really disagree that much. I would posit that our fundamental difference lies in the fact that while we don't threaten genocide per se, when your invasion and occupation of a nation that didn't pose a threat to you kills 500,000 innocent people, the difference is only one of definition.

Despite the means, the end is still the same.


Not really, Iraq attacked Kuwait and posed a threat to region stability. I bet there are a few Kuwaitis that would be thankful. An unprovoked attack nuclear attack could start a world war.
 
2012-10-03 01:48:36 PM

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.


The Spartan's beg to differ.
 
2012-10-03 01:54:32 PM

Abuse Liability:
Not really, Iraq attacked Kuwait and posed a threat to region stability. I bet there are a few Kuwaitis that would be thankful. An unprovoked attack nuclear attack could start a world war.


The 1st Gulf War had a clear mission statement (eject Iraq from Kuwait and restore the Kuwaiti government) and exit strategy (When we are done doing that, we GTFO and go home.) The casualties in that war were minimal to Iraqi civilians because the hostilities took place well away from Iraqi urban centers and focused exclusively on Iraqi military targets.

Having said that, Iraq had grievances against Kuwait, primarily Kuwaiti slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields, and Kuwaiti overproduction. What they really wanted was access to sea ports, but they did have a legitimate beef. They also were deep in debt to Kuwait because they financed much of Iraq's efforts in their war with Iran, from which Kuwait directly benefited.

But that's not the war I'm talking about. I'm talking about GWB's excursion into Iraq, which had none of that. No mission criteria, no exit strategy, and no real casus belli. The result was shifting strategies (Shock and awe!), intense combat operation in densely populated urban areas, and a whole lot of dead people that didn't need to be dead.
 
2012-10-03 01:58:25 PM
fireclown 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.


Now if you could only remember which country did and did not sign the Nuclear non-Proliferations Treaty you would be set for participation in adult conversations
 
2012-10-03 02:02:19 PM

Rent Party: They asked us to leave, formally, in 2008. The SOFA was hugely unpopular in Iraq as it didn't require our exit fast enough. Remember GWB getting that shoe tossed at his head? That's what he was doing over there


Rent Party: Yes, I know what you're saying. You're saying "But it's not hostility when we do it!"


No I am saying that labeling what Japan did as just "hostitlity" is dishonest.

I am saying bringing Iraq up has nothing to do with that.

Rent Party: Hmmm... I wonder what our decade of occupation in Iraq might have to do with anything Iran related


Still not too clear on what that means?


Rent Party: They asked us to leave, formally, in 2008.


It isn't occupation if they say we want you to leave in a few years and we leave then.


Rent Party: The SOFA was hugely unpopular in Iraq as it didn't require our exit fast enough. Remember GWB getting that shoe tossed at his head?


So popularity is what defines an occupation?
 
2012-10-03 02:04:42 PM

jshine: xanadian: I'm just curious, but what enrichment levels are needed for generally efficient power production?

Depends on the design. If you use heavy water, you don't need to enrich the fuel at all (of course, "enriching" the heavy water is also difficult & expensive).

If you use regular water as a moderator & coolant, then the amount of enrichment affects the size of the core you can use. Smaller cores have a greater surface area - to - volume ratio, so they "leak" more neutrons and harder to drive to criticality. If you built a large reactor, you can get by with just a few percent enrichment, but if you want a reactor thats smaller, you need to go higher.


Talondel: xanadian: I'm just curious, but what enrichment levels are needed for generally efficient power production?

Already answered up thread, but it's 3% to 5%. Naval reactors (the kind used to power the U.S. and Russian submarine fleet) use much more highly enriched uranium (as highly enriched as is needed for weapons) because in those reactors space and weight is a major issue. Hence Iran's sudden (bullshiat) claim that all they want is a couple of nuclear submarines. It's the only other reason to have uranium enriched to that level.


So, 60% is the most "efficient," then, before you can really use it to blow shiat up*. But for simple civilian production, 3-5% is good enough. Is 3-5% what they used in Fukushima? I guess I could look that up...
 
2012-10-03 02:12:19 PM

liam76: Rent Party: They asked us to leave, formally, in 2008. The SOFA was hugely unpopular in Iraq as it didn't require our exit fast enough. Remember GWB getting that shoe tossed at his head? That's what he was doing over there

Rent Party: Yes, I know what you're saying. You're saying "But it's not hostility when we do it!"

No I am saying that labeling what Japan did as just "hostitlity" is dishonest.



Oh I see. You want to re-define words. What Japan did was textbook hostility. It is also the legal definition, and the plain old English definition. There is no hair to split there. You're just pedantic, and wrong about the object of your pedantry.


I am saying bringing Iraq up has nothing to do with that.


Other than it was us as the hostile aggressor, leading to Iran's current stance on nuclear refinement.


Rent Party: Hmmm... I wonder what our decade of occupation in Iraq might have to do with anything Iran related

Still not too clear on what that means?


Perfectly clear. Its what happens after you invade a country and keep your military around. Just like we did in Iraq.


Rent Party: They asked us to leave, formally, in 2008.

It isn't occupation if they say we want you to leave in a few years and we leave then.


Oh I see. So what was it between 2003 and 2008? A golf tournament?



Rent Party: The SOFA was hugely unpopular in Iraq as it didn't require our exit fast enough. Remember GWB getting that shoe tossed at his head?

So popularity is what defines an occupation?


It is precisely what defines an occupation. If those Iraqis wanted us there, they'd have asked, and we would be invited guests.
 
2012-10-03 02:21:22 PM

Rent Party: Abuse Liability:
Not really, Iraq attacked Kuwait and posed a threat to region stability. I bet there are a few Kuwaitis that would be thankful. An unprovoked attack nuclear attack could start a world war.

The 1st Gulf War had a clear mission statement (eject Iraq from Kuwait and restore the Kuwaiti government) and exit strategy (When we are done doing that, we GTFO and go home.) The casualties in that war were minimal to Iraqi civilians because the hostilities took place well away from Iraqi urban centers and focused exclusively on Iraqi military targets.

Having said that, Iraq had grievances against Kuwait, primarily Kuwaiti slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields, and Kuwaiti overproduction. What they really wanted was access to sea ports, but they did have a legitimate beef. They also were deep in debt to Kuwait because they financed much of Iraq's efforts in their war with Iran, from which Kuwait directly benefited.

But that's not the war I'm talking about. I'm talking about GWB's excursion into Iraq, which had none of that. No mission criteria, no exit strategy, and no real casus belli. The result was shifting strategies (Shock and awe!), intense combat operation in densely populated urban areas, and a whole lot of dead people that didn't need to be dead.


So what you're saying is they repeatedly violated the treaty they had set up with the United Nations by throwing weapons inspectors out and repeatedly not disclosing all their military weaponry Link. They were in violation of the treaty and were allowed to get away with it until 'oh noez terr0rz' and then we stepped in to see for ourselves. Of course we found nothing (see- America is bad), but then why regularly toss out weapon inspectors if you have nothing to hide? We had a legitimate beef, but couldn't act on it because five UN countries (most of whom were also getting much of their oil supply from Iraq and allies), decided that this breach did not constitute the need for military action
 
2012-10-03 02:25:02 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com 
Khamenei: A submarine? I thought we wanted a bomb?
Ahmadinejad: We do want a bomb. We need a submarine to get a bomb.
Khamenei: The submarine is the bomb?
Ahmadinejad: No, it's,,,
Khamenei: Oh, wait, we put the bomb in the submarine?
Ahmadinejad: No, no,,, just drink your tea okay?
Khamenei: Okay.
 
2012-10-03 02:29:25 PM

xanadian: So, 60% is the most "efficient," then, before you can really use it to blow shiat up*. But for simple civilian production, 3-5% is good enough. Is 3-5% what they used in Fukushima? I guess I could look that up...


Not exactly. For a land based reactor where size and weight aren't an issue and your goal is to generate power, you would never used 60% enriched uranium.
 
2012-10-03 02:31:40 PM

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.


I find it amusing that Iran cannot find competent people to use Photoshop in their stories about how great they are to their people......and cannot even get their missiles to launch properly for more than a few hundred feet or a few miles (forget which is was) somehow can now enrich uranium, build a nuke and threaten the world....
 
2012-10-03 02:41:18 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Why do we hate them again?


Damn kids born after 1980, get off of my lawn!

I assure you, it was a big deal at the time.
 
2012-10-03 02:42:39 PM

Abuse Liability: Rent Party: Abuse Liability:
Not really, Iraq attacked Kuwait and posed a threat to region stability. I bet there are a few Kuwaitis that would be thankful. An unprovoked attack nuclear attack could start a world war.

The 1st Gulf War had a clear mission statement (eject Iraq from Kuwait and restore the Kuwaiti government) and exit strategy (When we are done doing that, we GTFO and go home.) The casualties in that war were minimal to Iraqi civilians because the hostilities took place well away from Iraqi urban centers and focused exclusively on Iraqi military targets.

Having said that, Iraq had grievances against Kuwait, primarily Kuwaiti slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields, and Kuwaiti overproduction. What they really wanted was access to sea ports, but they did have a legitimate beef. They also were deep in debt to Kuwait because they financed much of Iraq's efforts in their war with Iran, from which Kuwait directly benefited.

But that's not the war I'm talking about. I'm talking about GWB's excursion into Iraq, which had none of that. No mission criteria, no exit strategy, and no real casus belli. The result was shifting strategies (Shock and awe!), intense combat operation in densely populated urban areas, and a whole lot of dead people that didn't need to be dead.

So what you're saying is they repeatedly violated the treaty they had set up with the United Nations by throwing weapons inspectors out and repeatedly not disclosing all their military weaponry Link. They were in violation of the treaty and were allowed to get away with it until 'oh noez terr0rz' and then we stepped in to see for ourselves. Of course we found nothing (see- America is bad), but then why regularly toss out weapon inspectors if you have nothing to hide? We had a legitimate beef, but couldn't act on it because five UN countries (most of whom were also getting much of their oil supply from Iraq and allies), decided that this breach did not constitute the need for milita ...


Weapons inspectors weren't thrown out, they left. And then, prior to hostilities, they were allowed back in.

But none of that is here nor there. If the causus belli de jour today is "They violated a UN Treaty!" then it is up to the UN to enforce, not the US. And you do know we acted unilaterally, right? Without UN sanction?

Right?
 
2012-10-03 02:44:10 PM
Iran to enrich Uranium to 60% levels

Is that even possible? Wouldn't the critical mass be ridiculously small?
 
2012-10-03 02:57:01 PM

unlikely: Because they hate our boss


Has there ever been a US president that the post-Shah regime didn't hate?

and when the boss says "hate 'em back" we jump.

That was pretty much our only reason for going into Iraq the second time.
 
2012-10-03 02:58:58 PM

Rent Party: But none of that is here nor there. If the causus belli de jour today is "They violated a UN Treaty!" then it is up to the UN to enforce, not the US. And you do know we acted unilaterally, right? Without UN sanction?

Right?


Besides, Republicans hate the UN and believe it is trying to take away our precious liberties, so why would they care if somebody violated a UN treaty?
 
2012-10-03 03:02:38 PM
I remember this one. In chapter three . . .

i463.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-03 03:05:57 PM

Rent Party: Abuse Liability:
Just exactly what do you think we're supposed to do with all that stuff?

Rome let their gaurd down and disbanded much of their military as well. That worked out well for them.

And in fact (because I suck at the internet) had Rome kept their legions, you know, *in Rome*, rather than spread out all over the goddamn globe, they might have been better prepared to repel the Visgoths.


Plus, running out of lands to conquer and send back the spoils put the burden of paying for a massive army on the backs of Roman taxpayers. And as the citizens went broke paying the military for their adventures, the whole of the empire began to collapse under the crushing debt.....

Saaaaay, this story suddenly sounds eerily familiar. Must be a coincidence.
 
2012-10-03 03:12:23 PM

Rent Party: Oh I see. You want to re-define words. What Japan did was textbook hostility. It is also the legal definition, and the plain old English definition. There is no hair to split there. You're just pedantic, and wrong about the object of your pedantry.


I am not trying to redifne words "hostility" doesn't really imply full scale war.

When you talk abotu nukes being "a reasonable response to Japanese hostility in 1945" it implies we are fien casually tossing them out after small skirmishes (whihc also fit the defintion of hostility).

Rent Party: Other than it was us as the hostile aggressor, leading to Iran's current stance on nuclear refinement.


I have no problem saying we were "hostile", I will even take "agressor" despite the US aircraft being attacked many times inthe no-fly zone leading up to the war in 03, but when you pin Iran going after nukes for that I can't buy it. And none of that has anything to do with bringing Iraq up in a comment about Japan.

Rent Party: Perfectly clear. Its what happens after you invade a country and keep your military around. Just like we did in Iraq.


You said for ten years, that is factually incorrect.

Rent Party: Oh I see. So what was it between 2003 and 2008? A golf tournament?


An occupation, I have a problemw ith you calling it 10 years.

Rent Party: It is precisely what defines an occupation. If those Iraqis wanted us there, they'd have asked, and we would be invited guests


After 08, that is what we were.

The law of a democratically elected govt makes those decisions, not how popular it is based on how many people threw shoes at a president.
 
2012-10-03 03:20:21 PM
Apparently, these bungholes don't know what the phrase "don't tempt fate" means.
 
2012-10-03 03:35:46 PM

Abuse Liability: 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.


We were bound by treaty to invade Iraq?
 
2012-10-03 04:58:13 PM

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

Why do we hate them again?


Our Military Industrial Complex needs constant feeding.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2012-10-03 05:12:55 PM

tinyarena:
3.bp.blogspot.com 
Khamenei: A submarine? I thought we wanted a bomb?
Ahmadinejad: We do want a bomb. We need a submarine to get a bomb.
Khamenei: The submarine is the bomb?
Ahmadinejad: No, it's,,,
Khamenei: Oh, wait, we put the bomb in the submarine?
Ahmadinejad: No, no,,, just drink your tea okay?
Khamenei: Okay.

 


LOL,
Only thing missing is him patting K on the head like the old dude in Benny Hill episodes.
 
2012-10-03 05:17:11 PM

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


LOL I've often wondered how many countries we'll democratize the shiat out of before the UN calls for the U.S. to disarm.
 
2012-10-03 05:21:15 PM

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.


Israel should probably stop making idle threats against Iran, then.
 
2012-10-03 05:30:01 PM

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.


Well said. The ulterior motives here should be quite obvious to anyone willing to think critically. I find it insulting that the government portrays our meddling in the region as some sort of benevolent humanitarian mission.
 
2012-10-03 05:42:05 PM
Like it or not, Iran is a signed member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which allows them to enrich uranium and pursue nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.
 
2012-10-03 05:56:13 PM

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.


And we're far more lenient towards nuclear powers. Consider the batshiat crazy regime in North Korea and the human rights atrocities that occur within. Nukes provide the only assurance that the U.S. will respect the sovereignty of your nation.
 
2012-10-03 06:30:12 PM

authorizeduser: 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.

And we're far more lenient towards nuclear powers. Consider the batshiat crazy regime in North Korea and the human rights atrocities that occur within. Nukes provide the only assurance that the U.S. will respect the sovereignty of your nation.


If NK had no nukes we wouldn't do anything either. They still have a shiat ton of conventional weapons pointed at SK. We don't do anything because they are only a regional factor. We stop feeding them and they die.

As far as "respecting sovereignty" look at Pakistan, airstrikes and raids.

Nikes were good for them, int that it cooled things down with India, but that is it.
 
2012-10-03 06:51:13 PM

authorizeduser: Like it or not, Iran is a signed member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which allows them to enrich uranium and pursue nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.


They kicked UN inspectors out long ago.

They could have had people GIVE them enriched uranium under the condition that there was UN oversight. They decided not to go that route, embarking instead on an incredibly expensive nuclear enrichment program.

And they could have embarked on this path with UN inspectors watching, but they chose not to.

/why would they do that?
 
2012-10-04 09:58:51 AM

fluffy2097: authorizeduser: Like it or not, Iran is a signed member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which allows them to enrich uranium and pursue nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

They kicked UN inspectors out long ago.

They could have had people GIVE them enriched uranium under the condition that there was UN oversight. They decided not to go that route, embarking instead on an incredibly expensive nuclear enrichment program.

And they could have embarked on this path with UN inspectors watching, but they chose not to.

/why would they do that?


Iran's preference for self-sufficiency and discretion does not imply evil intent. I wouldn't approve of UN inspectors meddling in my country's affairs either.
 
2012-10-04 11:53:46 AM

authorizeduser: fluffy2097: authorizeduser: Like it or not, Iran is a signed member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which allows them to enrich uranium and pursue nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

They kicked UN inspectors out long ago.

They could have had people GIVE them enriched uranium under the condition that there was UN oversight. They decided not to go that route, embarking instead on an incredibly expensive nuclear enrichment program.

And they could have embarked on this path with UN inspectors watching, but they chose not to.

/why would they do that?

Iran's preference for self-sufficiency and discretion does not imply evil intent. I wouldn't approve of UN inspectors meddling in my country's affairs either.


Even if said meddling was one of the conditions you agreed to when signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty noted in the original comment?

/Sounds like a shady re-neg to me
 
2012-10-04 12:33:17 PM

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: authorizeduser: fluffy2097: authorizeduser: Like it or not, Iran is a signed member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which allows them to enrich uranium and pursue nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

They kicked UN inspectors out long ago.

They could have had people GIVE them enriched uranium under the condition that there was UN oversight. They decided not to go that route, embarking instead on an incredibly expensive nuclear enrichment program.

And they could have embarked on this path with UN inspectors watching, but they chose not to.

/why would they do that?

Iran's preference for self-sufficiency and discretion does not imply evil intent. I wouldn't approve of UN inspectors meddling in my country's affairs either.

Even if said meddling was one of the conditions you agreed to when signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty noted in the original comment?

/Sounds like a shady re-neg to me


There are no mandates for ongoing inspections. The closest thing to what you're talking about would be Article III: Each non-NWS party undertakes to conclude an agreement with the IAEA for the application of its safeguards to all nuclear material in all of the state's peaceful nuclear activities and to prevent diversion of such material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

And Article III must be observed in conjunction with Article IV, Section 1: Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

U.S. sanctions, joint U.S./Israeli cyber-sabotage and IAEA encroachment definitely qualifies as discrimination, if not blatant acts of war.

That's not to say that Iran isn't pursuing a nuclear weapon (can you blame them?) but, the aggressive posturing of the U.S. and Israel only serve to exacerbate the situation.
 
2012-10-04 01:18:42 PM

Abuse Liability: Rent Party: Abuse Liability:
I'm in the same boat. I can respect Rent Party's argument and even concede that we're aggressive assholes. I'll even agree to the point that we 'bully' Iran. However, My point was that we don't threaten genocide, if given nuclear capability and this makes us the more STABLE (read - less likely to use a nuke). I believe it is in our best interest to make sure Iran does develop nuclear weapons.

We don't really disagree that much. I would posit that our fundamental difference lies in the fact that while we don't threaten genocide per se, when your invasion and occupation of a nation that didn't pose a threat to you kills 500,000 innocent people, the difference is only one of definition.

Despite the means, the end is still the same.

Not really, Iraq attacked Kuwait and posed a threat to region stability. I bet there are a few Kuwaitis that would be thankful. An unprovoked attack nuclear attack could start a world war.


If Iran is working on a nuclear weapon, it's not with intent to use it. Nukes provide the ultimate defense against nosy first-world countries. If North Korea and Pakistan can muster the restraint, I wouldn't be too concerned with Iran starting WW3. Us Westerners forget that just because these people speak a different language and worship a different invisible man, they share the same basic survival instinct.

And the threat of Iran selling a nuclear weapon to terrorists is typical sensational propaganda. With the resources and time required to develop a warhead, it would be cost-prohibitive for even the wealthiest organization to purchase. Again, if North Korea and Pakistan can abstain (Russia, for that matter)... Besides, there are still plenty of missing atomic bombs from the Cold War that could be re-purposed by a motivated ne'er-do-well.
 
2012-10-05 06:42:01 AM

authorizeduser: If Iran is working on a nuclear weapon, it's not with intent to use it. Nukes provide the ultimate defense against nosy first-world countries. If North Korea and Pakistan can muster the restraint, I wouldn't be too concerned with Iran starting WW3. Us Westerners forget that just because these people speak a different language and worship a different invisible man, they share the same basic survival instinct.


Look up twelver shia's and the hiddin Mahdi.

Iran is run by religious fundamentals who belives in that.


authorizeduser: And the threat of Iran selling a nuclear weapon to terrorists is typical sensational propaganda. With the resources and time required to develop a warhead, it would be cost-prohibitive for even the wealthiest organization to purchase.


Developing them is cost prohibitive, given the sanctions, yet that doesn't stop them.

You can't make a claim about cost unless you can understand how they place value on things.
 
2012-10-05 09:12:03 AM

liam76: authorizeduser: If Iran is working on a nuclear weapon, it's not with intent to use it. Nukes provide the ultimate defense against nosy first-world countries. If North Korea and Pakistan can muster the restraint, I wouldn't be too concerned with Iran starting WW3. Us Westerners forget that just because these people speak a different language and worship a different invisible man, they share the same basic survival instinct.

Look up twelver shia's and the hiddin Mahdi.

Iran is run by religious fundamentals who belives in that.


The truly pious don't get into politics. Iran's heads of state are as Muslim as our bureaucrats are Christian. In both cases, corporeal pursuits occupy their hearts and minds.
 
Displayed 37 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 »






Report