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 43
    More: Dumbass, Atomic Energy Organization, Iran, Iran nuclear, bunker buster, fissile material, Bushehr, Islamic Republic, Khamenei  
•       •       •

16220 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»



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


Archived thread
2013-06-29 01:17:53 PM
8 votes:
Can we send Congress to fight this war?
2013-06-29 01:37:49 PM
5 votes:
Can anyone rationally explain just why it's so bad for Iran to develop nuclear technologies?  Let's say they do want to be able to make bombs.  Okay, so what?

There is zero chance they'll just hand them over to some radical terrorist group.  No control over the use, plus instant massive retaliation if they're ever used?   Why sure!  Give Hamas and al Quaida a dozen each!

Well, they'll use them to attack Israel?  Number of times Iran has attacked Israel - 0.  Number of times Iran has attacked anyone in the past 200 years - 0.  Estimated number of nuclear weapons Israel has, and would use to retaliate - 200.  Probability that an attack on Israel would be national suicide - 100%.

They'll sell them to other nations, like Syria?  See the problems with giving them to terrorist groups above.

Why does Iran want nukes anyway?  Well, there's pride in joining the big boy club of the US, Russia, China, UK, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel.  Definitely a deterrent to invasion, but that's self-defense against the US and we're not supposed to talk about that.  Development of modern precision manufacturing capabilities, electronics and related supplies too.

So what, exactly, is the real problem worth getting the US into yet another war over?
2013-06-29 02:23:52 PM
4 votes:

sheep snorter: Remember people. Vote Republican President for 2016 so Israel can achieve its goal of committing nuclear Genocide against the big meanies that don't grovel at their dirty feet.

/Oh and a big thanks to the CIA and Saint Reagan for making the Rightwing religious mess known as Iran.
//And of course many thanks to the assholes who created Israel and armed them to wipe out the people of Palestine.
///Can't commit global nuclear genocide if Israel does not exist, as then the christians won't go to heaven.


Kennedy made Iran what it is today. Our best buddy Winston Churchill came asking for him to help topple the democratically elected President and re-install the Shah, because the President of Iran had ran on a platform of nationalizing the oil industry. The abuses of BP in Iran was a huge reason for the Shaw to be deposed in the first place. Kennedy's advisors told him to go ahead because it's Churchill. So the CIA set up a military coup, brought the Shah and his sister back from "retirement." Iran's government today is a direct reaction to our black-ops regime change against their actual attempt at real elected democracy. Read the book "All The Shah's Men" for more information. It was required reading for Anthropological Thought and Theory when I took that class.
2013-06-29 02:22:48 PM
4 votes:

El Pachuco: Can anyone rationally explain just why it's so bad for Iran to develop nuclear technologies?  Let's say they do want to be able to make bombs.  Okay, so what?

There is zero chance they'll just hand them over to some radical terrorist group.  No control over the use, plus instant massive retaliation if they're ever used?   Why sure!  Give Hamas and al Quaida a dozen each!

Well, they'll use them to attack Israel?  Number of times Iran has attacked Israel - 0.  Number of times Iran has attacked anyone in the past 200 years - 0.  Estimated number of nuclear weapons Israel has, and would use to retaliate - 200.  Probability that an attack on Israel would be national suicide - 100%.

They'll sell them to other nations, like Syria?  See the problems with giving them to terrorist groups above.

Why does Iran want nukes anyway?  Well, there's pride in joining the big boy club of the US, Russia, China, UK, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel.  Definitely a deterrent to invasion, but that's self-defense against the US and we're not supposed to talk about that.  Development of modern precision manufacturing capabilities, electronics and related supplies too.

So what, exactly, is the real problem worth getting the US into yet another war over?


See here is your problem, your assumptions are wrong.

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.

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.

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

Four,  we have not had a theocratic regime with nuclear weapons.  Given the ruling makeup of Iran and relative instability of this regime, there is a greater risk that they may utilize nuclear weapons they have, even if it results in adverse consequences for the larger nation. Not every nation utilizes the same value judgments when determining a course of action.

We don't need another unstable regime like Pakistan with nuclear weapons.  It increases the chances that these weapons will be used and potentially trigger greater destruction.  While nuclear weapons can engage in preventing war, in the hands of a unstable regime such as Iran, it can only increase the risk of their use and an extreme loss of life.
2013-06-29 01:37:02 PM
4 votes:
img196.imageshack.us
2013-06-29 01:33:00 PM
4 votes:

generallyso: Can we send Congress to fight this war?


Some folks are born made to wave the flag
Ooh, they're red, white and blue
And when the band plays "Hail to the chief"
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, Lord
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no senator's son, son
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no

Yeah!
Some folks are born silver spoon in hand
Lord, don't they help themselves, oh
But when the taxman comes to the door
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes

It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no millionaire's son, no
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no

Some folks inherit star spangled eyes
Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord
And when you ask them, "How much should we give?"
Ooh, they only answer More! more! more! yoh

It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no military son, son
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, one

It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate one, no no no
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate son, no no no
2013-06-29 01:17:09 PM
3 votes:

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.
2013-06-29 12:37:00 PM
3 votes:

simplicimus: What, someone actually expected a different outcome?


Seriously

/they just elected a new meat puppet
//they didn't change their government at all
2013-06-30 12:33:57 AM
2 votes:

studs up: 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.


The only thing you need to know about the decision to drop the bombs to end WWII is about how many Purple Hearts we still have sitting around:


During World War II, nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the estimated casualties resulting from the planned Allied invasion of Japan. To the present date, total combined American military casualties of the sixty-five years following the end of World War II-including the Korean and Vietnam Wars-have not exceeded that number. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock. There are so many in surplus that combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan are able to keep Purple Hearts on-hand for immediate award to wounded soldiers in the field.[6]

We were expecting to lose several hundred thousand American troops in the land invasion, and kill a few million Japanese in the process - those were the honest assessments at the time by the generals who'd been fighting the Japanese across the Pacific for 3 years, on ever-more-bloody island after island (some people ITT need to go read an original period work on the subject & get your head out of your asses).  Instead, those two bombs killed "only" about 150-250k people, none of them being American troops, and saved several million Japanese from the meat grinder of a WWII land invasion.

None of that has any bearing on Iran - full stop.  Iran wants the bomb as a deterrent to the West intervening while they step up their foreign interventions through religious fundamentalists (religious nutbags called Ayatollahs run Iran, the president is a meat puppet).  They'd have no problem producing a bomb "off the books" over several years, once they have the tech down, handing it to a proxy group who sticks it in a cargo ship and passes it to a rogue 3rd party, who then has access to around 80% of the world's population (most cities are on the sea or major waterways connected to it) to obliterate a target (Haifa maybe?) with near total deniability of where it came from (you can't do isotope matching if you don't have the reactor isotope map to begin with, which we wouldn't with Iran refusing to allow inspectors to visit the sites).  Iran with the bomb is a very risky, potentially nightmare scenario.

But, if you live in a paradigm of the US always being the bad guy (cough - slartibartfaster, sheep snorter) then whatever, let Iran get the bomb and give Hizballah a freebie, they're alright guys I'm sure, just misunderstood and all... hey they even build schools and do charity work, I'm sure Iran's use of them to wage proxy religious zealot wars is all a western media hoax and there's nothing to fear.
2013-06-29 01:28:17 PM
2 votes:

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?


www.37days.com

You're getting warm.
2013-06-29 11:55:39 AM
2 votes:
What, someone actually expected a different outcome?
2013-06-29 05:57:28 PM
1 votes:

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.
2013-06-29 05:43:46 PM
1 votes:

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 05:05:54 PM
1 votes:

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 04:59:54 PM
1 votes:

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 04:42:40 PM
1 votes:

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 04:24:53 PM
1 votes:

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 04:12:51 PM
1 votes:

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 04:08:15 PM
1 votes:

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 04:01:28 PM
1 votes:

Slartibartfaster: So what yer saying is the US inventing nukes and use them, stopped the cold war.


Only if you have a poor grasp of reading and history. Which seems to be the case. You do realize that a "Cold War" is a general concept, not necessarily referring to "THE Cold War" between the US and Russia/USSR right?

The idea that the Russians were "scared off" from messing with Japan by the atomic bomb is false, as they were undertaking an invasion of Manchuria and the Japanese northern island possessions even after the bombs were dropped, right? In fact, the only thing that DID make them surrender was that they realized that they would have far more favorable treatment under the Allies than they would under the Soviets.

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?
2013-06-29 03:58:30 PM
1 votes:

mouschi: Why would he read a book when he can much more easily just blindly blame everything on Republicans and the right wing?


Because reading might lead him to see it was Eisenhower instead of Kennedy. Not that either party has particularly clean hands when it comes to foreign relations but the destruction of democracy in Iran rests pretty squarely on Eisenhower. What's worse is that he knew it was a bad idea but went along with it anyway.
2013-06-29 03:57:48 PM
1 votes:

ethernet76: 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.


You sound like an angry, stupid child.  Come back when you can make a coherent argument and back up your claims with citations.  Unmtil then, please hush and let the adults speak.
2013-06-29 03:46:08 PM
1 votes:

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. And before you jump on the word terror, Gen. Curtis (Bombs Away) LeMay stated that if we had lost the war we would have had men up on war crimes charges. Being the winner pays off, after all. There is also the fact that Truman agreed to drop the bombs not only to win the war, but to send a message to Russia. We were already realizing that the Soviets were going to be a problem. By August 1945, Russia was poised to invade Japan themselves and that could have resulted in a North/South Korea situation. Truman's brain trust figured that the Russians would see the nukes and be more careful. So boom went the bombs. Of course, the Soviets knew about the bomb far in advance of its use and were already working on their own. So outside of preventing Japan from being partitioned, using the bomb was not necessary.

As for Iran, just keep an eye on Israel. Sooner or later they're going to do something about it. Then the real shiatstorm begins.


Yeah they were giving up real soon before we nuked them:

Faced with the prospect of an invasion of the Home Islands, starting withKyūshū, and the prospect of a Soviet invasion of Manchuria-Japan's last source of natural resources-the War Journal of the Imperial Headquarters concluded:

We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight.[9]

As a final attempt to stop the Allied advances, the Japanese Imperial High Command planned an all-out defense of Kyūshū codenamedOperation Ketsugō.[10]This was to be a radical departure from thedefense in depthplans used in the invasions ofPeleliu,Iwo Jima, andOkinawa. Instead, everything was staked on the beachhead; more than 3,000kamikazeswould be sent to attack the amphibious transports before troops and cargo were disembarked on the beach.[8]

If this did not drive the Allies away, they planned to send another 3,500 kamikazes along with 5,000Shin'yōsuicide boatsand the remaining destroyers and submarines-"the last of the Navy's operating fleet"-to the beach. If the Allies had fought through this and successfully landed on Kyūshū, only 3,000 planes would have been left to defend the remaining islands, although Kyūshū would be "defended to the last" regardless.[8]A set of caves were excavated near Nagano. In the event of invasion, these caves, theMatsushiro Underground Imperial Headquarters, were to be used by the army to direct the war and to house the emperor and his family.[11]
2013-06-29 03:43:45 PM
1 votes:

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.


[upload.wikimedia.org  - Who?]

If you think that, you have very little grasp of the Japanese Culture pre- and during the Second World War, or little realization of the fact that this was an entire culture willing to sacrifice itself down to the last man, woman, and child for their literal God. In addition, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military-industrial targets.

Kell Hound: By August 1945, Russia was poised to invade Japan themselves and that could have resulted in a North/South Korea situation. Truman's brain trust figured that the Russians would see the nukes and be more careful. So boom went the bombs.


Uh, the soviets DID invade Japan. After the bombs were dropped, three days prior.

Actually, the meer rumor that the Emperor might surrender was enough to cause rebellion in the Japanese Army.

The dropping of the atomic bombs was horrific, but that was the war they were fighting.
2013-06-29 03:34:25 PM
1 votes:

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

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


Yeah, I know when I want to make a point, I use a map that's been outdated for five years and claims bases that have been closed or no longer are allowed to be used by US forces by their respective country.

Yay agitprop!
2013-06-29 03:26:12 PM
1 votes:

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.
2013-06-29 03:16:42 PM
1 votes:
i.imgur.com

All of this is their fault, really. They shouldn't have out their country there.
2013-06-29 03:05:07 PM
1 votes:

Slartibartfaster: mouschi: You think Iran is going to use them the same way the U.S. did?

Damn, I hope not - wiping out two cities kinda sucked.


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?
2013-06-29 02:46:54 PM
1 votes:

Slartibartfaster: ethernet76: The spreading of the technology. Iran would be able export materials and knowledge to other countries. Which spreads to other countries, etc. Until you get to the point where highly unstable countries have nukes that may go missing.

remind me
which country invented nukes then accidentally spread them to all other nuclear nations ?
while yer at it, can you list all the countries that have nuked civilian populations

sorry Im getting a bit old my memory gets a bit hazy


You think Iran is going to use them the same way the U.S. did? You think it is the same technology and power as back then when we used them? You live in a very jaded world if you think these are comparable situations.
2013-06-29 02:34:58 PM
1 votes:

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?


We've always been at war with Eastasia, we've never fought against Eurasia...

/same old war with a new set of words.


Please don't call them a 'Islamic republic'. They are religion-heisting power mongers, who are willing to kill everyone ...except themselves.
2013-06-29 02:15:13 PM
1 votes:

jmr61: So the US is allowed to have and use nuclear weapons but Iran isn't?

That hardly seems fair.


yep, nope and who cares?
2013-06-29 02:07:50 PM
1 votes:

El Pachuco: Can anyone rationally explain just why it's so bad for Iran to develop nuclear technologies?  Let's say they do want to be able to make bombs.  Okay, so what?

There is zero chance they'll just hand them over to some radical terrorist group.  No control over the use, plus instant massive retaliation if they're ever used?   Why sure!  Give Hamas and al Quaida a dozen each!

Well, they'll use them to attack Israel?  Number of times Iran has attacked Israel - 0.  Number of times Iran has attacked anyone in the past 200 years - 0.  Estimated number of nuclear weapons Israel has, and would use to retaliate - 200.  Probability that an attack on Israel would be national suicide - 100%.

They'll sell them to other nations, like Syria?  See the problems with giving them to terrorist groups above.

Why does Iran want nukes anyway?  Well, there's pride in joining the big boy club of the US, Russia, China, UK, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel.  Definitely a deterrent to invasion, but that's self-defense against the US and we're not supposed to talk about that.  Development of modern precision manufacturing capabilities, electronics and related supplies too.

So what, exactly, is the real problem worth getting the US into yet another war over?


The spreading of the technology. Iran would be able export materials and knowledge to other countries. Which spreads to other countries, etc. Until you get to the point where highly unstable countries have nukes that may go missing.

China helped Pakistan. Pakistan helped Best Korea. Best Korea is now helping Iran.

Imagine if that chain continues. It is inevitable a rogue group will eventually have access to nuclear materials or a bomb.
2013-06-29 01:56:14 PM
1 votes:

boyvoyeur: Maybe it's time some international group that represents several countries write them a letter and ask that they don't do this.


i.telegraph.co.uk
We don't have time for that!  Don't worry; the war will only take five minutes.  Five hours.  Five days at the MOST, but I don't see that happening.
2013-06-29 01:51:24 PM
1 votes:

Lee Jackson Beauregard: [img196.imageshack.us image 640x823]


I wish we had that poster during the Bush Administration.
2013-06-29 01:42:32 PM
1 votes:

Piizzadude: macadamnut: 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?

[www.37days.com image 450x295]

You're getting warm.

oh come on, Canada would help us.

/still not sure why we havent annex'd them yet


twilight.ponychan.net
War.  War never changes.
2013-06-29 01:40:59 PM
1 votes:

Piizzadude: macadamnut: 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?

[www.37days.com image 450x295]

You're getting warm.

oh come on, Canada would help us.

/still not sure why we havent annex'd them yet


You tried a couple times. Never worked.
2013-06-29 01:33:32 PM
1 votes:
Remember people. Vote Republican President for 2016 so Israel can achieve its goal of committing nuclear Genocide against the big meanies that don't grovel at their dirty feet.

/Oh and a big thanks to the CIA and Saint Reagan for making the Rightwing religious mess known as Iran.
//And of course many thanks to the assholes who created Israel and armed them to wipe out the people of Palestine.
///Can't commit global nuclear genocide if Israel does not exist, as then the christians won't go to heaven.
2013-06-29 01:25:50 PM
1 votes:

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


Why the f*ck would he?
2013-06-29 01:24:22 PM
1 votes:

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

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


Or, as you said, C: none of the above.
2013-06-29 01:21:54 PM
1 votes:

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...
2013-06-29 01:20:08 PM
1 votes:

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?


The Supreme Leader controls Iran's nuclear policy, not the President.
2013-06-29 01:18:59 PM
1 votes:
Bah... Obama won't do squat.
2013-06-29 01:18:19 PM
1 votes:

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?
 
Displayed 43 of 43 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report