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.

(Jerusalem Post)   Iran is building 16 new nuclear processing plants and announces discovery of large new uranium deposits. Totally for peaceful purposes, of course   (jpost.com) divider line 72
    More: Scary, Atomic Energy Organization, Iran, uranium deposits, uranium enrichment, Danny Ayalon, Caspian Sea, Sea of Oman, mining  
•       •       •

2511 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Feb 2013 at 1:21 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Archived thread
2013-02-23 10:49:21 AM
6 votes:
A nuclear Iran is good for the Middle East.  There is no power balance in the region, as the US-Israel alliance dominates the region.  That is why it is so unstable.  A counterforce in a nuclear Iran will force Israel to start treating it's neighbors as equals, as they are.

The reason Israel is so terrified of a nuclear Iran is the above.   They don't want to see Muslim states as equals, they want to dominate them.
2013-02-23 10:32:25 AM
6 votes:
if they want a nuke then eventually they're gonna get one.  we can slow them down, make it really expensive...but in the end, if Iran wants a nuclear weapon (or a couple of reactors) they'll get one.

what we need to decide is how we're going to deal with that reality.
2013-02-23 01:49:51 PM
5 votes:
Dear Iran,

Let the central banks in and only sell oil in USD. We can can convince our moronic population to go to war over wearing white on Labor Day if we fell like it.

Sincerely,

USA *

*A subsidiary of Israel Corp.
2013-02-23 01:44:32 PM
4 votes:
hey Israel, go fight your own damn wars.
2013-02-23 12:00:51 PM
4 votes:

b2theory: GAT_00: A nuclear Iran is good for the Middle East.  There is no power balance in the region, as the US-Israel alliance dominates the region.  That is why it is so unstable.  A counterforce in a nuclear Iran will force Israel to start treating it's neighbors as equals, as they are.

The reason Israel is so terrified of a nuclear Iran is the above.   They don't want to see Muslim states as equals, they want to dominate them.

You're forgetting that Israel is not Iran's principle enemy in the region. Will you think it's a great idea when Saudi Arabia starts building a bomb?


Then you would not only have a balance against Israel, but you'd have a parity among the Muslim sects.

Nukes make war less likely, not more. When a fight over a piece of land can lead to total annihilation, you wonder a lot more if that land is worth it.
2013-02-23 11:30:58 AM
4 votes:
I don't think it matters if Iran gets a nuke. While they play the zealot card now and then, Iran would realize how much it would lose if they actually used one. They aren't stupid or crazy.

Best Korea on the other hand might, I am led to believe, turn one over to al qaeda. May even pay for them to do it and they don't have a lot to lose.

/waves at NSA
2013-02-23 10:49:24 AM
4 votes:
They've been six months away from acquiring a nuke for like 15 years.
2013-02-23 05:13:52 PM
3 votes:
Israel is like Lucy with the football.

images.wikia.com

Israel  told W. Bush that if Saddam was gone, they would feel secure enough to create a Palistinian state. He saw it as the road to peace. Of course they had no intention. They played that scmuck like a fiddle.

Once we have "regime change" in Iran,(you heard it here first) Israel well want us to go after Putin. They will want the Jewish oligarchs reinstated to control that country's resources again. Their enemies list is endless.
We need to say "enough".
2013-02-23 03:07:55 PM
3 votes:

rappy: You're a bunch of f*cking sheep, you know that? You f*cks will buy anything they feed to you


No kidding.  Someone says, "Israel is behind this," and people believe it.
2013-02-23 02:03:47 PM
3 votes:
Stops reading at "Jerusalem Post".

We get it, Jews. We're supposed to do something about this. Now, please stop bombarding us with war propoganda. I'm sure your US politicians will eventually get around to it.
2013-02-23 01:45:43 PM
3 votes:

Uncle Tractor: OK world, give it a rest. Iran is going to get it's nukes and there is nothing you can do about it short of nuking them or going for a bigger version of the Afghan / Iraqi clusterfark. Also: Iranian nuke? BFD. Look what happened when Pakistan and India both got nukes: A big fat bucket of nothing.

This entire "OMFG Iran haz nukes" is just hype and fear-mongering. Ease up. Let it go. It's not the end of the world.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 450x600]

/but you might want to ask yourself why some people keep trying to turn this into such a big thing


Simply put:  There are quasi-religious roots to EVERY power structure, including America's.  Most of these belief systems agree on one thing:  The crusades did happen, and there hasn't been a winner yet.  "christians" and "jews" think "muslims" are muddy apes who wipe their asses with their bare hands.  "muslims" think "christians" and "jews" are the bane of existence, and left to their own devices, will devour the world whole with no remorse.  I suppose at it's core, the "christians" and "jews" believe the same about the "muslims".

Thing about it is this:  No one has the balls to call a spade a spade.  It's racism.  You look and think differently, so you aren't equal.  My way is the best way, you are scum.  That's it.  All of this theatre is just to keep PC appearances.  The crusades will never end.  It's just a world wide, jet-setting pilgrimage now.  But both sides have groups who feel the need to protect their respective sheep.
2013-02-23 01:37:57 PM
3 votes:
OK world, give it a rest. Iran is going to get it's nukes and there is nothing you can do about it short of nuking them or going for a bigger version of the Afghan / Iraqi clusterfark. Also: Iranian nuke? BFD. Look what happened when Pakistan and India both got nukes: A big fat bucket of nothing.

This entire "OMFG Iran haz nukes" is just hype and fear-mongering. Ease up. Let it go. It's not the end of the world.

upload.wikimedia.org

/but you might want to ask yourself why some people keep trying to turn this into such a big thing
2013-02-24 12:35:45 PM
2 votes:

BronyMedic: Uncle Tractor: Bomb, yes. That happens every day. Nuke? No. Nukes aren't like most bombs. If they were, Pakistan and India would have swapped nukes years ago.

India and Pakistan are kept in check by every other nuclear power around them,


Any nuclear power with the range to keep India and Pakistan in check also have the range to reach Israel and Iran.
2013-02-24 10:16:48 AM
2 votes:

Uncle Tractor: IOW, you're just making shiat up again. Have fun playing with your strawmen.


How does pointing exactly how the basis of your statement is completely wrong 'making shiat up' ?

Uncle Tractor: As I've said over and over; I'm talking about nukes. Pretending that I said "muslims won't hurt other muslims" only proves, again, what a dishonest POS you are. This is why talking with you is a waste of time.


Last time i checked 'nukes' falls into the category of 'hurting'. As i already explained.
As usual you are a naive ignorant Useful Idiot who has no clue what the hell he's talking about.

Uncle Tractor: In contrast to you, who just makers shiat up as you go along?


Oh yes, i made it up that muslims have no problems slaughtering other muslims in any means at their disposal. Especially if they are islamic fundamentalist nutjobs.

Uncle Tractor: Your "knowledge" of the people there sounds like something belched out by some Fox News bimbo.


Typical response of a naive westerner who can't seem tocomprehend that other cultures no not conform to what he perceives as normal and rational.
2013-02-23 05:06:34 PM
2 votes:

vygramul: It's amazing how many people assume that Israel provides some kind of base for us for imperialism.  Israel doesn't do anything of the sort.


Not on behalf of the US, anyway.

upload.wikimedia.org
2013-02-23 04:11:04 PM
2 votes:

indarwinsshadow: Jews were almost exterminated by fantics in WWII, and face a legitimate threat by Iran. I don't blame them for wanting to protect their people. But tying it to Purim? Dude, break out the tinfoil.


He's a bigot, dude.  Amos shows up in just about any thread that mentions Jews.  He claims he's anti-Zionist, but his hostile commentary can be found well outside threads that have anything to do with Israel.
2013-02-23 04:08:03 PM
2 votes:

Amos Quito: Any Pie Left: If they were serious about peaceful nuclear power, they'd choose thorium and the world would have to shut up.

Israel has been doing their best to con the US (or whoever) into BOMBING THE SHIAT out of Iran for over 20 years. The nukes are just their endlessly recycled excuse for age-old blood lust.

The animosity between "Israelites" and "Persians"  goes back thousands of years (see the Biblical book of Esther)

Coincidentally, TODAY begins the Jewish holiday of PURIM, which (coincidentally) commemorates the Jews' victory over PERSIANS that (supposedly) wanted to do them wrong oh so long ago.

Old hatred dies hard - and Israel STILL has a hard-on for Iran.

Purim. Today. Coincidence.


I'm sure you believe it.

And just like every other bigot, you know Jewish holidays better than most Israelis.
2013-02-23 03:28:58 PM
2 votes:

George Babbitt: http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=2658


We were talking about the selling of an actual nuke.  Not plans, yellowcake, advice, or building a nuke plant for someone.
2013-02-23 03:25:59 PM
2 votes:

George Babbitt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke


Try reading your own citations.  The "suitcase nuke" is a term popularized by corporate media wanting to sell a scare.  The weapons are technically small enough to fit in a suitcase -- a BIG suitcase -- but they are still extremely heavy.  The bare warhead -- with no deployment technology whatsoever -- weighs 50 pounds and had a yield of 0.2kt.  Tack what you'd need to actually deploy the thing and it goes up to 100 pounds -- not exactly your typical carry-on, yet not much more destructive than a well-designed car bomb.  It's experimental tech, only first-world nations have them and there are massive downsides in trying to get one.

That's all from your own link BTW.
2013-02-23 03:19:36 PM
2 votes:

George Babbitt: vygramul: J. Frank Parnell: [25.media.tumblr.com image 720x655]

Why is Israel red on that map?

Because it's showing where U.S. Military bases are...oh wait...must just be the 51st State labeling.


It's amazing how many people assume that Israel provides some kind of base for us for imperialism.  Israel doesn't do anything of the sort.  At least, not in an tangible manner.  It's all just vague hand-waving.
2013-02-23 03:08:32 PM
2 votes:
25.media.tumblr.com
2013-02-23 03:05:43 PM
2 votes:

Uncle Tractor: Iran is not going to nuke Israel. Why? Because 20% of the israeli population is muslim. Not only that, the fallout from a nuke in Israel will almost certainly end up in a muslim country or five ...or maybe in Europe. The iranian leaders might be crazy, but they're not that crazy. After all, they've managed to stay in power ever since 1979


The Iranians don't give a flying fark about the 20% of muslims living in Israel or elsewhere. They didn't give a flying fark when Hizballah, iran's proxy terrorist organization,  was bombing northern Israel and hitting Arab villages. They especially don't give a fark since they are non-shiate muslims.

It's not as if muslims slaughtering other muslims is such a rarity in the past or at this moment in the Middle East.

GAT_00: A nuclear Iran is good for the Middle East.  There is no power balance in the region, as the US-Israel alliance dominates the region.  That is why it is so unstable.  A counterforce in a nuclear Iran will force Israel to start treating it's neighbors as equals, as they are


Yeah it's not as if Iran arms, trains, funds and support various fundamentalist terrorist organization with 'death to Israel' as a primary objective (not to mention Iran's own calls for Israel's destruction) and there is no risk whatsoever of any weapons of any kind leaving their borders. No sir.
I also suggest looking at other countries in the middle-east, not Israel. Start with Saudi-Arabia. If you think nukes in the hands of Iran's mullahs will bring stability to a region like the Middle-East where countries (other than Israel) have been fighting each other for centuries or before when they were a bunch of arab tribes slaughtering each other, than you should get some kind of award for your naiveté.
2013-02-23 02:56:40 PM
2 votes:

Blairr: rappy: We are a bunch of f*cking hypocrites in America. We don't want anyone to have weapons yet we can have the most deadly weapons in the world. because that makes sense

It's called a monopoly of force and it's a central tenant to societal peace.


Or, it could be that just because I have a gun doesn't mean it's a good idea for the drunk and crazy crackhead down the street to own one.  There's nothing hypocritical about that.
2013-02-23 02:50:02 PM
2 votes:

indarwinsshadow: I know this isn't going to be popular, but, Iran has the right to nuclear weapons. They have the right to process nuclear material to make weapons and finally, America is the only country on the entire planet that's used nukes in anger against another country. I'm not saying we should be happy but, Russia has nukes, and it's not like they're friendly towards the west, China has nukes and again they're not fans of us, and finally North Korea has nukes. Iran isn't in the business of making us happy. They're in the nuclear war business. If America has them, and by their track record they're more of a threat to the world than Iran is, then most countries also have the right to possess nukes. It's just the way it is.

Yep, it's not going to sit well with a lot of Americans.


There's these things called treaties. A bunch of countries get together, and work out the wording. Then, if they agree to it, they can ratify it internally.
Much like the laws in your city, these 'treaties' are how we all get along on this little planet.

Something called the Nonproliferation Treaty might be a valid concept here.
1. If you don't already have them, you may not pursue the construction of a nuclear weapon
2. If you already have them, you must work to reduce your inventory
3. If you already have them, you must not assist others to get them

Interestingly, such a treaty might contain specific wording to allow a signatory nation to back out. Iran (or some version of Iran) signed on to this 'treaty'.
If they wish to pursue building nuclear weapons, let them declare so publicly.
2013-02-23 02:20:48 PM
2 votes:
I know this isn't going to be popular, but, Iran has the right to nuclear weapons. They have the right to process nuclear material to make weapons and finally, America is the only country on the entire planet that's used nukes in anger against another country. I'm not saying we should be happy but, Russia has nukes, and it's not like they're friendly towards the west, China has nukes and again they're not fans of us, and finally North Korea has nukes. Iran isn't in the business of making us happy. They're in the nuclear war business. If America has them, and by their track record they're more of a threat to the world than Iran is, then most countries also have the right to possess nukes. It's just the way it is.

Yep, it's not going to sit well with a lot of Americans.
2013-02-23 02:06:10 PM
2 votes:

traylor: But now that any crazy motherfarker can have one


That's anything but the truth.  These devices are and will always be large, complex and relatively easy to detect, making any sort of two-bit terrorist wanting one very unlikely to know how to handle it, let alone deploy it successfully.  They also lack the resources to make them, and who'd sell them one?  Even the most megalomanic tinpot dictator is unlikely to part with a nuke because dictators have something to lose.  Flaunting one may impress the masses but they're enthralled anyway; they may demand concessions from other countries but they're already wealthy anyway.  The upside is minimal and the downside (if I actually use the damn thing) is that Dragonchild's Great Imperial Palace will be turned into a radioactive parking lot.

Note I am NOT resorting to any sort of naive, kumbaya assumptions about human nature or intelligence.  Humans are basically stupid assholes.  I do believe North Korea wants a nuke, but the reason why North Korea would never deploy a nuke is because their dictators are greedy, selfish assholes at heart, and greedy people don't take risks if there's nothing to gain.

You know why Iran is hot for a nuke?  Because they saw what the U.S. did to Iraq, and they know they're next.  Iraq didn't have nukes and the GOP, being the Internet Tough Guys they are, went in basically knowing that they'd be largely unopposed.  Now the GOP is beating the war drums over Iran, so Iran knows they have to get a nuke before the U.S. invades them for, well, the assumption they have one.  Note the U.S. never invaded Pakistan even after knowing bin Laden was there.  We went in with a few SEALs who took the guy out leaving the power structure intact (despite their treachery), which is much preferable to the full-blown invasion treatment Iraq got.

If I was a country, I'd want a nuke too -- for the single, sole purpose of scaring the shiats out of the GOP.  You basically just get the thing and sit on it.  Mutually Assured Destruction works, but only if it's mutual.  It won't stop the various elite squad skirmishes, but governments that have nukes are basically immune to invasion.
2013-02-23 01:43:38 PM
2 votes:

Hrist: You know, I would like to agree with you.  I'd be inclined to do so if I didn't know that culture there.  If Iran suddenly found themselves with decent nuclear missile capability, it'd go something like this.  "We're gonna take back that land we're 100% sure Israel stole from us.  If you resist we'll nuke your capital."  We might give in one or two times, then it's going to be nuclear war over something silly.


Iran is not going to nuke Israel. Why? Because 20% of the israeli population is muslim. Not only that, the fallout from a nuke in Israel will almost certainly end up in a muslim country or five ...or maybe in Europe. The iranian leaders might be crazy, but they're not that crazy. After all, they've managed to stay in power ever since 1979(?).
2013-02-23 01:37:15 PM
2 votes:

clipperbox: GAT_00: Nukes make war less likely, not more.


an armed society is a polite society...


Yup, its hilarious watching derp spewing about precious gun rights in one thread and wargarbl about how iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear capabilities in the next.
2013-02-23 01:35:37 PM
2 votes:

clipperbox: GAT_00: Nukes make war less likely, not more.


an armed society is a polite society...


I'm just going to leave this here..

s3.amazonaws.com
2013-02-23 01:29:27 PM
2 votes:
upload.wikimedia.org
2013-02-23 01:26:22 PM
2 votes:

Weaver95: if they want a nuke then eventually they're gonna get one.  we can slow them down, make it really expensive...but in the end, if Iran wants a nuclear weapon (or a couple of reactors) they'll get one.

what we need to decide is how we're going to deal with that reality.


Wait.... Your saying that if some country really, really, really, really wants something no force for good, be it sanctions or monetary in nature; can stop them from getting it?

/ it's almost like prohibition doesn't work in any form
2013-02-23 12:01:06 PM
2 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: They've been six months away from acquiring a nuke for like 15 years.


I suspect they will still be six months away IN 15 years.
2013-02-26 09:58:35 AM
1 votes:

Amos Quito: indarwinsshadow: Amos Quito: TappingTheVein: Amos Quito: Learn the difference between "Semites" and Zionists, Tappy.


Wow. You're a whole bunch of crazy, you know that right? If you're smart, and it appears you're semi intelligent, you'll go and get some professional help for whatever the hell is wrong with you. You're really not normal at all?


I have to question: On what input did you base you assessment?

Tell you what, friend, if you you disagree with some (all?) of my observations, why not name some specifics, and we'll discuss them individually, and in their rational/historical context.

Otherwise just read the linked threads and the references I provide therein for your personal edification.

Mmmkay?

:-)


You're kidding right? You know you're not normal. No one in their sane mind blames one group for all of the worlds ills. It's not just ludicrous, it's an illness. I don't have to diagnose you. In my job as a police officer, I meet messed up people everyday. They don't know they're messed up, but everyone else does. It's a sad situation. You don't know how mentally ill you are, you just assume the problem is everyone else. I'm not putting you down when I say you should go an talk with someone. You really should. There's lots of free help available at hospitals and help lines. You'd feel better, and maybe get the help you need. You don't realize how ill you are.
2013-02-25 07:34:25 AM
1 votes:

Uncle Tractor: Nuke is not synonymous with attack. Never has been and will never be, and there is nothing you can do about it.


Again, with visual aids:

And you need to finally grasp that rationality and sanity are not the strong points of islamic fundamentalist nutjobs and when they can they will  attackin any means at their disposal.Any means, that include nukes, chemical weapons, anything.

Especially, and i'm sure you had no farking clue about this, when said muslims belong to what they perceive as worse than infidels (shia vs. sunni). We are talking about people with the mentality of joy over  blowing themselves up for the chance of murdering women and children, like i said you are extremely naive if you think they will hold back when they have their hands on the most powerful weapon, especially, and this is something you have a very hard time getting, when they themselves won't attack but use one of their proxy jihadist terrorist organizations.
2013-02-25 05:56:24 AM
1 votes:

Uncle Tractor: No, it means Iran isn't going to nuke muslims. "Nuke" is not synonymous with "attack." You need to work on your reading skills.


And you need to finally grasp that rationality and sanity are not the strong points of islamic fundamentalist nutjobs and when they can they will attackin any means at their disposal. Any means, that include nukes, chemical weapons, anything.

Especially, and i'm sure you had no farking clue about this, when said muslims belong to what they perceive as worse than infidels (shia vs. sunni). We are talking about people with the mentality of joy over  blowing themselves up for the chance of murdering women and children, like i said you are extremely naive if you think they will hold back when they have their hands on the most powerful weapon, especially, and this is something you have a very hard time getting, when they themselves won't attack but use one of their proxy jihadist terrorist organizations.

And yes when you said Iran won't nuke (attack, harm, mutilate, insert whatever, it doesn't matter) them because of a large population of muslims, you had no farking clue what you were talking about.
2013-02-25 03:23:13 AM
1 votes:

Amos Quito: Lots of great info there, Tappy.

I suggest you print it and take a copy to your therapist.


Hard not to notice how you gave up on trying to squirm your way out of the anti-semitic conspiracy extravaganza and instead focused on  Uncle Tractor's reading comprehension problems.

Oh and FYI: "Iran is not going to nuke Israel. Why? Because 20% of the israeli population is muslim " means Iran is not going to attack muslims. This is kindergarten level reading comprehension so i understand why you both seem to have a difficult time with this.
2013-02-24 03:30:20 PM
1 votes:

Amos Quito: Learn the difference between "Semites" and Zionists, Tappy.


Always hilarious coming from Fark's resident anti-semite.
You mean like you blamed the jews for the deaths in Holodomor ? "rationalizing" the slaughter of jews by Ukrainians as revenge against the jews ?
Farking hilarious anti-semitism bullshiat but the icing on the cake was when a  Lithuanian  farker posted that you are talking nonsense.

Blaming the jews for their own slaughter is classic anti-semitism. Especially when pulling that kind of lying bullshiat out of your ass.

Amos Quito: Theories" implies that they are merely conjecture, and not based on historically accurate evidence.


You mean like your conspiracy bullshiat based on out of context quotes ?

Amos Quito: How much memory do you believe your imaginary "files" might require?


You must hate google site search with a passion. With it i can pull out all your anti-semitic gems:

Amos Quito: The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion ? based on fact! we can't discredit that fine piece of work just because a tiny bit of it is a forgery..

Amos Quito:The Holocaust was a zionist conspiracy! You see there was this zionist scheme..

Amod Quito:The revolution in Egypt ?  It was Israel all along. A Mossad job.

Amos Quito: some more Zionists Holocaust scheming.

Did you know that Google was founded by jews ? this is part of the conspiracy!

Amos Quito: sometimes wonder if your delusions run so deep that you actually believe them.


Amos Quito: Israel is behind JFK's murder.

Tell us again how the Jews caused WWI and WWII, are behind 9/11, JFK's murder but do it in your distinctive style by insinuating only so when people call you out on your anti-semitism you can roll your eyes and say 'but i never said that!' like a retarded child.  <--- a prevention clause, because predictable anti-semite is predictable.
2013-02-24 01:01:49 PM
1 votes:

Uncle Tractor: In the way that you've done no such thing.


Besides providing proof for my statement, yes you're absolutely right..

Uncle Tractor: My original claim was that the iranians would not want to nuke Israel because of it's large muslim minority


Which, as i explained in detail, is utter bullshiat.

Uncle Tractor: and because the fallout would go to Europe or other muslim countries


You mean other non-shiate muslim countries ? oh i'm sure they can manage.
And you, of course, choose to ignore the parts where i mention how Iran will never use such a weapon themselves.

Uncle Tractor: ...Which you use to claim that I've said "muslims won't hurt each other." You're a liar, IOW.


"Iran is not going to nuke Israel. Why? Because 20% of the israeli population is muslim. "
-Uncle Tractor

Your evil twin posted that gem ?

Uncle Tractor: ...And now you're moving the goal posts.


How does pointing out how you have no farking clue about the issue equals 'moving the goal posts'?
I only mentioned your lack of understanding of the rationality involved about 3 times now.
2013-02-24 12:50:48 PM
1 votes:

Amos Quito: Same ol' shiftless Tappy.

Always lying around.


I can post all your anti-semitic rants, lying bullshiat and "zionists" conspiracy theories but i'll probably crash the Fark server.
Did i ever tell you that i consider your 'zionists are behind JFK's murder' as a favorite of mine ?
2013-02-24 12:38:58 PM
1 votes:

TappingTheVein: BronyMedic: Again. You're assuming you're dealing with SANE, RATIONAL people here

And that is exactly the point where Uncle Tractorfails. Like many westerners who know jack shiat about arab middle-eastern mentality.


There's a lot more rationality than we give people credit for.  That being said, what scares me is not the Osama bin Laden leader-types.  They're actually pretty cowardly.  But if a childless Mullah on his deathbed decides he wants to be remembered for being The One who destroyed Israel (and as bad as the retaliation would be, Islam would still exist, and Israel would not)...
2013-02-24 11:17:18 AM
1 votes:

Uncle Tractor: In the way that you're still making shiat up.


You, of course, didn't answer the question.
Again: How does pointing exactly how the basis of your statement is completely wrong equals 'making shiat up' ?

Uncle Tractor: Let's see if I can explain it to you: Nuking someone means hurting them (obviously). Hurting someone does not mean nuking them. You already know this, of course, but you're a lying POS so you're probably just going to keep on farking that chicken.


How can you keep ignoring the facts when they are presented to you, very clearly,  that muslims have no problems whatsoever to slaughter each other in the most horrific means at their disposal ?
Is admitting that they do cracks up some of that adorable naiveté ? is admitting that sanity and rationality are not the forte of  islamic fundamentalists nutjobs too stressful for you ?
2013-02-23 11:08:15 PM
1 votes:

indarwinsshadow: Amos Quito: Any Pie Left: If they were serious about peaceful nuclear power, they'd choose thorium and the world would have to shut up.

Israel has been doing their best to con the US (or whoever) into BOMBING THE SHIAT out of Iran for over 20 years. The nukes are just their endlessly recycled excuse for age-old blood lust.

The animosity between "Israelites" and "Persians"  goes back thousands of years (see the Biblical book of Esther)

Coincidentally, TODAY begins the Jewish holiday of PURIM, which (coincidentally) commemorates the Jews' victory over PERSIANS that (supposedly) wanted to do them wrong oh so long ago.

Old hatred dies hard - and Israel STILL has a hard-on for Iran.

Purim. Today. Coincidence.

Jews were almost exterminated by fantics in WWII, and face a legitimate threat by Iran. I don't blame them for wanting to protect their people. But tying it to Purim? Dude, break out the tinfoil.


Reminds me of someone

Streicher's was the most melodramatic of the hangings carried out that night. At the bottom of the scaffold he cried out "Heil Hitler!" When he mounted the platform, he delivered his last sneering reference to Jewish scripture, snapping "Purim-Fest 1946!".
2013-02-23 06:27:09 PM
1 votes:

Uncle Tractor: You may have lived there, but did you ever actually interact with any of the natives?


If that's a serious question than you're either a troll or a bigger idiot than i thought.

Uncle Tractor:  [i560.photobucket.com image 500x357]

You seem to be having a difficult time accepting the fact that your claim about 'muslims won't hurt other muslims' was retarded. Is that some sort of denial mechanism ?
2013-02-23 05:50:19 PM
1 votes:

Uncle Tractor: You do know the difference between fighting the same kind of war the world has seen for the past forever and actually nuking someone, right?

No?


Keep putting your faith in islamic fundamentalists who had no qualms slaughtering hundreds of thousands of their fellow muslims. Islamic fundamentalists who use proxy terrorist organizations for their 'Jihad' to avoid direct blame.

Sure i know the difference and unlike you i'm not a naive idiot having lived in the middle east for close to 4 decades.

Uncle Tractor: ...And once again we see that you are incapable of participating in an adult conversation.


Judging by your ignorance regarding the 'but they won't hurt other muslims!' i'd say you are incapable of participating in any conversation about this, period.

Uncle Tractor: Yes, because wars are only happen in the ME.


My post was specifically about your stupid comment of 'muslims won't hurt other muslims'. if that wasn't clear enough for you, too bad.
2013-02-23 05:26:38 PM
1 votes:

Uncle Tractor: Maybe not, but they do care about not being the first country to nuke / irradiate another muslim country. They also care about not irradiating Europe (crazy but not republican crazy).


Yeah because it's not like Iran ever fought any muslim countries or killed any muslims eh ? right  ?
let's give the fundamentalist muslims the benefit of the doubt.

Hey at least you understood the stupidity of your 'they won't fire at Israel because 18%' comment.

Uncle Tractor: It's not as if muslims people slaughtering other muslims people is such a rarity in the past or at this moment in the Middle East anywhere on the planet Earth.

FIFY


Spoken truly like someone who doesn't have a clue about middle-Eastern history. Hell, even current events.
2013-02-23 03:47:49 PM
1 votes:
"Peace will come when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us."

I'd like to suggest a corrollary: "Nuclear war will happen when the leaders of a state enjoy the perks of power less than they hate another."

Which is to say that I believe that nuclear weapons are the great fixative, which is why the Iranian regime is fixing them. Once the Iranians have the bomb, no more jasmine revolutions, no more stuxnet- everything switches over to preventing nuclear war by making sure that the governments of the nuclear powers remain as stable, with well organized C3 systems, as possible. However....

My father was an officer in the US West German command, in charge of nuclear artillery... in his opinion, nuclear ambiguity, especially with regards to command structures, is the great threat to world peace.

 So there's a line of deterrence- if a nuclear command appears to be too unstable or de-centralized, it suddenly goes from being deterrence to an incentive to attack so as to knock out a perceived attack.

 At a certain point, we're going to have to develop a strategic doctrine for reacting to anonymous terrorist nuclear strikes...and at that point, it's either fast extinction (instant nuclear war) or slower extinction (tit for tat retaliations gradually escalating to armageddon).

 Right now, it's a race between climate change and nuclear winter as to what will be the capstone on the great achievement of humanity: The Sixth Great Extinction.
2013-02-23 03:25:53 PM
1 votes:

indarwinsshadow: They have the same rights as everyone else. America sure doesn't ask permission from anyone. Why should Iran?


They don't.  But like I said before, so too do other governments have the right to try and impede that progress.
2013-02-23 03:18:32 PM
1 votes:
Country that has been continually meddled with by the US federal government since 1952 might be seeking the only thing that will stop the US federal government from farking with them. Then again it hasn't worked out that way for Pakistan.

I got a new way of 'dealing' with Iran. Leave them alone. That's all they want. Not to be farked with any more.

Want the present government of Iran to meet its natural demise? Leave them alone and then offer trade of any and all consumer goods.

Problem solved.

But people in the US government and some other governments (including the present government of Iran) need a problem to maintain their power. Thus this problem won't get solved.
2013-02-23 03:00:28 PM
1 votes:

vygramul: Blairr: rappy: We are a bunch of f*cking hypocrites in America. We don't want anyone to have weapons yet we can have the most deadly weapons in the world. because that makes sense

It's called a monopoly of force and it's a central tenant to societal peace.

Or, it could be that just because I have a gun doesn't mean it's a good idea for the drunk and crazy crackhead down the street to own one.  There's nothing hypocritical about that.



It's crazy crackheads all the way down.
2013-02-23 02:59:37 PM
1 votes:

mizchief: Mean while North Korea is testing actual nuclear weapons along with delivery systems and have stated that using them on the US is the purpose of these weapons and we are technically still at war with them. But yet, we do nothing about it. What make Iran's program so much more dangerous?


Do you really believe we are doing nothing about it?
2013-02-23 02:48:27 PM
1 votes:

rappy: We are a bunch of f*cking hypocrites in America. We don't want anyone to have weapons yet we can have the most deadly weapons in the world. because that makes sense


That's right, it makes sense because we're not bug farking nuts crazy.  There now, crawl back under your rock and we'll let you know when the shooting stops.
2013-02-23 02:30:57 PM
1 votes:

indarwinsshadow: I know this isn't going to be popular, but, Iran has the right to nuclear weapons. They have the right to process nuclear material to make weapons and finally, America is the only country on the entire planet that's used nukes in anger against another country. I'm not saying we should be happy but, Russia has nukes, and it's not like they're friendly towards the west, China has nukes and again they're not fans of us, and finally North Korea has nukes. Iran isn't in the business of making us happy. They're in the nuclear war business. If America has them, and by their track record they're more of a threat to the world than Iran is, then most countries also have the right to possess nukes. It's just the way it is.

Yep, it's not going to sit well with a lot of Americans.


Yes, the U.S. used them and learned from that mistake.  ...Iran does have the right to develop Nukes for whatever their ambitions are.  Such is the privilege of any sovereign nation.  But so too, does any other nation have the right to choose to impede that progress.  If I'm playing a game of chess, I'm not going to simply allow my opponent to get a pawn across the board to get a queen just because I have one and they don't.
2013-02-23 02:22:16 PM
1 votes:

TiiiMMMaHHH: clipperbox: GAT_00: Nukes make war less likely, not more.


an armed society is a polite society...

I'm just going to leave this here..

[s3.amazonaws.com image 720x519]


Wow, that would be so true. True that is if the mass shootings didn't occur where local, state and federal law prohibits the open, concealed or otherwise carry of any firearm.

But they do. They occur precisely in places where the bad guys(tm) know that law abiding citizens cannot take arms. They occour in workplaces where you'll get fired if you have a weapon, schools, and other 'safe zones' where no guns are allowed.

If these sub-human murderous swine really wanted to kill big numbers, they'd try sporting events, concerts or other locations where you don't even have to aim over-much. The Aurora shooter was an exception to the rule. He actually went someplace where he knew there would eb a target-rich envrionement. But even then he used darkenss to protect himself from anyone who might have shot back.

And why don't these attacks occur at sporting events, concerts, etc? Because there's armed security there. And armed security might perforate you before you can get away or cause too much damage. But think of the hundreds of potential targets in the crowd waiting to get into a college football game, as an example. Or in the lines waiting to get into a concert. Yet it's schools that get targeted. you get what, 20 or 30 targets then place locks down and the police swarm it. But at least you're safe til they get there because nobody is armed the. They can't be. By law.

Oh, and the laws against high-capacity magazines? I got news for you. There's also laws against Murder. How's that workin' out for ya?
2013-02-23 02:21:58 PM
1 votes:

dragonchild: traylor: But now that any crazy motherfarker can have one

That's anything but the truth.  These devices are and will always be large, complex and relatively easy to detect, making any sort of two-bit terrorist wanting one very unlikely to know how to handle it, let alone deploy it successfully.  They also lack the resources to make them, and who'd sell them one?  Even the most megalomanic tinpot dictator is unlikely to part with a nuke because dictators have something to lose.  Flaunting one may impress the masses but they're enthralled anyway; they may demand concessions from other countries but they're already wealthy anyway.  The upside is minimal and the downside (if I actually use the damn thing) is that Dragonchild's Great Imperial Palace will be turned into a radioactive parking lot.

Note I am NOT resorting to any sort of naive, kumbaya assumptions about human nature or intelligence.  Humans are basically stupid assholes.  I do believe North Korea wants a nuke, but the reason why North Korea would never deploy a nuke is because their dictators are greedy, selfish assholes at heart, and greedy people don't take risks if there's nothing to gain.

You know why Iran is hot for a nuke?  Because they saw what the U.S. did to Iraq, and they know they're next.  Iraq didn't have nukes and the GOP, being the Internet Tough Guys they are, went in basically knowing that they'd be largely unopposed.  Now the GOP is beating the war drums over Iran, so Iran knows they have to get a nuke before the U.S. invades them for, well, the assumption they have one.  Note the U.S. never invaded Pakistan even after knowing bin Laden was there.  We went in with a few SEALs who took the guy out leaving the power structure intact (despite their treachery), which is much preferable to the full-blown invasion treatment Iraq got.

If I was a country, I'd want a nuke too -- for the single, sole purpose of scaring the shiats out of the GOP.  You basically just get the thing and sit on it.  M ...


Unless you take the pure size of the country in question.  Lets just say hypothetically that the U.S. wanted to invade Iran.  Even a Nuke capable Iran.  Assuming we fully commit to the war with all of our force to bare. The U.S. could steamroll all known military installations w/in a week.  The first wave would have to be strategic attacks on ICBM launch sites, I believe this could be done in a day or two.  Worst case scenario, Iran gets off a couple ICBM's and MAYBE they even hit their target.  National tragedy day, everyone mourns and it becomes another 911, and suddenly everyone is on board for a prolonged campaign in the middle east again.  Iran loses in every scenario, and U.S. endures even a direct hit.
2013-02-23 02:15:20 PM
1 votes:

GAT_00: A nuclear Iran is good for the Middle East.  There is no power balance in the region, as the US-Israel alliance dominates the region.  That is why it is so unstable.  A counterforce in a nuclear Iran will force Israel to start treating it's neighbors as equals, as they are.

The reason Israel is so terrified of a nuclear Iran is the above.   They don't want to see Muslim states as equals, they want to dominate them.


Wow. GAT straight to the derp-mobile. Saudi Arabia has already been deemed the chosen one  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/13/us-saudi-arabia-arms-deal  .

Which is good because they respect international agreements on nuclear proliferation. Iran doesn't like that so along with NKorea and others they're proliferating nukes and upending the balance of power which leads to conflict. Iran doesn't like being in a subordinate position, but too farking bad. Maybe they should play be the rules if they want to be trusted with being the custodians of their realm. SArabia is playing by the rules and the Emirates in general have a very positive relationship with the West.

SArabia trusts the West's promise that we wont let Iran overtake them so SArabia isn't pursuing nukes. We should not break that promise.
2013-02-23 02:08:17 PM
1 votes:
We are a bunch of f*cking hypocrites in America. We don't want anyone to have weapons yet we can have the most deadly weapons in the world. because that makes sense
2013-02-23 02:05:21 PM
1 votes:
We need immediate military action to counter this immediate threat.

Think about it, why would a media outlet ever exaggerate a foreign threat? It would be harm their credibility. Israeli publications would be even more vigilant about describing an accurate picture of the Iranian threat because crying wolf is against their interests/
2013-02-23 02:04:14 PM
1 votes:

Weaver95: what we need to decide is how we're going to deal with that reality.


Maybe start treating them like an actual foreign nation instead of throwing an infantile temper-tantrum and getting all our UN buddies to sanction them because they had the effrontery to want to govern themselves instead of living under the iron thumb of our little puppet dictator?

You know, negotiate trade agreements, take our differences to the treaty table with them instead of sabotaging them indirectly, maybe share our civilian nuclear technology since they do in fact have a legitimate need for it instead of making their only route to modern power generation motherfarking Russia of all nations?

Like, not approach things in the stupidest way mathematically possible for once in the history of western civilization, is what I'm basically suggesting here.
2013-02-23 01:59:15 PM
1 votes:

BumpInTheNight: crazy sand people still fueding over invisible sky wizards are all good for nuclear capabilities as well.


What about the crazy G-OPeople feuding over their respective invisible sky wizards?  If Romney were in the White House, he would have been announcing some kind of plan by now, guaranteed.
2013-02-23 01:49:12 PM
1 votes:
"Hey!  We have articulate speech, linear print and critical thinking!"

"Yeah, but those motherf*ckers speak differently and pray to a different god."

"Let's use science, chemistry and metallurgy to race each other over the cliff to Armageddon!"

"Woo!"
2013-02-23 01:48:29 PM
1 votes:
What boggles my mind is what is taking so long.  Iranians know that sooner or later, the US is going to elect a leader that will make "have a war with Iran" the primary foreign policy, much like W's "have a war with Iraq" policy.  They know how many Iraqis died from that.  They know the only way to stop it is to have real nuclear weapons.  But while they seem to be working on it, 12 years later they still haven't set one off (it took the US less than 4 with 1940s tech, and nobody to buy any parts from).

It looks like the Iranians are even more frightened of having a bomb than being conventionally invaded.  I can only assume that once they get it, the Iranians think that sooner or later somebody is going to lob one at Israel and start a nuclear war.  If you've ever heard of the Iran-Iraq war, it was said to be a meat grinder similar to WWI.  I can't imagine anyone looking at that and thinking, I'll take that to having nukes.
2013-02-23 01:47:51 PM
1 votes:

Nemo's Brother: Obama and Hilary have made this world such a safer place.


Not sure if herp or derp.
2013-02-23 01:43:36 PM
1 votes:

GAT_00: A nuclear Iran is good for the Middle East.  There is no power balance in the region, as the US-Israel alliance dominates the region.  That is why it is so unstable.  A counterforce in a nuclear Iran will force Israel to start treating it's neighbors as equals, as they are.

The reason Israel is so terrified of a nuclear Iran is the above.   They don't want to see Muslim states as equals, they want to dominate them.


And you think that these states will suddenly, after thousands of years of being mortal enemies for reasons they aren't even entirely clear on, see each other as equals once they have the ability to kill millions of each other at one time instead of just hundreds or thousands?

Yeah. Sure. Go with that. Even if they don't actually start nuking each other immediately we'll just be treated to a hundred years of nuclear dick-waving on a scale that makes the Cold War look like a middle-school lunchroom argument.
2013-02-23 01:42:47 PM
1 votes:

Uncle Tractor: but you might want to ask yourself why some people keep trying to turn this into such a big thing


No need to.

This is about control of the region, plain and simple.  And under the current regime,  Iran with nukes will be even less willing to do what the US-based power structure wants.

Just like Iraq.

t1.gstatic.com
2013-02-23 01:41:16 PM
1 votes:

BumpInTheNight: clipperbox: GAT_00: Nukes make war less likely, not more.


an armed society is a polite society...

Yup, its hilarious watching derp spewing about precious gun rights in one thread and wargarbl about how iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear capabilities in the next.


I thought it was funny for the exact opposite stances... but I guess we each have to find our own comedy.
2013-02-23 01:37:43 PM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: They've been six months away from acquiring a nuke for like 15 years.


/thread
2013-02-23 01:35:48 PM
1 votes:

GAT_00: Nukes make war less likely, not more.


It was true in the cold war era when only the superpowers possessed nukes. But now that any crazy motherfarker can have one, and in a country where the constitution declares the nation's goal as eradicating an other nation, not so much.
2013-02-23 01:33:48 PM
1 votes:

GAT_00: A nuclear Iran is good for the Middle East.  There is no power balance in the region, as the US-Israel alliance dominates the region.  That is why it is so unstable.  A counterforce in a nuclear Iran will force Israel to start treating it's neighbors as equals, as they are.

The reason Israel is so terrified of a nuclear Iran is the above.   They don't want to see Muslim states as equals, they want to dominate them.


You know, I would like to agree with you.  I'd be inclined to do so if I didn't know that culture there.  If Iran suddenly found themselves with decent nuclear missile capability, it'd go something like this.  "We're gonna take back that land we're 100% sure Israel stole from us.  If you resist we'll nuke your capital."  We might give in one or two times, then it's going to be nuclear war over something silly.
2013-02-23 01:33:10 PM
1 votes:
Also, one must consider the source is not totally un-biased and has, in the past, been a tad... creative... with their stories.
2013-02-23 01:25:40 PM
1 votes:
I'll get worried when they perfect a burrowing missile that's launched from impenetrable bunkers dug under mountains.
2013-02-23 11:40:40 AM
1 votes:

GAT_00: A nuclear Iran is good for the Middle East.  There is no power balance in the region, as the US-Israel alliance dominates the region.  That is why it is so unstable.  A counterforce in a nuclear Iran will force Israel to start treating it's neighbors as equals, as they are.

The reason Israel is so terrified of a nuclear Iran is the above.   They don't want to see Muslim states as equals, they want to dominate them.


You're forgetting that Israel is not Iran's principle enemy in the region. Will you think it's a great idea when Saudi Arabia starts building a bomb?
2013-02-23 11:01:49 AM
1 votes:

Weaver95: if they want a nuke then eventually they're gonna get one.  we can slow them down, make it really expensive...but in the end, if Iran wants a nuclear weapon (or a couple of reactors) they'll get one.

what we need to decide is how we're going to deal with that reality.


I say we negate reality and help them out.
 
Displayed 72 of 72 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report