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.

(Fox News)   U.N. says Iran is not cooperating with a probe of suspected secret work on nuclear weapons. In a related announcement, the U.N. says the French have a tendency to be rude   (foxnews.com) divider line 25
    More: Obvious, Iran, Yukiya Amano, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, nuclear weapons, states with nuclear weapons, NPT, United Nations General Assembly, nuclear disarmament  
•       •       •

2023 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Nov 2012 at 11:29 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-07 04:59:17 PM  
2 votes:
Ok Y'all I have the solution. Offer the Iranians some CANDU reactors. A CANDU reactor is as safe as us Canadians can make it, it doesn't need enriched uranium and can burn pretty much anything, even nuclear waste from other types of reactors and it does not produce weapons grade anything! It is the perfect solution since there is no way to modify the CANDU to produce weapons grade fissiles. If the Iranians don't jump at it, you know without a doubt that bullshiat is going on. That would be a win for everyone! The Iranians could power their country, with no need to enrich, or maybe they could even get some of that nuclear waste everyone is having troubles storing and burn that.
2012-11-07 01:26:35 PM  
2 votes:

ronaprhys: Mining the gulf would suck for a bit, but we'd get over it. Temporary spike in fuel costs, continued military spending, etc. However, Iran wouldn't be a problem for anyone after that. Their military and government would likely be gone. Not that they wouldn't be a tougher nut to crack than Iraq, but if we were smart about it, we could eliminate their ability to project force or even protect themselves without involving ourselves in rebuilding their country.


Does that sound like something we'd actually do? 

Our track record on that kind of thing isn't so great.
2012-11-07 01:04:52 PM  
2 votes:

DoBeDoBeDo: acidsurfer: fireclown: Why the hell should they?

I've been wondering about this as well...

Because when you sign the NPT and then have or attempt to have Nuclear material you submit to inspections? Yes, even the US allows IAEA inspectors. From the Treaty between the US and the IAEA:

Article 9

(a) (i) The Agency shall secure the consent of the United States to the designation of Agency inspectors to the United States.

(ii) If the United States, either upon proposal of a designation or at any other time after designation has been made, objects to the designation, the Agency shall propose to the United States an alternative designation or designations.

(iii) If, as a result of the repeated refusal of the United States to accept the designation of Agency inspectors, inspections to be conducted under this Agreement would be impeded, such refusal shall be considered by the Board, upon referral by the Director General of the Agency (hereinafter referred to as "the Director General") with a view to its taking appropriate action.
(b) The United States shall take the necessary steps to ensure that Agency inspectors can effectively discharge their functions under this Agreement.

(c) The visits and activities of Agency inspectors shall be so arranged as:

(i) To reduce to a minimum the possible inconvenience and disturbance to the United States and to the peaceful nuclear activities inspected; and

(ii) To ensure protection of industrial secrets or any other confidential information coming to the inspectors knowledge.




Thank you.. That is a pretty good answer.

/why can't you guys be more like him/her?
2012-11-07 12:11:44 PM  
2 votes:

acidsurfer: fireclown: Why the hell should they?

I've been wondering about this as well...


Because when you sign the NPT and then have or attempt to have Nuclear material you submit to inspections? Yes, even the US allows IAEA inspectors. From the Treaty between the US and the IAEA:

Article 9

(a) (i) The Agency shall secure the consent of the United States to the designation of Agency inspectors to the United States.

(ii) If the United States, either upon proposal of a designation or at any other time after designation has been made, objects to the designation, the Agency shall propose to the United States an alternative designation or designations.

(iii) If, as a result of the repeated refusal of the United States to accept the designation of Agency inspectors, inspections to be conducted under this Agreement would be impeded, such refusal shall be considered by the Board, upon referral by the Director General of the Agency (hereinafter referred to as "the Director General") with a view to its taking appropriate action.
(b) The United States shall take the necessary steps to ensure that Agency inspectors can effectively discharge their functions under this Agreement.

(c) The visits and activities of Agency inspectors shall be so arranged as:

(i) To reduce to a minimum the possible inconvenience and disturbance to the United States and to the peaceful nuclear activities inspected; and

(ii) To ensure protection of industrial secrets or any other confidential information coming to the inspectors knowledge.
2012-11-07 12:03:36 PM  
2 votes:

sodomizer: snocone: Turn over a new leaf and when you encounter stupid or it's buttbuddy, dishonesty, kick it in the nutz instead of politely pretending that it makes sense and respecting the crap.

I think this is a generally good rule in life itself. There's too much tolerance of stupidity and insanity. ''Well if that's how you want to do it man..."


Agreed....
"Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil" - Thomas Mann
2012-11-07 12:02:48 PM  
2 votes:

fireclown: Why the hell should they?


Because cooperation would result in an IAEA clean inspection report, which would be sweet to rub everyone's nose in.

FTA, "the IAEA continues to verify that Iran's declared nuclear material is not being diverted from peaceful purposes" - and they continue to say all they want is nuclear energy, not weapons. I hate to be all NTH-NTF but in this case, 1) they can prove their innocence by cooperating with IAEA, and 2) they are NPT signatories, so IAEA asking to see something is like police showing up at your door with a very valid warrant. Not cooperating makes them look guilty, which puts them in a position of having LOTS to be afraid of.
2012-11-07 11:51:35 AM  
2 votes:
I do believe it is time to quit playing along with stoopidity.
It has not been working out very well.

Turn over a new leaf and when you encounter stupid or it's buttbuddy, dishonesty, kick it in the nutz instead of politely pretending that it makes sense and respecting the crap.

My 90yo Gma can not be redirected w/ strawmen, evasion, lies, diversion, et.al. Right to the guilt w/ a vengance every time. And you tell me our "Best and Brightest" can be snowed by any old con? Bulltweet. Drop the act, get responsible adults in office for a change.
Oh, and take the media playthings away from the criminal shills.
2012-11-07 11:49:35 AM  
2 votes:

ristst: "...the U.N. says the French have a tendency to be rude"

I had a friend who spent time in France, and she no trouble at all despite not speaking a word of French.

She is however quite the hot-ness.



Headline should probably say "Parisians." They're an entirely different kind of French, altogether.
2012-11-07 09:33:15 PM  
1 votes:

scroufus: liam76: scroufus: liam76: scroufus: I think if Iran has to admit to a nuke program and do that IAEA then so does Israel

Then I think know you don't understand how treaties work.

I dont think you know how revolutions work either. Iran is not under that treaty any longer. That was their old government which was completely destroyed and a new entirely different government was setup.

You would have a point if they said the treaty didn't apply. You would have a point if they never tried to trade for things under the treaty. You would have a point if they never allowed in inspectors.


They have never said the treaty doesn't apply.

They accepted nuclear technology and materials under the NPT after the revolution.

They have allowed inspectors in.

You have no point.



But I guess you missed the part about the Native Americans I was talking about.

Didn't miss it, it in no way applies.

They have let inspectors in. They have never shown to be building actual nukes. Before we jump into another war for WMDs we might want to make sure that they really have them. The NPT says that you can build Nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. There has been 0 evidence that they are building a weapon. Its pretty much all speculation. Even if Iran is secertly building a Nuke program that is their choice regardless of any treaty. Do you think a treaty stops the US from doing what it wants? Or Russia? Whats good for the goose.... I got some respect for Iran for standing its ground with all the Hypocrisy that goes on with the major " do as I say not as I do" world players.


They have not let them go where the treaty says they are allowed to go.

They have never been shown to be building actual nukes, but they have been shown to be processing fuel beyond what they would need for peaceful means.

The bolded part shows, once again, you don;t understand the treaty.

Have fun going on about what people should do under a treaty you don't get.
2012-11-07 08:37:47 PM  
1 votes:

scroufus: liam76: scroufus: I think if Iran has to admit to a nuke program and do that IAEA then so does Israel

Then I think know you don't understand how treaties work.

I dont think you know how revolutions work either. Iran is not under that treaty any longer. That was their old government which was completely destroyed and a new entirely different government was setup.


You would have a point if they said the treaty didn't apply. You would have a point if they never tried to trade for things under the treaty. You would have a point if they never allowed in inspectors.


They have never said the treaty doesn't apply.

They accepted nuclear technology and materials under the NPT after the revolution.

They have allowed inspectors in.

You have no point.



But I guess you missed the part about the Native Americans I was talking about.

Didn't miss it, it in no way applies.
2012-11-07 08:02:56 PM  
1 votes:

scroufus: I think if Iran has to admit to a nuke program and do that IAEA then so does Israel


Then I think know you don't understand how treaties work.
2012-11-07 07:13:21 PM  
1 votes:
@DoBeDoBeDo "Yes, even the US allows IAEA inspectors. "

Actually, the IAEA only has authority for CIVILIAN inspections. Any military nuclear facilities are beyond its mandate. The US doesn't allow foreign inspections of its military nuclear facilities, whether on a military base or in a submarine.

Iran could have the same protections, but they don't want to admit that their nuclear program has a military component.
2012-11-07 06:18:24 PM  
1 votes:
The Iranians are attempting to maintain a static null norm of always being about to make a nuclear weapon. They get much more mileage out of that than they would out of actually having one - it would be a bit of a white elephant for them to actually possess.
My guess is that they will keep on with a state of perpetual brinkmanship. With the Israelis champing at the bit, it's a risky game.
I hate America being mixed up with these biblical savages and their ancient quarrels - I wouldn't trust any of them nearly as far as I could throw them.
2012-11-07 05:50:30 PM  
1 votes:

Allen262: Any one one crying but but.... Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968 making Iran's nuclear program subject to IAEA HOWEVER 1979 Iranian Revolution overthrow the government that signed NPT.

I haven't see any thing that says the the CURRENT Iranian government has signed NPT. If the current Iranian government has NOT signed NPT. They are not a part of NPT.


The new governments have to explicitly refute old treaties for that to matter.

Otherwise the US would have to resign every damn treaty on a 4 to 8 year basis, and Italy about every six months or so.
2012-11-07 05:40:24 PM  
1 votes:

Allen262: Any one one crying but but.... Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968 making Iran's nuclear program subject to IAEA HOWEVER 1979 Iranian Revolution overthrow the government that signed NPT.

I haven't see any thing that says the the CURRENT Iranian government has signed NPT. If the current Iranian government has NOT signed NPT. They are not a part of NPT


Calling yourself a new govt doesn't necessarily negate a treaty. You would have a point if they never tried to trade with NPT members, however since the revolution they have traded for nuclear technology with countries under the NPT, which means they do accept it. If there was any value in your argument you would probably see Iran arguing that case.
2012-11-07 04:17:40 PM  
1 votes:

Gdalescrboz: I always found most farkers to have usually at the least a basic understanding of major issues in international politics. How Iran signing the NPT eludes so many is perplexing



Antagonizing "the West" automatically makes Iran "noble" and "justified" and nullifies all existing legal constraints they may have that would interfere with said antagonization. Because Israel.
2012-11-07 02:11:00 PM  
1 votes:

acidsurfer: fireclown: Why the hell should they?

I've been wondering about this as well...


Because they're parked in proximity to a nation that won't give a shiat what the UN, US, NATO, or anyone else says, and will rip them to shreds if they have an excuse to.

If the Iranians really just want it for energy, fine. I think that they could be accommodated. However, this ongoing resistance to UN inspection efforts is incredibly dangerous. Israel will have no qualms about sending some jets their way if they can even barely justify it. Right now, the Iranians are giving them quite the case.
2012-11-07 01:39:27 PM  
1 votes:

liam76: They would be more of a problem for the next 30 years.

You would get allt he young peopel who aren't that keen on the theocracy to fall in step witht hem after the great satan turned out to be exactly what they described.


That's definitely a risk. Now, depending on how we went about it we may be able to avoid a bunch of that hatred. However....

toraque: Does that sound like something we'd actually do? 

Our track record on that kind of thing isn't so great.


No, no it doesn't. We'd either half-ass the bombings so they didn't really do much in the long term or insist on invading and having Iraq 2.0 Electric Boogaloo.
2012-11-07 01:16:54 PM  
1 votes:

ronaprhys: However, Iran wouldn't be a problem for anyone after that. Their military and government would likely be gone. Not that they wouldn't be a tougher nut to crack than Iraq, but if we were smart about it, we could eliminate their ability to project force or even protect themselves without involving ourselves in rebuilding their country


They would be more of a problem for the next 30 years.

You would get allt he young peopel who aren't that keen on the theocracy to fall in step witht hem after the great satan turned out to be exactly what they described.
2012-11-07 01:12:55 PM  
1 votes:

toraque: Israel does not have the capability to significantly set back Iran's nuclear program by themselves. They were able to bomb Iraq's Osiraq reactor as that was a single installation and Iraq is much closer than Iran, but Iran's nuclear program is distributed across a large number of sites, many of which are hardened against air attack.


Depends on the intelligence they've got, how they strike, etc. Most likely, you're correct - but I wouldn't rule it out.

Israel can, however, drop a few bombs in Iran and force Iran to react one way or another, which would almost certainly drag us into the mess whether we want it or not. That's the real danger for us.

Yes - this could happen. In the short term, that would be the suck. In the long term, it could lead to other nations realizing we mean business and that might help prevent them from screwing around. However, with fundie crazies leading your government, that might not matter at all.

It's not even clear that we could do much to stop Iran's program with anything short of a sustained air campaign. If Iran uses the nuclear option that it already has-mining the gulf-then we'll almost certainly have to try, but the costs of that will be horrendous. We'd be better served by shooting Israel's planes down ourselves.

Mining the gulf would suck for a bit, but we'd get over it. Temporary spike in fuel costs, continued military spending, etc. However, Iran wouldn't be a problem for anyone after that. Their military and government would likely be gone. Not that they wouldn't be a tougher nut to crack than Iraq, but if we were smart about it, we could eliminate their ability to project force or even protect themselves without involving ourselves in rebuilding their country.
2012-11-07 12:33:27 PM  
1 votes:

darkedgefan: oooooh, I bet Iran is really scared of Obama. Of course they will not cooperate. Obama will do NOTHING to stop Iran from getting a nuke and those crazy mullahs know it.

And the world will be much more dangerous for it. Thank you, Obama Voters!

Go Fark yourselves.

I voted for Romney and I am proud of my vote. Obama will fark this country up even more and it is not my fault.


Really??? Starting early, I see. 3/10.
2012-11-07 12:24:41 PM  
1 votes:
DECMATH: "cause cooperation would result in an IAEA clean inspection report, which would be sweet to rub everyone's nose in."

Please. The Warmongers would just insist the Iranians spirited away the weapons grade plutonium to hidey holes in the Syrian desert. They're quite reality-resistant.

The correct answer is that they *should* want to cooperate, because the clean report would gut the international consensus to erect/maintain/tighten sanctions. Sanctions which have this nasty tendency to be felt by the people, who won't much like their own government for it. (In this age of information, the average Iranian knows damn well that any impact sanctions have on their own daily life are the direct result of obstinate mullahs. Maybe, before, that wasn't true. But now? Pretty true.) And Iran already has something of a lingering discontent among its people. Particularly after seemingly *everyone else* had more success in the Arab Spring than they did.

Which, ironically perhaps, is exactly why Iran *can't* cooperate. Their remaining support is almost exclusively hard-line. They can't be seen to bow to international pressure, let alone the Great Satan. Taking the rational deal would be like expecting a Tea Party Republican to sign off on any legislation that looked remotely like a compromise on taxes and spending: their own support would evaporate overnight and they'd be out on their ass.

Which is a decidedly messier transition, when you've been running a brutal and oppressive regime.
2012-11-07 12:10:49 PM  
1 votes:
It's not going to matter anymore. Israel said they will not sit idly by and do nothing. The Iranian nuclear arms program is either going to be blown to hell and back or turned to slag.
2012-11-07 11:58:12 AM  
1 votes:

BigNumber12: ristst: "...the U.N. says the French have a tendency to be rude"

I had a friend who spent time in France, and she no trouble at all despite not speaking a word of French.

She is however quite the hot-ness.


Headline should probably say "Parisians." They're an entirely different kind of French, altogether.


Headline should probably say "Parisians." They're an entirely different kind of French
2012-11-07 11:36:23 AM  
1 votes:
Why the hell should they?
 
Displayed 25 of 25 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


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report