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
 
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?
 
2012-10-03 11:57:38 AM  
Its always the first country to develop the big nasty weapon that uses them. Its not the mentality of the people. Then everyone looks back in hindsight and goes... wow... that was bad. Also, a naval base was attacked and we gave the Japanese the chance to surrender.
 
2012-10-03 11:58:17 AM  
 
2012-10-03 11:59:20 AM  

Rent Party: 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.


Yeah, one nation, 67 years ago, to end a world war. Yeah, so unstable.
 
2012-10-03 12:00:29 PM  

LL316: 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?


1925. The US threw that all away in 1953.

/ History. It's a thing!
 
2012-10-03 12:00:38 PM  
As the world's foremost nuclear superpower, and the only country to ever actually use nukes in a war, how exactly do we get the moral authority to tell other people not to have nukes?
 
2012-10-03 12:02:27 PM  

Twilight Farkle: 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.


Wow, they attacked a single unprotected target in Syria too? Which is even closer to Israel than the Iraqi reactor? Wow, you're right. I'm wrong. All my knowledge of aircraft ranges is wasted because you feel in your gut that them Israelites can do anything because Jesus.

/sarcasm

Please stop comparing apples and firetrucks.
 
2012-10-03 12:06:18 PM  

AntonChigger: Rent Party: 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.

Yeah, one nation, 67 years ago, to end a world war. Yeah, so unstable.


That doesn't change the facts. Japan is still constitutionally prohibited from deploying active military forces as a result of that war. We have conducted military operations ranging from deployment of air forces to downright invasions over 80 times since then.

So the point isn't that we're a stable democracy, it's that we are an aggressive risk to other democracies.
 
2012-10-03 12:09:55 PM  

Rent Party: AntonChigger: Rent Party: 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.

Yeah, one nation, 67 years ago, to end a world war. Yeah, so unstable.

That doesn't change the facts. Japan is still constitutionally prohibited from deploying active military forces as a result of that war. We have conducted military operations ranging from deployment of air forces to downright invasions over 80 times since then.

So the point isn't that we're a stable democracy, it's that we are an aggressive risk to other democracies.


How many times have we toppled other democracies?
 
2012-10-03 12:11:21 PM  
I'm just curious, but what enrichment levels are needed for generally efficient power production?
 
2012-10-03 12:13:10 PM  

Rent Party: 60% enrichment isn't weapons grade. This is the same "Iran moments away from teh bombz!" hysteria we've been hearing since the 80s.


Weapons that use a plutonium core as a primary stage use U-235 that has been enriched from 40% to 80% as the secondary stage. You wouldn't make a primary stage out of 60% U-235, but to say that it isn't 'weapons grade' is inaccurate. The US nuclear weapons arsenal uses U-235 that has been enriched 40% to 80%.

As stated above, there are only a limited number of uses for 60% enriched U-235, and civilian power generation is not one of them.

Source

Uranium with enrichments ranging from 40% to 80% U-235 has been used in large amounts in U.S. thermonuclear weapons as a yield-boosting jacketing material for the secondary fusion stage.
 
2012-10-03 12:14:17 PM  

Rent Party: AntonChigger: Rent Party: 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.

Yeah, one nation, 67 years ago, to end a world war. Yeah, so unstable.

That doesn't change the facts. Japan is still constitutionally prohibited from deploying active military forces as a result of that war. We have conducted military operations ranging from deployment of air forces to downright invasions over 80 times since then.

So the point isn't that we're a stable democracy, it's that we are an aggressive risk to other democracies.


You seem to forget who the aggressor of that war was. So, in essence, you're just pissed we retaliated and then sanctioned them. Oh, it was nuclear? Because killing millions with a bomb vs. say... through other types of military action is OK? Yes, I believe we're the more responsible country in this scenario. In fact, we helped rebuild all of Europe including Japan after the bombing Marshall Plan Truman Doctrine. Would Iran do the same?
 
2012-10-03 12:15:59 PM  

Abuse Liability: Rent Party: AntonChigger: Rent Party: 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.

Yeah, one nation, 67 years ago, to end a world war. Yeah, so unstable.

That doesn't change the facts. Japan is still constitutionally prohibited from deploying active military forces as a result of that war. We have conducted military operations ranging from deployment of air forces to downright invasions over 80 times since then.

So the point isn't that we're a stable democracy, it's that we are an aggressive risk to other democracies.

You seem to forget who the aggressor of that war was. So, in essence, you're just pissed we retaliated and then sanctioned them. Oh, it was nuclear? Because killing millions with a bomb vs. say... through other types of military action is OK? Yes, I believe we're the more responsible country in this scenario. In fact, we helped rebuild all of Europe including Japan after the bombing Marshall Plan Truman Doctrine. Would Iran do the same?


THIS. Also, I'm still trying to figure out exactly which democracies we are a risk to...
 
2012-10-03 12:20:16 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-03 12:21:50 PM  

threadjackistan: Twilight Farkle: 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.

Wow, they attacked a single unprotected target in Syria too? Which is even closer to Israel than the Iraqi reactor? Wow, you're right. I'm wrong. All my knowledge of aircraft ranges is wasted because you feel in your gut that them Israelites can do anything because Jesus.

/sarcasm

Please stop comparing apples and firetrucks.


I don't claim that going for the trifecta is a good idea, merely that they've done it before. Everybody remembered Iron Eagle II, very few people noticed the events of 2007. (Fortunately, nothing is obscure on Fark... wait, it might have been a what?!)

In addition to the extra distance and hostile airspace, there's another big difference: the earlier strikes were on unfueled reactors, which are little more than empty buildings. Iran's reactors are fueled. Even if the target was located right next door and the mission were technically feasible, a strike on a fueled/operating reactor is guaranteed to produce more than mere diplomatic fallout. It's a bad idea for reasons beyond the logistical difficulties. For this reason, I also I disagree with fireclown in that I don't think they'd have massive - or any - US support.
 
2012-10-03 12:28:58 PM  

AntonChigger:
So the point isn't that we're a stable democracy, it's that we are an aggressive risk to other democracies.

How many times have we toppled other democracies?


We tipped over Iran in 1953, which led directly to the situation we have right now.

But since you asked.

Guatemala in 1954 (The 50s were a busy time for us)

The Congo in the early 60s.

Brazil in 1964

Ghana in 1966

Chile in the early 70s

And that's just what the Church Committee covered.
 
2012-10-03 12:30:36 PM  

Abuse Liability:
So the point isn't that we're a stable democracy, it's that we are an aggressive risk to other democracies.

You seem to forget who the aggressor of that war was. So, in essence, you're just pissed we retaliated and then sanctioned them. Oh, it was nuclear? Because killing millions with a bomb vs. say... through other types of military action is OK? Yes, I believe we're the more responsible country in this scenario. In fact, we helped rebuild all of Europe including Japan after the bombing Marshall Plan Truman Doctrine. Would Iran do the same?


So, who is the aggressor now? Over 80 countries have had American military action on their soil since the war. If nukes were a reasonable response to Japanese hostility in 1945, why are we so butthurt about Iran wanting them in response to American aggression now?
 
2012-10-03 12:34:08 PM  

Rent Party: Abuse Liability:
So the point isn't that we're a stable democracy, it's that we are an aggressive risk to other democracies.

You seem to forget who the aggressor of that war was. So, in essence, you're just pissed we retaliated and then sanctioned them. Oh, it was nuclear? Because killing millions with a bomb vs. say... through other types of military action is OK? Yes, I believe we're the more responsible country in this scenario. In fact, we helped rebuild all of Europe including Japan after the bombing Marshall Plan Truman Doctrine. Would Iran do the same?

So, who is the aggressor now? Over 80 countries have had American military action on their soil since the war. If nukes were a reasonable response to Japanese hostility in 1945, why are we so butthurt about Iran wanting them in response to American aggression now?


What aggression? Did we instigate some kind of unprovoked attack against a military base of theirs?
 
2012-10-03 12:37:00 PM  
The only aggression that really spring to mind was something from '88, after one of our ships took collateral damage from them mining the sea Praying Mantis
 
2012-10-03 12:37:35 PM  

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 ain't allow. US (and Israel) are the 2 most dangerous nations for the sovereignty of any other nation.
 
2012-10-03 12:37:35 PM  
Funny how the only country to ever use nukes telling someone else they aren't allowed to have nukes.
 
2012-10-03 12:38:27 PM  

super_grass: fark it, let the mideast burn.

Nothing of value will be lost.


And the midwest can go with it too.
 
2012-10-03 12:38:43 PM  

Abuse Liability: Rent Party: Abuse Liability:
So the point isn't that we're a stable democracy, it's that we are an aggressive risk to other democracies.

You seem to forget who the aggressor of that war was. So, in essence, you're just pissed we retaliated and then sanctioned them. Oh, it was nuclear? Because killing millions with a bomb vs. say... through other types of military action is OK? Yes, I believe we're the more responsible country in this scenario. In fact, we helped rebuild all of Europe including Japan after the bombing Marshall Plan Truman Doctrine. Would Iran do the same?

So, who is the aggressor now? Over 80 countries have had American military action on their soil since the war. If nukes were a reasonable response to Japanese hostility in 1945, why are we so butthurt about Iran wanting them in response to American aggression now?

What aggression? Did we instigate some kind of unprovoked attack against a military base of theirs?


We supported the violent overthrow of multiple governments, many of them democratically elected. We did this either through covert action (Iran, 1953) or overt action (Nicaragua, 1980s).

And the example we set in Iraq (Whoops! Wrong country, sorryboutthat!) should make any state populated with brown people nervous. It seems the only thing we pay attention to lately when we decide to take military action against someone is whether they are a nuclear power, and how much oil they're sitting on (see, Korea, North).

The best thing America can do to stop nuclear proliferation is to stop acting like the worlds biggest asshole so smaller states don't think they need them to deter us.
 
2012-10-03 12:39:15 PM  
The research ("TRIGA") reactor at Univ. Wisconsin -- Madison used 70% enriched FLIP fuel when I was there about 10 years ago. Pretty sure that was for peaceful purposes.
 
2012-10-03 12:40:11 PM  

Rent Party: If nukes were a reasonable response to Japanese hostility in 1945, why are we so butthurt about Iran wanting them in response to American aggression now?


Pearl Harbor and the gruesome island hopping war that followed was just "hostility"?
 
2012-10-03 12:40:59 PM  

liam76: Rent Party: If nukes were a reasonable response to Japanese hostility in 1945, why are we so butthurt about Iran wanting them in response to American aggression now?

Pearl Harbor and the gruesome island hopping war that followed was just "hostility"?


10 years of invasion and occupation of Iraq is just "hostility?"

See how that works?
 
2012-10-03 12:41:20 PM  

GranoblasticMan: super_grass: fark it, let the mideast burn.

Nothing of value will be lost.

And the midwest can go with it too.


jshine: The research ("TRIGA") reactor at Univ. Wisconsin -- Madison used 70% enriched FLIP fuel when I was there about 10 years ago. Pretty sure that was for peaceful purposes.


HOLY SHIAT! I was only joking, but I was right! The midwest is developing nuclear weapons.

We need a preemptive strike.
 
2012-10-03 12:42:12 PM  

GranoblasticMan: super_grass: fark it, let the mideast burn.

Nothing of value will be lost.

And the midwest can go with it too.


You shut your whore mouth, the midwest is an awesome part of this nation

/Smug assholes like you piss me off
//From california
 
2012-10-03 12:43:10 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-03 12:44:21 PM  

GranoblasticMan: jshine: The research ("TRIGA") reactor at Univ. Wisconsin -- Madison used 70% enriched FLIP fuel when I was there about 10 years ago. Pretty sure that was for peaceful purposes.

HOLY SHIAT! I was only joking, but I was right! The midwest is developing nuclear weapons.

We need a preemptive strike.



The Midwest has had nuclear weapons for a long time.
 
2012-10-03 12:45:13 PM  

Rent Party: AntonChigger:
So the point isn't that we're a stable democracy, it's that we are an aggressive risk to other democracies.

How many times have we toppled other democracies?

We tipped over Iran in 1953, which led directly to the situation we have right now.

But since you asked.

Guatemala in 1954 (The 50s were a busy time for us)

The Congo in the early 60s.

Brazil in 1964

Ghana in 1966

Chile in the early 70s

And that's just what the Church Committee covered.


While it seems that Congo kinda moved from one democracy to another, the rest seem legit. I capitulate to your superior knowledge on this subject matter, sir.

/Farkin cold war, stained everyone's hands
//Still don't believe the US is the primary aggressor on this planet, now that the cold war is over
 
2012-10-03 12:45:37 PM  
 
2012-10-03 12:48:43 PM  

AntonChigger:
And that's just what the Church Committee covered.

While it seems that Congo kinda moved from one democracy to another, the rest seem legit. I capitulate to your superior knowledge on this subject matter, sir.


Hey wait a gaddam minute! You can't do that! Now what am I supposed to do?


/Farkin cold war, stained everyone's hands
//Still don't believe the US is the primary aggressor on this planet, now that the cold war is over


If we aren't we are certainly part of the discussion on who is.
 
2012-10-03 12:50:13 PM  

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


It depends.

For nuclear bombs, you need over 20% and sophisticated weapons usually use over-85% enriched material. For dirty bombs, you can get away with a lot less because the aim is not to blow things up, but irradiate people and things. For power generation, you don't need much unless you are doing it the old-fashioned way, with enriched uranium, graphite-moderated reactors.

Different types of nuclear reactors run on different fuels, but 2%-3% enrichment is just fine for enriched uranium reactors. If your aim is simply to heat water, you can, in theory, dump a lot of unenriched uranium or other radioactive material into a hole in the ground and draw off hot water for heating and steam turbine electrictiy generation. Nobody does this on a commercial scale, but a Thorium reactor is a possibility and in the pre-production stages, and it need not be much more complex than a sealed cannister that is leak-proof and able to withstand heat and pressure changes.

At least 2% enrichment is necessary for enriched uranium reactors. The concern with 65%, which is well below bomb-making levels, is that once you have reached that level of enrichment, it's a short jog to 95%. Enrichment takes place in centrifuges, that work on the same principle more or less as the cream separator on dairy farms. The process is repeated until the desired level of concentration of Uranium-235 is reached from feedstock of Uranium-238, which is more stable and not very useful for bombs and power generation.

Iran does not have the bomb, there's not a lot of real evidence it is actively seeking the bomb, and it says it does not want the bomb. In fact, top Imans have declared a fatwa (ruling, judgement) that nuclear weapons are immoral. It is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty club (the USA has not ratified formally), which proclaims the right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. If it weren't for politics, Iran getting the bomb would be no more of an issue than Canada getting it.

In fact, many American Realist political observers are non-Zionists and are not worried if Iran gets the bomb. They think it would stabilize the politics of the region. After all, Israel, Pakistan and India are all known to have the technology and the weapons. Pakistan and India have tested explosions. Making bombs is not the hard part. It's testing them often enough to make sure they'll work when used that takes the real resources. If Iran has the bomb, it would be a lot less nervous, and a lot of other countries would be more nervous, making them easier to deal with. The Saudis are said to have their oil fields booby-trapped against the risk of invasion plans (for US invasion plans, see the 1973 plans drawn up by the Nixon administration), but nuclear weapons would make them worry enough to allow the US to pressure them a bit more on terrorism, Israel and other issues, notably oil, human rights and such.

With its centrifuges crippled by the Stuxnet virus, which everybody is pretty sure was an Israeli-American co-production to some degree or other, Iran's ability to produce enough weapons-grade material is delayed, but not prevented. And everything Israel and the USA does pushes Iran towards getting the bomb. Only credible assurances of safety from pre-emptive strikes against its reactors (mostly research reactors, including the one that the USA gave the Shah, along with 75 pounds of uranium to play with) would fail to drive Iran towards a pre-bomb threshold with enough enriched uranium to build a bomb in less than a year.

Almost any advanced and wealthy nation could, in a pinch, have the bomb in a year, including Canada, which has the uranium, the technology, basic delivery systems, etc, and only lacks the will to go nuclear.

As for terrorist level weapons (simple, crude dirty bombs to disperse radioactive materials in order to kill or frighten a population the size of a city), you don't need national resources for that. The resources of a small university, a mid-sized corporation or a well-funded terrorist group would be sufficient.

As the Professor points out in The Secret Agent by Joseph Conrad, a man who is unafraid to die is pretty much untouchable by those who are, including the police. In the story, the Professor, who is a sort of Ted Kazinsky type on steroids, mets the top cop in London in a narrow alley. Both of them know that that the Professor has a very small but beatifully made bomb in his pocket and can blow them both to Kingdom Come in a trice. What to do? What to do? The idea of Mutual Assured Destruction is not new. The Mexican Standoff has been around longer than Mexico, which is ancient.

Robert Frost said that good walls make good neighbours, but a good nuclear deterrant is also effective except in cases of real irrationality, and most of the world's apparent irrationality is just politics and economics continued by other means.
 
2012-10-03 12:55:45 PM  

Rent Party: liam76: Rent Party: If nukes were a reasonable response to Japanese hostility in 1945, why are we so butthurt about Iran wanting them in response to American aggression now?

Pearl Harbor and the gruesome island hopping war that followed was just "hostility"?

10 years of invasion and occupation of Iraq is just "hostility?"

See how that works?


Yeah, you make a dumb comment of Japan's actions being "hostility" I call you out on it and you pull a comparison ot Iraq that doesn't have fark all to do with what I am saying.

As fro 10 years of occupation they have had elections in 05, and they haven't told us to leave.

/not that I think we should be there.
 
2012-10-03 12:58:25 PM  

Rent Party: AntonChigger:
And that's just what the Church Committee covered.

While it seems that Congo kinda moved from one democracy to another, the rest seem legit. I capitulate to your superior knowledge on this subject matter, sir.


Hey wait a gaddam minute! You can't do that! Now what am I supposed to do?


/Farkin cold war, stained everyone's hands
//Still don't believe the US is the primary aggressor on this planet, now that the cold war is over

If we aren't we are certainly part of the discussion on who is.

Indeed, and see what I did there? Its called admitting ignorance, a skill sadly lost on just about everyone these days. Instead of continuing to argue, I admit I'm wrong, learn from it, and move on.

/I'm republican too, freaky I know
 
2012-10-03 01:01:34 PM  

AntonChigger:
Indeed, and see what I did there? Its called admitting ignorance, a skill sadly lost on just about everyone these days. Instead of continuing to argue, I admit I'm wrong, learn from it, and move on.

/I'm republican too, freaky I know


[speechlessmal.gif]

Jeezus. And I thought I'd seen everything.
 
2012-10-03 01:01:45 PM  
if handled correctly ....it could all be over in a flash
 
2012-10-03 01:02:37 PM  
Well said Brantgoose. I won't quote you because I don't feel like scrolling down even further, but well said.

I've been trying to make the point that we are the less irrational of the two countries being discussed here on this thread. Most of the examples (if not all) Rent Party has posted were either in defense of another country (north korea/south korea), or some subversive reason (99% of the time to 'appropriate' that countries resources), but usually a mixture of the two. That may be cold, calculated and selfish, but it's better than a country whose clergy (i.e., people who actually run the country), talk about genocide. Its just too much Germany circa 1945 for me.
 
2012-10-03 01:07:25 PM  

BullBearMS: I'll just make this information available again, since there seems to be a prolonged campaign to pretend this never happened:


I think you are misreading what was said, both in the article this thread is linked to and in the Panetta article. Everyone knows that Iran is not currently enriching uranium to a level capable of being used in a nuclear weapon. So far, everything Iran has produced has been below the 20% threshold (enrichment beyond 20% is commonly referred to as 'Highly Enriched Uranium' or HEU).

However, they are developing the centrifuge technology that will allow them to enrich uranium well in excess of 20%, and that uranium will be weapons grade. That is why the 'threat' in the linked article to enrich to 60% is so serious. 60%, while not capable on it's own of creating a weapon, is certainly 'weapons grade' in that it is used in nuclear weapons. Also, the biggest barrier to enrichment technology is getting over 20%. There is another technological hurdle to overcome at roughly 60% (and another at roughly 80%) but those challenges are minor compared to the challenges of getting from 20% to 60%. If Iran starts producing 60% enriched uranium, it's a clear signal that they will be capable of producing much more highly enriched uranium shortly thereafter.

That is the 'nuclear capability' that we (and lets be honest here, no one else in the world) wants them to have. Europe doesn't want, the rest of the middle east doesn't want it, even the Russians and the Chinese aren't wild about it.
 
2012-10-03 01:09:50 PM  

liam76:
Pearl Harbor and the gruesome island hopping war that followed was just "hostility"?

10 years of invasion and occupation of Iraq is just "hostility?"

See how that works?

Yeah, you make a dumb comment of Japan's actions being "hostility" I call you out on it and you pull a comparison ot Iraq that doesn't have fark all to do with what I am saying.



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

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

www.the-bastard.com


As fro 10 years of occupation they have had elections in 05, and they haven't told us to leave.


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.
 
2012-10-03 01:15:14 PM  

AntonChigger: Rent Party: AntonChigger:
And that's just what the Church Committee covered.

While it seems that Congo kinda moved from one democracy to another, the rest seem legit. I capitulate to your superior knowledge on this subject matter, sir.


Hey wait a gaddam minute! You can't do that! Now what am I supposed to do?


/Farkin cold war, stained everyone's hands
//Still don't believe the US is the primary aggressor on this planet, now that the cold war is over

If we aren't we are certainly part of the discussion on who is.
Indeed, and see what I did there? Its called admitting ignorance, a skill sadly lost on just about everyone these days. Instead of continuing to argue, I admit I'm wrong, learn from it, and move on.

/I'm republican too, freaky I know


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.
 
2012-10-03 01:15:46 PM  

Abuse Liability: Well said Brantgoose. I won't quote you because I don't feel like scrolling down even further, but well said.

I've been trying to make the point that we are the less irrational of the two countries being discussed here on this thread. Most of the examples (if not all) Rent Party has posted were either in defense of another country (north korea/south korea), or some subversive reason (99% of the time to 'appropriate' that countries resources), but usually a mixture of the two. That may be cold, calculated and selfish, but it's better than a country whose clergy (i.e., people who actually run the country), talk about genocide. Its just too much Germany circa 1945 for me.


Most of the examples I listed happened because of the religious fear of Communism, even if democratically elected by the people of that nation. The most egregious example of that religious fear was Nicaragua, where the Sandinista government was elected in 1984, was openly socialist, and dumped most of the nations resources into Nicaragua through schools, hospitals, gender equality, and other commie things. Reagan's support of the Contra rebels (who rape and murder nuns for fun and profit) had everything to do with that religious dogma.

Today, rather than trembling at the very mention of evil communism, we wet our pants at the knowledge that there is a terrorist under every bed, and keep that aggression going.

We spend more on our military than the next 25 nations combined. And 24 of them our our allies.

Just exactly what do you think we're supposed to do with all that stuff?
 
2012-10-03 01:16:00 PM  
*not
 
2012-10-03 01:16:39 PM  
Silly Iran, white people are the only ones that get to have nukes.
 
2012-10-03 01:18:11 PM  

Rent Party: Abuse Liability: Well said Brantgoose. I won't quote you because I don't feel like scrolling down even further, but well said.

I've been trying to make the point that we are the less irrational of the two countries being discussed here on this thread. Most of the examples (if not all) Rent Party has posted were either in defense of another country (north korea/south korea), or some subversive reason (99% of the time to 'appropriate' that countries resources), but usually a mixture of the two. That may be cold, calculated and selfish, but it's better than a country whose clergy (i.e., people who actually run the country), talk about genocide. Its just too much Germany circa 1945 for me.

Most of the examples I listed happened because of the religious fear of Communism, even if democratically elected by the people of that nation. The most egregious example of that religious fear was Nicaragua, where the Sandinista government was elected in 1984, was openly socialist, and dumped most of the nations resources into Nicaragua through schools, hospitals, gender equality, and other commie things. Reagan's support of the Contra rebels (who rape and murder nuns for fun and profit) had everything to do with that religious dogma.

Today, rather than trembling at the very mention of evil communism, we wet our pants at the knowledge that there is a terrorist under every bed, and keep that aggression going.

We spend more on our military than the next 25 nations combined. And 24 of them our our allies.

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.
 
2012-10-03 01:19:21 PM  

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


*shrug* And a lot of American women vote Republican. Go figure.
 
2012-10-03 01:20:13 PM  

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.
 
2012-10-03 01:22:20 PM  
 
2012-10-03 01:24:03 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.


This list of countries invaded and then given back to their inhabitants is longer for the U.S. than any nation in world history. Throughout history, when an invasion takes palce, the invading country stays and attempts to posess the property they invaded. Be careful what you wish for when you wish for the U.S. to stop being a military force to reason with. Without the US, we could easily get back to a situation where nations randomly invade others, and just keep them.

You say the United States ruined them. I doubt the inhabitants of Japan, Germany, Italy, Panama, many pacific island nations, etc... would say the same.
 
2012-10-03 01:24:30 PM  

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.
 
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 137 of 137 comments

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


Report