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.

(Army Times)   Iran now just one month from entering next year long phase in decades long project to build a nuclear bomb   (armytimes.com) divider line 69
    More: Interesting, Iran, nuclear weapons, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, states with nuclear weapons, David Albright, President of Iran, uranium enrichment, nuclear fuels  
•       •       •

2255 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Oct 2013 at 10:22 AM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-26 09:42:45 AM
I just did a google search for old articles, and in 2008, they were 6 months away. So at this rate, by 2020 they will be a week away from building a bomb.
 
2013-10-26 10:25:04 AM
they've been a month a way from the bomb since 1985, according to the Israelis, who conveniently already have a bunch.
 
2013-10-26 10:27:07 AM
Well this means we need to INVADE THEM NOW!! KILL KILL DESTROY!! LEAVE NO HUMAN STANDING IN IRAN!! BLOW UP THEIR COUNTRY AND MAKE THEM BEG FOR FORGIVENESS THAT THEY EVER TRIED TO MESS WITH AMERICA AND THEN...

...sorry, I have a small disorder called Tea Party Tourettes Syndrome
 
2013-10-26 10:31:56 AM
Oh good, there's no need for me to overstate the obvious. Do carry on, old chaps!
 
2013-10-26 10:35:41 AM
Army Times' expert?
Achmed from the falaffel stand down by the river.
Information access, who has it?
Who's the cool kid de jour in Washington information circles, or, in headline style, "Ten Ways to Butter your Career Bread as a Beltway Journalist."

/This is why I no longer read the military times nonsense publications.
//They were better at reporting the next new Army boot and breakthroughs in MRE technology.
///Are they still printing those maps showing troop movements that are sponsored by AT&T?
 
2013-10-26 10:42:07 AM
I'm not trying to start a flamewar, but I'll never understand what makes the "International Community" think they have the right to tell countries they can't have nuclear weapons when so many of them already do.
"We're keeping ours, but you can't have any".
 
2013-10-26 10:44:00 AM
"Iran one year from the bomb"

This is a repeat from 2008 and every year after.

/thanks Obama!
 
2013-10-26 10:44:57 AM
David Albright: When you see yourself as a hammer, every problem is a nail.
Iran is his fetish project and he's well-paid for that obsession.
 
2013-10-26 10:46:33 AM
AIPAC is more of a danger to the USA than Iran.
 
2013-10-26 10:48:59 AM
I am a zionist and I say let Iran build their bomb. If they use it against Israel, it will kill a lot of sunni arabs and cause another regional war, if used against America, there will be a world of hurt. I honestly think they are building their bomb, as every other country has, just because they can, not neccessarily for nefarious purposes.
 
2013-10-26 10:52:20 AM
Why don't we just be nice to the Iranians so they won't feel threatened by us and feel compelled to use the bombs should they build them.  Heck, perhaps if we're nice, they may not feel a need to build the bombs in the first place.
 
2013-10-26 10:58:30 AM

Aldon: "Iran one year from the bomb"

This is a repeat from 2008 and every year after.

/thanks Obama!


cdn.ebaumsworld.com
 
2013-10-26 10:59:28 AM

dolphkhan: I'm not trying to start a flamewar, but I'll never understand what makes the "International Community" think they have the right to tell countries they can't have nuclear weapons when so many of them already do.
"We're keeping ours, but you can't have any".


There's something called the non-proliferation treaty that Iran signed.  You may have heard of it.
 
2013-10-26 11:00:44 AM
Iran sees the United States invading and wrecking countries all around its borders.
If I were Iran, I would have already hooked up deeply with Russia and China as a counter to US shenanigans.

Let them have their Islamic bomb.
They're big boys and they know if they pop a nuke on any of our allies that they'll be toast in an hour or less.
Let them be the authors of their own fate.

/Hard to talk about US hypocrisy on this matter, since the USA is the only country ever to use nukes against an enemy -- twice.
 
2013-10-26 11:01:41 AM
Iran is a growing economic power which actually NEEDS nuclear energy. Their pursuit of nuclear technology makes sense. If Pakistan, North Korea, and Congo all have reactors-- why can't one of the world's major powers?
 
2013-10-26 11:04:19 AM
But, but but ... the smoking gun could take the form of a mushroom cloud!
The Air Power morons will never give this up.
 
2013-10-26 11:05:14 AM

DarkSoulNoHope: Well this means we need to INVADE THEM NOW!! KILL KILL DESTROY!! LEAVE NO HUMAN STANDING IN IRAN!! BLOW UP THEIR COUNTRY AND MAKE THEM BEG FOR FORGIVENESS THAT THEY EVER TRIED TO MESS WITH AMERICA AND THEN...

...sorry, I have a small disorder called Tea Party Tourettes Syndrome


actually, it was the founder of the Tea Party, Ron Paul, who stood alone in fighting the interventionist policies of both administrations over the past decade. Yes, the neocons have attempted to adopt and corrupt the ideas of the Tea Party, and largely have done so, but don't be mistaken into thinking all Republicans are interventionists.  (Not to suggest President Drone Strike and his own party have been any less belligerent)
 
2013-10-26 11:05:39 AM
but, but, but, but MOOSLIM BRUTHAHOOD!

/thanks fartbama!
//I need to shower after typing that
///third slashie just because
 
2013-10-26 11:06:20 AM
They've been 'one year away' for the last 20 years or so.

NO, ISRAEL, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BOMB THEM.  KNOCK OFF YOU SCREWHEADS.
 
2013-10-26 11:10:44 AM

toraque: There's something called the non-proliferation treaty that Iran signed. You may have heard of it.


I had not heard of it. This is partly why why I express my ignorance, in hopes that someone more knowledgeable will explain things to me. After having looked into it a bit, one could easily argue that any signatory nations agreed to this under duress.
"We got nukes. Sign this, buddy...."
 
2013-10-26 11:12:58 AM
Oh, is it fear-persian-nukes time again?

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-10-26 11:14:25 AM

DarkSoulNoHope: Well this means we need to INVADE THEM NOW!! KILL KILL DESTROY!! LEAVE NO HUMAN STANDING IN IRAN!! BLOW UP THEIR COUNTRY AND MAKE THEM BEG FOR FORGIVENESS THAT THEY EVER TRIED TO MESS WITH AMERICA AND THEN...

...sorry, I have a small disorder called Tea Party Tourettes Syndrome


I'm sure if we ignore it, the threat will just go away.
Islamic nutjobs are just misunderstood and harmless after all, right?
 
2013-10-26 11:15:59 AM

Mael99: DarkSoulNoHope: Well this means we need to INVADE THEM NOW!! KILL KILL DESTROY!! LEAVE NO HUMAN STANDING IN IRAN!! BLOW UP THEIR COUNTRY AND MAKE THEM BEG FOR FORGIVENESS THAT THEY EVER TRIED TO MESS WITH AMERICA AND THEN...

...sorry, I have a small disorder called Tea Party Tourettes Syndrome

I'm sure if we ignore it, the threat will just go away.
Islamic nutjobs are just misunderstood and harmless after all, right?


do you grasp the fact that they've been screaming 'iranian nukes in a year omfg' for the last 20 years?  That dog won't hunt anymore.
 
2013-10-26 11:27:46 AM

Infernalist: Mael99: DarkSoulNoHope: Well this means we need to INVADE THEM NOW!! KILL KILL DESTROY!! LEAVE NO HUMAN STANDING IN IRAN!! BLOW UP THEIR COUNTRY AND MAKE THEM BEG FOR FORGIVENESS THAT THEY EVER TRIED TO MESS WITH AMERICA AND THEN...

...sorry, I have a small disorder called Tea Party Tourettes Syndrome

I'm sure if we ignore it, the threat will just go away.
Islamic nutjobs are just misunderstood and harmless after all, right?

do you grasp the fact that they've been screaming 'iranian nukes in a year omfg' for the last 20 years?  That dog won't hunt anymore.


something, something, religion of peace and love, blah blah, blah.
 
2013-10-26 11:28:38 AM
We hear this every month. One of these times it will be true.
 
2013-10-26 11:32:20 AM
"Iran now just one month from entering next year long phase in decades long project to build a nuclear bomb"

Que?
 
2013-10-26 11:39:27 AM

Mael99: DarkSoulNoHope: Well this means we need to INVADE THEM NOW!! KILL KILL DESTROY!! LEAVE NO HUMAN STANDING IN IRAN!! BLOW UP THEIR COUNTRY AND MAKE THEM BEG FOR FORGIVENESS THAT THEY EVER TRIED TO MESS WITH AMERICA AND THEN...

...sorry, I have a small disorder called Tea Party Tourettes Syndrome

I'm sure if we ignore it, the threat will just go away.
Islamic nutjobs are just misunderstood and harmless after all, right?


as opposed to the pure, white, God-instead-of-Allah fearing Christians who want to nuke anything brown?

/were you serious, joking or trolling?
//seriously, I couldn't tell
///5 out of 10 if the latter
 
2013-10-26 11:41:23 AM
So how many countries has Iran invaded in the last hundred years?
 And who's the only country to ever actually use a nuclear weapon against citizens of another country?  What country has used multiple nuclear weapons against citizens of another country?
 
2013-10-26 11:41:41 AM

dolphkhan: I'm not trying to start a flamewar, but I'll never understand what makes the "International Community" think they have the right to tell countries they can't have nuclear weapons when so many of them already do.
"We're keeping ours, but you can't have any".


Well, if you'll NEVER understand, then I guess there isn't much point in explaining it to you, is there?
 
2013-10-26 11:44:03 AM

AbiNormal: "Iran now just one month from entering next year long phase in decades long project to build a nuclear bomb"

Que?


no, no, no, it's like this...

¿Que? ¡Dios mio!

/don't even know Spanish
//except maybe for that
///somebody post that scene from family guy with Brian and Stewie and that Mexican
 
2013-10-26 11:50:54 AM

nickdaisy: Iran is a growing economic power which actually NEEDS nuclear energy. Their pursuit of nuclear technology makes sense. If Pakistan, North Korea, and Congo all have reactors-- why can't one of the world's major powers?


One of the most oil rich countries in the world NEEDS nuclear energy?  Please tell me you are joking.
 
2013-10-26 11:51:21 AM

ciberido: dolphkhan: I'm not trying to start a flamewar, but I'll never understand what makes the "International Community" think they have the right to tell countries they can't have nuclear weapons when so many of them already do.
"We're keeping ours, but you can't have any".

Well, if you'll NEVER understand, then I guess there isn't much point in explaining it to you, is there?


One can certainly try, I've been wrong many times in the past and learned from my mistakes, but if you're nit-picking word-choice rather than contributing anything, it's unlikely that you'd be the one to educate me. Except, you know, on choosing my wording more carefully.. something which I rarely bother to do, as I'm posting in an internet forum, not writing a thesis.
 
2013-10-26 11:52:41 AM

AbiNormal: "Iran now just one month from entering next year long phase in decades long project to build a nuclear bomb"

Que?


They're preparing to commence to begin.
 
2013-10-26 11:52:49 AM

Muta: Why don't we just be nice to the Iranians so they won't feel threatened by us and feel compelled to use the bombs should they build them.  Heck, perhaps if we're nice, they may not feel a need to build the bombs in the first place.


Did ya happen to see the video of the Iranian using about a 12" knife to saw a Americans head off.

The world isn't all baby's breath and puppy dog farts.
 
2013-10-26 11:54:27 AM

06Wahoo: nickdaisy: Iran is a growing economic power which actually NEEDS nuclear energy. Their pursuit of nuclear technology makes sense. If Pakistan, North Korea, and Congo all have reactors-- why can't one of the world's major powers?

One of the most oil rich countries in the world NEEDS nuclear energy?  Please tell me you are joking.


The United States has massive oil at its disposal but it prefers to buy its oil from other nations.

So...yeah.  I can see how Iran might want to sell its oil rather than use it.
 
2013-10-26 11:56:04 AM

"Quick - their fear is flagging! Drag out the 'expert'!"

 
2013-10-26 12:00:14 PM

No Time To Explain: AbiNormal: "Iran now just one month from entering next year long phase in decades long project to build a nuclear bomb"

Que?

no, no, no, it's like this...

¿Que? ¡Dios mio!

/don't even know Spanish
//except maybe for that
///somebody post that scene from family guy with Brian and Stewie and that Mexican


aevorea: AbiNormal: "Iran now just one month from entering next year long phase in decades long project to build a nuclear bomb"

Que?

They're preparing to commence to begin.


Thanks for clearing that up.
 
2013-10-26 12:02:40 PM

06Wahoo: nickdaisy: Iran is a growing economic power which actually NEEDS nuclear energy. Their pursuit of nuclear technology makes sense. If Pakistan, North Korea, and Congo all have reactors-- why can't one of the world's major powers?

One of the most oil rich countries in the world NEEDS nuclear energy?  Please tell me you are joking.


not joking. They produce about 4 billon barrels of crude per year and consume about half that amount. Their energy use is growing at about ten percent per year. Do the math and tell me if it makes sense to explore other energy sources. Or, go look at how they are a world leader in hydroelectric engineering.

They are growing and need fuel.

Of course, lifting sanctions would allow them to more effciently exploit petroleum reserves and save the world a fortune on energy costs, but that would make Exxon and friends very unhappy.
 
2013-10-26 12:05:57 PM

06Wahoo: nickdaisy: Iran is a growing economic power which actually NEEDS nuclear energy. Their pursuit of nuclear technology makes sense. If Pakistan, North Korea, and Congo all have reactors-- why can't one of the world's major powers?

One of the most oil rich countries in the world NEEDS nuclear energy?  Please tell me you are joking.



Maybe they want do do something with that oil that doesn't involve burning it until their cities disappear under a haze of smog.
 
2013-10-26 12:16:42 PM

nickdaisy: 06Wahoo: nickdaisy: Iran is a growing economic power which actually NEEDS nuclear energy. Their pursuit of nuclear technology makes sense. If Pakistan, North Korea, and Congo all have reactors-- why can't one of the world's major powers?

One of the most oil rich countries in the world NEEDS nuclear energy?  Please tell me you are joking.

not joking. They produce about 4 billon barrels of crude per year and consume about half that amount. Their energy use is growing at about ten percent per year. Do the math and tell me if it makes sense to explore other energy sources. Or, go look at how they are a world leader in hydroelectric engineering.

They are growing and need fuel.

Of course, lifting sanctions would allow them to more effciently exploit petroleum reserves and save the world a fortune on energy costs, but that would make Exxon and friends very unhappy.


Come back when you can A) use spell check. And B) propose a smart argument. Your comments are just plain moronic.

They don't need nuclear power plant and their whole point to their uranium enrichment program is for weapons and not energy. And if you doubt that, Go look up their work on a neutron initiator.

/YOU LOSE

//GOOD DAY SIR!

/// I SAID GOOD DAY!
 
2013-10-26 12:24:04 PM

viscountalpha: nickdaisy: 06Wahoo: nickdaisy: Iran is a growing economic power which actually NEEDS nuclear energy. Their pursuit of nuclear technology makes sense. If Pakistan, North Korea, and Congo all have reactors-- why can't one of the world's major powers?

One of the most oil rich countries in the world NEEDS nuclear energy?  Please tell me you are joking.

not joking. They produce about 4 billon barrels of crude per year and consume about half that amount. Their energy use is growing at about ten percent per year. Do the math and tell me if it makes sense to explore other energy sources. Or, go look at how they are a world leader in hydroelectric engineering.

They are growing and need fuel.

Of course, lifting sanctions would allow them to more effciently exploit petroleum reserves and save the world a fortune on energy costs, but that would make Exxon and friends very unhappy.

Come back when you can A) use spell check. And B) propose a smart argument. Your comments are just plain moronic.

They don't need nuclear power plant and their whole point to their uranium enrichment program is for weapons and not energy. And if you doubt that, Go look up their work on a neutron initiator.

/YOU LOSE

//GOOD DAY SIR!

/// I SAID GOOD DAY!


imgs.xkcd.com
 
2013-10-26 12:24:45 PM

viscountalpha: nickdaisy: 06Wahoo: nickdaisy: Iran is a growing economic power which actually NEEDS nuclear energy. Their pursuit of nuclear technology makes sense. If Pakistan, North Korea, and Congo all have reactors-- why can't one of the world's major powers?

One of the most oil rich countries in the world NEEDS nuclear energy?  Please tell me you are joking.

not joking. They produce about 4 billon barrels of crude per year and consume about half that amount. Their energy use is growing at about ten percent per year. Do the math and tell me if it makes sense to explore other energy sources. Or, go look at how they are a world leader in hydroelectric engineering.

They are growing and need fuel.

Of course, lifting sanctions would allow them to more effciently exploit petroleum reserves and save the world a fortune on energy costs, but that would make Exxon and friends very unhappy.

Come back when you can A) use spell check. And B) propose a smart argument. Your comments are just plain moronic.

They don't need nuclear power plant and their whole point to their uranium enrichment program is for weapons and not energy. And if you doubt that, Go look up their work on a neutron initiator.

/YOU LOSE

//GOOD DAY SIR!

/// I SAID GOOD DAY!


give me a break on the spell check thing.  I'm using a Cyrillic keyboard and suffering from uber jetlag

I don't doubt they're pursuing nukes as well-- they'd be idiotic not to considering the us occupies countries on their left and right and our foreign policy is run by Iran's three greatest enemies: the Israeli right, Saudi princes, and the oil/defense industry.

But they need energy too. It's indisputable.

/good day as well, and I appreciate the cordial exchange
//no, I sincerely mean good day, it's not just a courtesy
 
2013-10-26 12:25:46 PM
Did you guys hear about Walmart and Iran? No?  It seems they are going to build the worlds biggest store there .... 100,000,000 sq. ft.... As soon as we nuke em a billion acre parking lot
 
2013-10-26 12:26:29 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: I just did a google search for old articles, and in 2008, they were 6 months away. So at this rate, by 2020 they will be a week away from building a bomb.


Iran is always a week away from having a bomb

a sex bomb anyways

/persian women are beautiful
 
2013-10-26 12:27:22 PM

queezyweezel: So how many countries has Iran invaded in the last hundred years?
 And who's the only country to ever actually use a nuclear weapon against citizens of another country?  What country has used multiple nuclear weapons against citizens of another country?


Reverse the first question: how many countries have taken "Persian" territory and what turf do these guys think they actually have a right to claim?

And before you consider the use of nuclear weapons by the US as justification for their acquisition/development by Iran, please realize the alternatives and situation under which they were used by the US in 1945.

http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/MacArthur%20Reports/MacArthur %2 0V1/ch13.htm

And although I disagree with some of the conclusions made here this article also provides background information about possible Soviet intentions in Japan itself

http://www.japanfocus.org/-Tsuyoshi-Hasegawa/2501

Without the atomic bombings of Japan we might have had 250,000+ dead Allied soldiers, untold dead Japanese civilians/soldiers, and a Tokyo split like Berlin with Hokkaido and northern Honshu as a possible Communist satellite, perhaps with a wholly Communist Korea and more quickly Communist China.  We also had a generation of leaders who knew what the use of atomic weaponry might bring to the world, note the number of Stalingrad veterans or observers in positions of leadership in the USSR during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

I do not think it wise to permit a regime like that in Tehran to be allowed to develop these technologies, especially as I do not think they would necessarily consider reprisals as a negative so long as they might wipe out the opposing party.  A war of destruction on this scale in the Middle East, even if somewhat "contained", would have global consequences for years to come not only from the loss of oil but from the secondary effects of the weapons themselves.  The blindness of hatred and bigotry would wipe out the cradle of human civilization, perhaps much more than that as well.  I can only hope that such a regime never develop these capacities, though I am not sure whether we are willing to address the concern before development is complete.
 
2013-10-26 12:28:31 PM
If you'd like to see who cares about Iran (I don't give a damn about the region-- it's not near us, has no serious cultural ties, and will sell us oil no matter what) surf on over to Drudgereport and check out the headline.

So much for America first.
 
2013-10-26 12:50:42 PM

dolphkhan: I'm not trying to start a flamewar, but I'll never understand what makes the "International Community" think they have the right to tell countries they can't have nuclear weapons when so many of them already do.
"We're keeping ours, but you can't have any".


You're right!  I don't understand how the "International Community" could tell Syria that they couldn't use nerve gas on their own people, or even have nerve gas. It doesn't matter whether we have the same thing or not.  Whatever happen to national sovereignty?

That being said, I'm a big fan of the Syrian civil war.  I see it as a big meat grinder, with wave after wave of people who will not be missed by human society, walking voluntarily in to it.  May it go on and on.
 
2013-10-26 12:54:25 PM

AbiNormal: No Time To Explain: AbiNormal: "Iran now just one month from entering next year long phase in decades long project to build a nuclear bomb"

Que?

no, no, no, it's like this...

¿Que? ¡Dios mio!

/don't even know Spanish
//except maybe for that
///somebody post that scene from family guy with Brian and Stewie and that Mexican

aevorea: AbiNormal: "Iran now just one month from entering next year long phase in decades long project to build a nuclear bomb"

Que?

They're preparing to commence to begin.

Thanks for clearing that up.


Maybe this will help: Iran now just one month from entering next year-long phase, in decades-long project, to build a nuclear bomb

/bent my brain a little, at first, too
 
2013-10-26 01:07:43 PM

zimbomba63: You're right! I don't understand how the "International Community" could tell Syria that they couldn't use nerve gas on their own people, or even have nerve gas. It doesn't matter whether we have the same thing or not. Whatever happen to national sovereignty?


What I don't understand about Syria and the "International Community":

i.imgur.com
 
2013-10-26 01:11:33 PM
cdn.shopify.com
 
Displayed 50 of 69 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report