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)   Iran agrees to be test location for various earth-penetrating and bunker buster type weaponry   (foxnews.com) divider line 187
    More: Dumbass, Atomic Energy Organization, Iran, Iran nuclear, bunker buster, fissile material, Bushehr, Islamic Republic, Khamenei  
•       •       •

16223 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Jun 2013 at 1:12 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-29 04:08:15 PM  

Smackledorfer: This. Also points one through three are also reasons why the U.S. shouldn't have nukes too.


If you honestly think the US is going to sell nuclear weapons to other countries so they can be used, OR give them to terrorist groups to use, you're not just delusional, you're insane.
 
2013-06-29 04:09:13 PM  

hardinparamedic: occupation against the will of the Emperor of Japan


hehehe as opposed to what modern Japan is ? where the hell do you get your perception of reality ?
 
2013-06-29 04:09:19 PM  

simplicimus: bim1154: Bah... Obama won't do squat.

Neither would I. Options are: Send arms to Al Qaeda or support a dictator.


You forgot the BOMB THE farkING REACTORS option.
 
2013-06-29 04:10:24 PM  

hardinparamedic: If you honestly think the US is going to sell nuclear weapons to other countries so they can be used, OR give them to terrorist groups to use, you're not just delusional, you're insane


umm yea I would be

another strawman

who claimed that the US should sell them ? or donate them ?

dude are we in the same thread here ? you seem to be having a conversation with someone not here
 
2013-06-29 04:10:37 PM  

Slartibartfaster: Yea, Im well aware of that
Are you ?


I don't think you are. You clearly can't grasp the concept of a cold war between an imperialist country with a living god on the throne, and the United States.

Slartibartfaster: Nice strawman.

Who the fark claimed that ?


That's a strawman argument? That's the most common reason given for the nuclear bombing when someone promotes the revisionst viewpoint that the entire act was not necessary. Are you being purposefully disingenuous, or are you just trying to invoke the fallacist's fallacy?
 
2013-06-29 04:12:44 PM  

hardinparamedic: That's the most common reason given for the nuclear bombing


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-06-29 04:12:51 PM  

Slartibartfaster: umm yea I would be

another strawman

who claimed that the US should sell them ? or donate them ?

dude are we in the same thread here ? you seem to be having a conversation with someone not here


Really, you never said this?

Smackledorfer: This. Also points one through three are also reasons why the U.S. shouldn't have nukes too.


Point 1:  One, You assume there is zero chance they will hand over the weapons to a third party. That is a flawed assumption in as much as they have consistantly used proxies to engage their enemies and there is a non-negligible chance that they may engage in similar behavior.  It certainly isn't a huge risk, but I don't simply dismiss this.

Point 2: Two, You only utilize attacks on Israel as a judgment of war and peace, what about their neighbors.  Iran is currently significantly involved in an ongoing war in Syria.  They have actively supported insurgency and terrorism around the world from the middle east, south america, and elsewhere.  They have engaged in armed conflict (although they were attacked) in Iran/Iraq war in the 1980s and the corresponding tanker wars. In short, although they have supported terrorism in Israel, they have not attacked them directly, but they have engaged in significant armed conflict with their near neighbors.

Point 3:  Three, you assume that they won't be a proliferation risk.  They are already engaging in proliferation of missile technology through cooperation with North Korea and other nations.  They freely sell and trade restricted technologies now, so there is little chance that they will avoid selling and trading nuclear technologies

At this point, I'm really seeing you don't know the definition of  a "strawman argument", and I really don't think you're "playing" dumb, either.
 
2013-06-29 04:14:01 PM  

hardinparamedic: You clearly can't grasp the concept of a cold war between an imperialist country with a living god on the throne, and the United States.


images.sodahead.com
 
2013-06-29 04:14:40 PM  

hardinparamedic: Really, you never said this?


yea really, I never said that
 
2013-06-29 04:15:01 PM  

hardinparamedic: But hey. The Deaths of hundreds of thousands of people AND the borderline genocidal destruction of the Japanese Culture via invasion and armed occupation against the will of the Emperor of Japan doesn't leave as bad of a taste in people's mouth, does it?


I'm sure you're just as angry at how the Germans got the same treatment right? You do sound like someone that's unaware of what the Japanese did to everyone they had power over during WWII. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.
 
2013-06-29 04:16:28 PM  

Slartibartfaster: hardinparamedic: That's the most common reason given for the nuclear bombing

[upload.wikimedia.org image 800x600]


Aside from the fact it has been stated by multiple FARKers in this thread?

It's actually a well documented historical point of debate that the bombings were Militarily Unnecessary, and were only undertaken to intimidate the Soviets.
 
2013-06-29 04:17:18 PM  

Pumpernickel bread: Nothing serious will be done until they blow Israel off the map. Then western nations will use force, the only measure that will work, to take out Iranian nuclear facilities, but it will still be a victory for Iran and the rest of the Arab world. They would pay almost any price to have Israel gone.


Yeah, that's the threat that everyone seems to making so much of.

Israel having been described as a country "only one nuke wide" and Iran's apparent wish to eradicate them as a nation.

Me, I don't rate it a likely occurrence.

First, Iranians are not a suicidal race, five minutes after any nuking of Israel subs would rise outta the Med and Tehran and adjacent properties would become a big glowy glass parking lot. They know this despite Israel's "secret" nuclear program who's "secret" part is years past it's "best before" date.

Second, and this is an argument I don't hear a lot, Israel is home to some pretty significant historical sites to the planet's Muslim population. If the rest of the world doesn't bomb them back into the stone age the enraged Muslim world will do it by hand. Neither are good options by any sane person's reasoning and the latest Khamani dude may be a theocratic, power-hungry dick but he's not cray cray.

Red line rhetoric aside this unsurprising turn of events changes nothing.
 
2013-06-29 04:17:36 PM  
hardinparamedic:

Just to be clear, I don't want ANYONE to have nukes
But the US is in no position to take the moral high ground
THEY INVENTED THIS EVIL TECHNOLOGY AND ARE STILL THE ONLY ONES TO HAVE EVER USE THEM

can you get that through your narrow mind ?

I never said they should donate them, or sell them - or even casually leak the technology, ya know like they already farking have.

BACK OFF NUKE TARDS
 
2013-06-29 04:18:45 PM  

hardinparamedic: Aside from the fact it has been stated by multiple FARKers in this thread?


[citation needed]
 
2013-06-29 04:20:11 PM  

BravadoGT: simplicimus: BravadoGT: So, WWIII is lining up to be DPRC/RUS/SYR/IRAN/LEB vs. USA/ISR/UK/EU/AUS?  Plus give or take a Korea, and Pakistan and India looking for wild cards?

No, probably just another proxy war like Korea and Vietnam, with some religious genocide on the side

If something flares up, the US will be fighting directly.  Israel will certainly be involved, and then so will we, if not proactively--then reactively.  It's quite similar to the circumstances preceding the First World War...


I think it looks more like  circumstances preceding the second World War. You know,,, Germany taking Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland. US takes out Iraq, Afghanistan, supports the overthrow of Libya, Egypt, now Syria. For fark sake,,  the only sovereign country left in the middle east of any significance other then Israel is Iran.
 
2013-06-29 04:20:50 PM  

hardinparamedic: It's actually a well documented historical point of debate that the bombings were Militarily Unnecessary, and were only undertaken to intimidate the Soviets.


yeah, but thats not what you said...

hardinparamedic: The idea that the Russians were "scared off" from messing with Japan


see the difference ?
 
2013-06-29 04:20:51 PM  
According to a Reuters report, the head of the Islamic Republic's Atomic Energy Organization, Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, said production of nuclear fuel would ``continue in line with our declared goals. The enrichment linked to fuel production will also not change.''

Thats probably one of the most frightening paragraphs i've ever read.
 
2013-06-29 04:20:55 PM  

Bomb Mecca: I'm sure you're just as angry at how the Germans got the same treatment right? You do sound like someone that's unaware of what the Japanese did to everyone they had power over during WWII. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.


Actually, I MIGHT feel as bad for Japan as I do about the Germans had the Japanese not engaged in a systematic and Government-sanctioned coverup and mitigation of the atrocities they committed - through either justification or denial - that continues today.

The German shame came from the fact they committed the acts. The Japanese shame came from the fact they lost the war.

Slartibartfaster: hardinparamedic: Really, you never said this?

yea really, I never said that


I guess I just made up what you said at 1608 in this very thread and quoted directly, then.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-06-29 04:22:49 PM  
fark chickenhawk action team assemble!!!!!
 
2013-06-29 04:24:53 PM  

Slartibartfaster: hardinparamedic:

Just to be clear, I don't want ANYONE to have nukes
But the US is in no position to take the moral high ground
THEY INVENTED THIS EVIL TECHNOLOGY AND ARE STILL THE ONLY ONES TO HAVE EVER USE THEM

can you get that through your narrow mind ?

I never said they should donate them, or sell them - or even casually leak the technology, ya know like they already farking have.

BACK OFF NUKE TARDS


No. I get that you're an idealistic historical revisionist who has an unrealistic expectation of the world around him. I don't like the thought of having Nukes, quite frankly. But it's the world we live in. As Oppenheimer said, there's no putting the genie back into the bottle. I don't think they're a weapon that is a legitimate choice to use, and I do NOT think that we should have more of them.

Casually leak the technology? Uh, the Russians were three to four years away from a bomb before the Rosenthal et all cabal put them a year ahead of doing so. They would have developed it anyway.

However, there is something to be said about the thought of Mutually Assured Destruction making some crackpot with world domination ideas in his head think twice about pressing the button first.

Slartibartfaster: [citation needed]


Are you a troll, have a learning disability, or both?
 
2013-06-29 04:25:50 PM  
You do realize that the quote you provided was not my post right ?
 
2013-06-29 04:28:01 PM  

Slartibartfaster: You do realize that the quote you provided was not my post right ?



Smackledorfer: This. Also points one through three are also reasons why the U.S. shouldn't have nukes too.


i.imgur.com
Not your post, you say?
 
2013-06-29 04:28:41 PM  

hardinparamedic: However, there is something to be said about the thought of Mutually Assured Destruction making some crackpot with world domination ideas in his head think twice about pressing the button first


so now you think others having nukes is a good idea, make up your farking mind

... and it wouldnt be "first" it would be "third" some asshole nation already used them twice
 
2013-06-29 04:29:17 PM  

hardinparamedic: Not your post, you say?


yeah - read the posters name dipshiat
 
2013-06-29 04:29:24 PM  
Oh wow. You're absolutely right. It's NOT your post.

I actually feel really stupid right now.
 
2013-06-29 04:29:53 PM  

hardinparamedic: Slartibartfaster: You do realize that the quote you provided was not my post right ?


Smackledorfer: This. Also points one through three are also reasons why the U.S. shouldn't have nukes too.

[i.imgur.com image 850x395]
Not your post, you say?


Well both names do start with an S.
 
2013-06-29 04:31:01 PM  

Piizzadude: Hobodeluxe: simplicimus: BravadoGT: So, WWIII is lining up to be DPRC/RUS/SYR/IRAN/LEB vs. USA/ISR/UK/EU/AUS?  Plus give or take a Korea, and Pakistan and India looking for wild cards?

No, probably just another proxy war like Korea and Vietnam, with some religious genocide on the side.

so who were our proxies in that war? because I remember Americans fighting in both of those.

yeah but we were theoretically only propping up and supporting the armies of the South. There was no real full scale commitment... sorta


By early 1968, there were more than 500,000 American troops there, and the US Air Force was dropping bombs at a rate unequalled in history.

5.7 million American troops would ultimately serve in the Korean War
 
2013-06-29 04:31:13 PM  

Slartibartfaster: so now you think others having nukes is a good idea, make up your farking mind

... and it wouldnt be "first" it would be "third" some asshole nation already used them twice


Uh, no. I say that it's a choice between two evils. A nuclear weapon does NOT have to be used for Mutually Assured Destruction to keep the other asshole from using his.

And yeah. We used them twice. Rather than murder millions of Japanese people, and suffer the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Allied Soldiers.
 
2013-06-29 04:31:43 PM  

hardinparamedic: I actually feel really stupid right now.


Ill buy you a beer anyway :) cheers
 
2013-06-29 04:34:31 PM  

Slartibartfaster: hardinparamedic: I actually feel really stupid right now.

Ill buy you a beer anyway :) cheers


This conversation would be a lot more fun over beer. :)
 
2013-06-29 04:37:05 PM  
thats... unexpectedly considerate of them

i wonder what they get in return...
 
2013-06-29 04:42:40 PM  

Kell Hound: There was no need to use the bomb on Japan, let alone twice. That's the consensus among historians (military and mainline) at this point. Japan was also pretty much a pile of burnt wood and assorted rubble thanks to the terror bombing we did on them.


No.  That's the consensus amongst revisionists.

Japan was pretty much wrecked at that point but they wanted to continue the war.  The thing is they weren't fighting for a military victory, but rather to make it too bloody for us to finish the job, thus leaving the military government in charge, hopefully with their conquests in China.

The reason the bomb caused their surrender is that it changed the whole game.  We could blow them to bits from 30,000', they no longer had the ability to hurt us as we destroyed them.  Their strategy went out the window.

Furthermore, there is no other reasonable scenario that had a lower death toll.  To simply sit back and do nothing would have killed far more than the bombs.

ethernet76: The general consensus among many top military officials - Eisenhower, Leahy, etc. - was Japan was preparing to surrender before the bombs.


No.  Japan was seeking an end of hostilities *WITHOUT* a surrender.

hardinparamedic: Aside from the fact it has been stated by multiple FARKers in this thread?

It's actually a well documented historical point of debate that the bombings were Militarily Unnecessary, and were only undertaken to intimidate the Soviets.


1)  It being a point of debate isn't the same as it being proven.

2)  Wikipedia is not to be trusted on something like this.
2a)  The very nature of their system is to favor the popular opinion over the correct one.
2b)  They have a major bias to the left.  I have been reverted for something so harmless as putting a link behind a word.  I didn't change one character of the displayed text, the link was on target.  It's just I was putting in a link the left would prefer people not look at.

quatchi: First, Iranians are not a suicidal race, five minutes after any nuking of Israel subs would rise outta the Med and Tehran and adjacent properties would become a big glowy glass parking lot. They know this despite Israel's "secret" nuclear program who's "secret" part is years past it's "best before" date.


1)  The leader that blows Israel off the map becomes somebody pretty darn big in the Arab world.  Never mind that a bunch of Iranian cities are gone, their status goes up anyway.  They don't mind martyring their population.  (Look at the Iran-Iraq war.  Iran cleared minefields by herding people into them.)

2)  Even if they don't do the direct approach there's always the indirect one.  A mushroom cloud on Tel Aviv?  Why are you looking at us, we had nothing to do with it!  If they're doing Allah's work it won't be traced back to them.

3)  The real reason they want the bomb is Afghanistan.  They saw what happens when your terrorists get too bold and you don't have a nuclear shield to hide behind.
 
2013-06-29 04:44:58 PM  

hardinparamedic: And yeah. We used them twice. Rather than murder millions of Japanese people, and suffer the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Allied Soldiers.


So you used them strategically (noting it killed women and children equally as troops, and before you start saying all Japanese citizens were troops, consider the toddlers and infants) to incite surrender/terror to avoid a long battle that would have resulted in substantial troop loss...

I dont particularly like nations that think this way, you apparently also do not think people should have this ability.

Nuclear weapons are terrorist tools (ya know, the ACTUAL definition of terrorism, not the DHS one)
 
2013-06-29 04:46:59 PM  
I'm no fan of the brutal Iranian regime, but the US doesn't have a lot of moral authority either.  They have the same Orwellian invasions of privacy, they torture detainees (admittedly not US citizens, but that still doesn't make it right), and women's rights are continually under attack in the name of religion.  My point is that I don't see much difference between the leadership of the two countries.  Slap a towel on Bush or Obama's heads and they aren't much different than Khamenei.

So what if Iran wants to make a nuclear bomb?  If they used it, even Russia would probably turn their cities into glass parking lots.
 
2013-06-29 04:47:18 PM  

Hobodeluxe: Piizzadude: Hobodeluxe: simplicimus: BravadoGT: So, WWIII is lining up to be DPRC/RUS/SYR/IRAN/LEB vs. USA/ISR/UK/EU/AUS?  Plus give or take a Korea, and Pakistan and India looking for wild cards?

No, probably just another proxy war like Korea and Vietnam, with some religious genocide on the side.

so who were our proxies in that war? because I remember Americans fighting in both of those.

yeah but we were theoretically only propping up and supporting the armies of the South. There was no real full scale commitment... sorta

By early 1968, there were more than 500,000 American troops there, and the US Air Force was dropping bombs at a rate unequalled in history.

5.7 million American troops would ultimately serve in the Korean War


i am not finding that but its cool, I am not looking all that hard. In the grand scheme of things, it could have been worse IMHO.
 
2013-06-29 04:49:23 PM  

vbob: MaudlinMutantMollusk: simplicimus: What, someone actually expected a different outcome?

Seriously

/they just elected a new meat puppet
//they didn't change their government at all

Elected officials are Meat Puppets? Wow .. that explains a lot. What would Obama look like if he, too, were a Meat Puppet?


Where do these bad folks go when they die?

They don't go to heaven where the angels fly.

(Good news: it's almost the 4th of July)

/someone had to
 
2013-06-29 04:52:33 PM  

BravadoGT: So, WWIII is lining up to be DPRC/RUS/SYR/IRAN/LEB vs. USA/ISR/UK/EU/AUS?  Plus give or take a Korea, and Pakistan and India looking for wild cards?




Do people really think the world is like this????

Iran and Syria go to war from time to time, they won't be allies. DPRC and Russia??? Really? China and Russia will go to war with each other long before they go to war with the US.

You really need to brush up on international politics.
 
2013-06-29 04:54:59 PM  

Piizzadude: Hobodeluxe: Piizzadude: Hobodeluxe: simplicimus: BravadoGT: So, WWIII is lining up to be DPRC/RUS/SYR/IRAN/LEB vs. USA/ISR/UK/EU/AUS?  Plus give or take a Korea, and Pakistan and India looking for wild cards?

No, probably just another proxy war like Korea and Vietnam, with some religious genocide on the side.

so who were our proxies in that war? because I remember Americans fighting in both of those.

yeah but we were theoretically only propping up and supporting the armies of the South. There was no real full scale commitment... sorta

By early 1968, there were more than 500,000 American troops there, and the US Air Force was dropping bombs at a rate unequalled in history.

5.7 million American troops would ultimately serve in the Korean War

i am not finding that but its cool, I am not looking all that hard. In the grand scheme of things, it could have been worse IMHO.


all I am saying is that it wasn't a "proxy war"   a proxy war is where you arm/fund others to fight for yours and their joint interests. Like we did in Central America,Iran,Afghanistan (in the 80s)
 
2013-06-29 04:58:31 PM  

Gijick: I'm no fan of the brutal Iranian regime, but the US doesn't have a lot of moral authority either.  They have the same Orwellian invasions of privacy, they torture detainees (admittedly not US citizens, but that still doesn't make it right), and women's rights are continually under attack in the name of religion.  My point is that I don't see much difference between the leadership of the two countries.  Slap a towel on Bush or Obama's heads and they aren't much different than Khamenei.

So what if Iran wants to make a nuclear bomb?  If they used it, even Russia would probably turn their cities into glass parking lots.


Ah... smart move. Bring the womens right to abortion and free birth control into a debate about Iran having nuclear weapons. Bold move.
 
2013-06-29 04:59:54 PM  

ethernet76: mouschi: Slartibartfaster: mouschi: What really sucked was the need to wipe out those cities and use the weapons we did. In case you didn't know America wasn't involved in the war until Japan kinda thrust us into it. If Japan had been smart enough to surrender when they had knowingly lost the war it wouldn't have happened. An all out assault on Japans mainland would have killed many more people and destroyed Japan a lot more than those 2 bombs did. You really think Iran is ever going to be in that position?

1/ America WAS involved - trade embargoes and supplying of arms is an act of war
2/ Are you HONESTLY saying you are justified in an act of genocide because the other side would not surrender ? fark YOU you fascist pig
3/ Yes Iran is likely to be in that position, please specify how it is different ?

// Those that do not learn history are doomed to relive it

Yes... I am a facist pig because I support a solution that ended in less lives lost (civilians and military). You sound like a real winner. Do you know what the word genocide means? Clearly you do not. Genocide means we would have wanted to go in and kill every last person. Not keep demanding their surrender.

Trading with allies. Wow, just begging for a military attack I know.

Those that do not learn history are doomed to repeat it?   Yes... that is exactly why we should encourage Iran to have nuclear capabilities.

There isn't any justification for the use of offensive nuclear weapons. You can't argue it saved lives, or it was moral, because we can only guess how those other options would have turned out.

The general consensus among many top military officials - Eisenhower, Leahy, etc. - was Japan was preparing to surrender before the bombs.

It was wrong. We did it. Get over it.


I know it's American Thinker but there are references to other sources that say you opinion in that matter may be mislaid.

 Hasegawa in no uncertain terms wrote that "Without the twin shocks of the atomic bombs and the Soviet entry into the war, the Japanese never would have surrendered in August."
 
2013-06-29 05:05:54 PM  

Loren: Japan was pretty much wrecked at that point but they wanted to continue the war. The thing is they weren't fighting for a military victory, but rather to make it too bloody for us to finish the job, thus leaving the military government in charge, hopefully with their conquests in China.

The reason the bomb caused their surrender is that it changed the whole game. We could blow them to bits from 30,000', they no longer had the ability to hurt us as we destroyed them. Their strategy went out the window.

Furthermore, there is no other reasonable scenario that had a lower death toll. To simply sit back and do nothing would have killed far more than the bombs.


If memory serves (and I'm to lazy to look it up) The Tokyo and Dresden fire bombings,, killed far more people then the A bomb. Something like 100,000 in Tokyo. The terror of the A bomb was it could be done in a split second rather then several days of carpet bombing with incendiaries and for all they knew, we could've had a shiat load of them. Why most people think the A bomb was somehow more barbaric then the Dresden and Tokyo fire bombings I'll never understand. Or the Rape of Nanking for that matter.
 
2013-06-29 05:07:34 PM  
We have always been at war with Eurasia
 
2013-06-29 05:13:27 PM  

mouschi: Gijick: I'm no fan of the brutal Iranian regime, but the US doesn't have a lot of moral authority either.  They have the same Orwellian invasions of privacy, they torture detainees (admittedly not US citizens, but that still doesn't make it right), and women's rights are continually under attack in the name of religion.  My point is that I don't see much difference between the leadership of the two countries.  Slap a towel on Bush or Obama's heads and they aren't much different than Khamenei.

So what if Iran wants to make a nuclear bomb?  If they used it, even Russia would probably turn their cities into glass parking lots.

Ah... smart move. Bring the womens right to abortion and free birth control into a debate about Iran having nuclear weapons. Bold move.


I'm not trying to be stupid, I'm just pointing out that governments like the US and Israel need to look inward and realize that they're not the paragons of virtue that they believe they are.
 
2013-06-29 05:16:29 PM  

El Pachuco: Can anyone rationally explain just why it's so bad for Iran to develop nuclear technologies?


Then they'll have strategic deterrence, and we no longer have the option to bomb/invade them if they get too uppity with their proxy war in Israel.
 
2013-06-29 05:21:41 PM  

Loren: 1)  The leader that blows Israel off the map becomes somebody pretty darn big in the Arab world.  Never mind that a bunch of Iranian cities are gone, their status goes up anyway.  They don't mind martyring their population.  (Look at the Iran-Iraq war.  Iran cleared minefields by herding people into them.)


I'm aware the Iranian regime doesn't give a flying fark about the general population but I'm also aware that any Iranian leader that blows Israel off the map would be a dead man walking and I'm pretty sure Khomenei the umpteenth is well aware of this as well.

2)  Even if they don't do the direct approach there's always the indirect one.  A mushroom cloud on Tel Aviv?  Why are you looking at us, we had nothing to do with it!  If they're doing Allah's work it won't be traced back to them.

A dirty bomb snuck into Tel Aviv? Without it being traced back? Unlikely tag goes where?

3)  The real reason they want the bomb is Afghanistan.  They saw what happens when your terrorists get too bold and you don't have a nuclear shield to hide behind.

The Deterrence factor? I'd say the examples of Iraq trying and failing to build nukes and subsequently getting invaded and occupied and North Korea succeeding in building weak-assed nukes and afterwords being harassed by sanctions but not invaded were better examples of why they are trying this thing.

That and the whole "1957 CIA-backed takeover destroying democracy and leading to decades of brutal torture state dictatorial rule fully supported by the US" thingy.
 
2013-06-29 05:30:18 PM  

Elegy: [i.imgur.com image 704x655]

All of this is their fault, really. They shouldn't have out their country there.


Surrender actually is a good option for Iran, they should use it or lose it.
 
2013-06-29 05:40:55 PM  
i1172.photobucket.com
 
2013-06-29 05:43:46 PM  

Kell Hound: There was no need to use the bomb on Japan, let alone twice. That's the consensus among historians (military and mainline)


That's one of the dumbest things I've seen posted on FARK. That issue continues to be debated. Perhaps you should head down to the local library...

El Pachuco: There is zero chance they'll just hand them over to some radical terrorist group


Few are comfortable with that assessment.
 
2013-06-29 05:56:51 PM  

El Pachuco: There is zero chance they'll just hand them over to some radical terrorist group


من به يكي از امراي ايرانى ما خوش آمدید
خوش آمدید

/great now the NSA is going to be kno,,,sorry gotta get the door
 
2013-06-29 05:57:28 PM  

edmo: Kell Hound: There was no need to use the bomb on Japan, let alone twice. That's the consensus among historians (military and mainline)

That's one of the dumbest things I've seen posted on FARK. That issue continues to be debated. Perhaps you should head down to the local library...


This was actually a case study in historical revisionism and how current (Vietnam era) political influence allowed for substandard research to gain mainstream traction. It was amazing to learn just how willfully blind "academics" let themselves become when tenure is tied to political affiliation.
 
Displayed 50 of 187 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report