The Big Nuclear Chicken Hypocricy (2329 hits)
Category: NewsLabels: ets_sociopolitical_commentary ets_essays
Rating: 0.08 on 146 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (View user info) at 2006-04-12 17:19:14 EDT
Well well well...
It looks like Condi Rice and co are preparing the little minds of the U.S. citizens for yet another military strike against a sovereign nation working perfectly within its rights as a signator of the NPT (Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty). Let's get them all nice and riled up, begging for blood.
Hell, I can almost TASTE the Muslim blood as I speak! So sweet, it tastes like pure axis of evil.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/12/iran.nuclear/index.html
"This latest announcement is a step that is further going to isolate Iran," Rice said. "It demonstrates that Iran is not adhering to the international community's requirements, and I do think the Security Council will need to take into consideration this move by Iran."
AAAAAANNNND, what move would that be, Mrs. Rice? Because according to the document below, Iran has every right to enrich uranium.
Let's look it over together, shall we?
http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/npttreaty.html
Article I
Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.
[Iran = NOT GUILTY]
Article II
Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
[Iran = NOT GUILTY]
---Now here's the kicker:
Article IV
1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.
[Interesting...but what about this next part:]
2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.
Now to quote CNN's article again: "Iran has said it has a right to produce nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes."
From what I just read it looks like Iran, being a non-nuclear weapons state and signitary to the agreement, they have every right to produce nuclear energy for peaceful means.
And yet, we see CNN reporting that "The West, led by the United States, believes that Iran plans to build nuclear weapons and says the move only underscores why the global community has serious concerns about Tehran's nuclear ambitions."
Why, pray tell, does the west think this? Are they going to give us evidence that supports this heresay? Will they attempt to substantiate this belief with real evidence, or with mountains of rhetoric, hoping that the sheer volume of unsubstantiated complaints will suffice?
This is all coming as the United States' prodigal son George Bush has just signed an agreement with India to provide them with nuclear material for peaceful energy needs, while denying Pakistan, its mortal enemy, the same courtesy. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C04%5C08%5Cstory_8-4-2006_pg3_1
Why is this significant? Because India is NOT even a signator to the NPT!
So let's get this straight...
IRAN = signator of NPT = West doesn't want them enriching uranium even for peaceful means.
India = NON-signator of NPT = West wants to provide them with special treatment, effectively rewarding them for not signing the treaty and producing the bomb!
I think we're owed an explanation, and it needs to be a little more than "we THINK they're TRYING to produce nuclear weapons".
But, what do I know?
User Reviews
Submitted by mikethescottish (user info) at 2006-04-22 08:27:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I don't trust Iran in the slightest, but you're right to not want to wade in all guns blazing again.
Submitted by nrduncan (user info) at 2006-04-19 13:28:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"But, what do I know?"
Nothing, now STFU
Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2006-04-16 09:49:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
yes.
Submitted by nightshade (user info) at 2006-04-16 09:15:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
But dont forget the fact that the Iranian president has openly declared he would love to remove Israel from the Face of the Earth.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-04-16 08:07:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-04-16 07:46:07 (#)
Ranking: 2
-If anyone other than the Allies had dropped the big one, this conversation would
be taking place in German. In other news, the firebombings of Tokyo killed more
folks than both A bombs combined. Recognizing that fact isn't twisting history.
Dudette.
===
I was going to trump you there by responding in german, until I realised that 8 years down the line, the only thing I can remember how to say is 'do I have to change trains?'
There's an auschwitz joke in there somewhere.
Duderino.
______________________________________________
On the other hand, 39 years later I remember things like
"Wie viele finger haben Sie?" Really useful shit during
a nuclear war.
Dudeytoottoot.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-04-16 07:46:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-04-16 07:37:23 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-04-16 07:00:59 (#)
Ranking: 2
===
And rightly so. But if you don't trust that country, why would you trust the intentions of a country whose political leader is openly mocked worldwide for being a simpleton and who lied to his own people in order to justify a war?
You do remember the original justification for Iraq, right? You do remember the whole "They have WMDs" thing, right? You trusted their intentions over Iraq and look what happened. Now you want to commit the same mistake again with Iran. Does that honestly make sense to you?
Last I checked, America was the only country to have actually proved that they can't be trusted with nuclear capability.
______________________________________________________________________
Are you aware of the ramifications of the bombs dropped on Japan?
WTF do you mean "can't be trusted?" 60 years down the road, dozens of
opportunities to do it again, and we haven't. Stick your anti-American mindset
where the sun don't shine.
Oh, and Caul, DUDE!!!
====
"Hey! We only did it the once!...well....twice!"
If anyone other than the allies had dropped the bomb, we would be talking about it today as a war crime or an act of terrorism, not as a 'necessary evil that forced Japan to back down'. Recognising that fact isn't being anti-american.
Dude.
_______________________________________________
If anyone other than the Allies had dropped the big one, this conversation would
be taking place in German. In other news, the firebombings of Tokyo killed more
folks than both A bombs combined. Recognizing that fact isn't twisting history.
Dudette.
===
I was going to trump you there by responding in german, until I realised that 8 years down the line, the only thing I can remember how to say is 'do I have to change trains?'
There's an auschwitz joke in there somewhere.
Duderino.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-04-16 07:37:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-04-16 07:00:59 (#)
Ranking: 2
===
And rightly so. But if you don't trust that country, why would you trust the intentions of a country whose political leader is openly mocked worldwide for being a simpleton and who lied to his own people in order to justify a war?
You do remember the original justification for Iraq, right? You do remember the whole "They have WMDs" thing, right? You trusted their intentions over Iraq and look what happened. Now you want to commit the same mistake again with Iran. Does that honestly make sense to you?
Last I checked, America was the only country to have actually proved that they can't be trusted with nuclear capability.
______________________________________________________________________
Are you aware of the ramifications of the bombs dropped on Japan?
WTF do you mean "can't be trusted?" 60 years down the road, dozens of
opportunities to do it again, and we haven't. Stick your anti-American mindset
where the sun don't shine.
Oh, and Caul, DUDE!!!
====
"Hey! We only did it the once!...well....twice!"
If anyone other than the allies had dropped the bomb, we would be talking about it today as a war crime or an act of terrorism, not as a 'necessary evil that forced Japan to back down'. Recognising that fact isn't being anti-american.
Dude.
_______________________________________________
If anyone other than the Allies had dropped the big one, this conversation would
be taking place in German. In other news, the firebombings of Tokyo killed more
folks than both A bombs combined. Recognizing that fact isn't twisting history.
Dudette.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-04-16 07:00:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-04-15 21:41:49 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-04-14 05:52:27 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-04-14 05:35:54 (#)
Ranking: -2
Also, I really don't trust a country who's political leader fully believes that the holocaust never existed, and that it was all a massive staged farce from the Jews.
===
And rightly so. But if you don't trust that country, why would you trust the intentions of a country whose political leader is openly mocked worldwide for being a simpleton and who lied to his own people in order to justify a war?
You do remember the original justification for Iraq, right? You do remember the whole "They have WMDs" thing, right? You trusted their intentions over Iraq and look what happened. Now you want to commit the same mistake again with Iran. Does that honestly make sense to you?
Last I checked, America was the only country to have actually proved that they can't be trusted with nuclear capability.
______________________________________________________________________
Are you aware of the ramifications of the bombs dropped on Japan?
WTF do you mean "can't be trusted?" 60 years down the road, dozens of
opportunities to do it again, and we haven't. Stick your anti-American mindset
where the sun don't shine.
Oh, and Caul, DUDE!!!
====
"Hey! We only did it the once!...well....twice!"
If anyone other than the allies had dropped the bomb, we would be talking about it today as a war crime or an act of terrorism, not as a 'necessary evil that forced Japan to back down'. Recognising that fact isn't being anti-american.
Dude.
Submitted by Donitsu2002 (user info) at 2006-04-16 01:01:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Because the US is the ONLY country worrying about Iran! Damn Bush and his Megalomania!
ETS it's been confirmed, you're batshit crazy
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-04-16 00:23:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
AND BUBBA WITH A LONG LINE DRIVE TO DEEP CENTERFIELD! FA IS GOING BACKBACKBACKBACKBACK TO THE WALL IT'S GONE! HOMERUN BUBBA!
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-04-15 21:41:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-04-14 05:52:27 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-04-14 05:35:54 (#)
Ranking: -2
Also, I really don't trust a country who's political leader fully believes that the holocaust never existed, and that it was all a massive staged farce from the Jews.
===
And rightly so. But if you don't trust that country, why would you trust the intentions of a country whose political leader is openly mocked worldwide for being a simpleton and who lied to his own people in order to justify a war?
You do remember the original justification for Iraq, right? You do remember the whole "They have WMDs" thing, right? You trusted their intentions over Iraq and look what happened. Now you want to commit the same mistake again with Iran. Does that honestly make sense to you?
Last I checked, America was the only country to have actually proved that they can't be trusted with nuclear capability.
______________________________________________________________________
Are you aware of the ramifications of the bombs dropped on Japan?
WTF do you mean "can't be trusted?" 60 years down the road, dozens of
opportunities to do it again, and we haven't. Stick your anti-American mindset
where the sun don't shine.
Oh, and Caul, DUDE!!!
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2006-04-15 06:00:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-04-12 17:39:12 (#)
Ranking: 0
~~~~~~~
But this is about public opinion. This is about duping the proles. Nothing more.
=-=-=--=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA... "Proles"... You actually call them "Proles".
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2006-04-15 01:42:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I am reserving any opinion I have on the Iran situation until I am able to become a little more informed on the facts. I supported the war in Iraq initially, based on the premise that if a psychotic dictator had the ability to unleash nuclear weaponry then we had to do our utmost to stop him by any conventional means necessary. The anti-war lobby seemed ludicrously bloody-minded to me, unable to offer any real solution to to the problem other than we should "use diplomacy", and unable to go into any detail as to what that entailed. They also claimed that the war would be unfair because the US had excessive nuclear power, had used it, provided Saddam Hussein with chemical weaponry in the first place and was refusing to invade other oppressed countries because they didn't have large oil reserves - all points which I agreed with, but didn't actually help their case at all, and rather were arguments for global nuclear disarmament and increased US humanitarian intervention.
My support for the war only waned when it started to become clear that those in charge had, if not outright fabricated, at least selectively chosen and overstated the evidence that was used to justify the war. Then when it became clear just how manipulated and politicised the intelligence services had been, and how unprepared the invading countries were to deal with the loss of infrastructure and impending civil war, I became an outright opponent. That doesn't mean that I consider my initial position to have been wrong at the time, but it does mean that all those in positions of power that lied to us and made me believe them, that are responsible for this strategic disaster, and that caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people for their own political and economic gain should have been impeached and held accountable. All three of the leaders who took their countries to war were re-elected, and that is a blight on all our nations.
Why I am now reserving my opinion on Iran, instead of outright opposing an attack, is that the circumstances are quite different, and the reasons that I had for initially supporting Iraq's invasion are still valid in other theatres. Iran is much more open about pursuing nuclear weapons, and is much more theologically driven than Iraq ever was. However, now that the US is having to resort to calling up the Reserves and the National Guard to keep the peace in Iraq, it is clear that another occupation is basically impossible without the whole of the Middle East going to shit, and America's economy being razed to the ground. This is probably why Iran is much more open about its intentions. What matters most is that all of our leaders cannot be trusted when it comes to making the right decision. It's like the Coalition who cried wolf.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2006-04-15 01:07:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-04-14 06:03:30 (#)
Ranking: 0
as far as we knew they did have WMDs. The burden of proof fell on Iraq to prove the WMDs we gave them were gotten rid of. They failed to do so. Furthermore, they failed to be fully compliant with 17 UN resolutions regarding weapons inspections.
war = justified.
=-=--=-==--==--==-=-=-=-=--==--=-=
I give Rad 1 HA HA Rabbit. You have 24 hours to destroy said HA HA Rabbit.
Destroyed it yet?
Ok... time's up. Prove to me you didn't hide it. Any or all documents created in the destruction process will be automatically assumed to be doctored from my point of view.
I'm waiting...
War against Rad because of his inability to prove the non-existance of rabbit = justified?
At any rate, I think the whole Iran deal should be settled in the same manner that we did for the NK'ers. Build a nuclear power facility in a friendly, neighbouring area (perhaps a safe area of Iraq or Kuwait). Supply Iran with all the power it needs at a cost that will maintain the power plant but not a profit.
The beauty of that is:
1) You keep control of all nuclear power and materials in Iran.
2) You have shown the world you can compromise and don't simply bomb the fuck out of countries when you don't like what they are doing, despite the fact your friends (Israel, India) do the same things and that Iran as a signatory of the NPT has more legal international right to produce peaceful nuclear power.
3) Should the need for conventional war come (or you need to punish Iran for something) you have the control over their power supply. Turning off the switch if the need arises is a lot easier when you own the switch yourselves.
Submitted by DarthAwesome (user info) at 2006-04-15 00:40:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
A war in Iran= equals a draft and a drawn out war. That or a huge bombing campaign that will kill civilians and create a new group of West haters. Which means ... a drawn out war.
Damn, maybe we should just let em have nuke fuel.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-04-14 14:53:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Dude, did the pot put you to sleep for 14 hurs?
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-04-14 14:18:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy"
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/whycare.html
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-04-14 14:12:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-04-14 06:03:30 (#)
Ranking: 0
as far as we knew they did have WMDs. The burden of proof fell on Iraq to prove the WMDs we gave them were gotten rid of. They failed to do so.
---------------
It's not possible to prove a negative. NO ONE can prove they DON'T have something, only that they do. They TOLD the UN over and over they didn't have SHIT! FUCK, the UN KNEW they didn't have shit! It was only the American 'intelligence' report (conveniently falsified) that said anything about them having WMDs.
And the international community was still seeking to go the diplomatic route, because they knew Saddam was just being a stubborn man and wasn't a real threat to anyone. His factories and army had been dismantled. WE KNEW THAT BECAUSE WE WERE THE ONES THAT DID IT!
George Bush's first order of business was to figure out how to get rid of Saddam Hussein. For Christ's sake, they had to try to tie him with Al Queda to sell the war to the American people! They (Bush, Cheaney, Rumsfeld, etc.) lied to us.
I don't trust their 'intelligence', I don't trust their decision-making skills, and I don't trust them not to lie to me.
They're already fond of repeating over and over that the man is a "Hitler". Seems to be a pretty popular thing to do to their political enemies - make them "EVIL". Whatever.
I know who MY enemies are. They're sitting the White House and Pentagon and House of Representatives and Senate.
I find it fucking HILARIOUS but at the same time completely sad that people like Domenad, Rad, and the rest of the Republican-sympathetic ex-military don't see where Bush and co. wasted the lives of American soldiers. They won't get pissed off about that! They'd rather attack the other side just so they can maintain this grand illusion that their job is about spreading FREEDOM and LIBERTY (what a joke) anything but the right arm of men who want to dominate the world and lie to their own people about the reasons.
Bush killed your fellow soldiers FOR NOTHING. Well, not for nothing, he has gotten the price of oil up to almost $3 a gallon, hasn't he! He's stopped the Iraqi oil bourse. He's gotten his staging area for an attack on Iran and he's gotten a US-friendly government in one of the world's largest oil-reserve countries.
Saddam Hussein was NOT a threat to us in any way, shape, or form, unless you were an oil tycoon. You've eaten the propaganda whole.
If you people can't see that, that's not my problem, that's YOUR problem. I feel sorry for your children. I'd hate to grow up in your houses.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-04-14 13:32:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'd rather have steak...
Not a big fan of fruit pie, apple, cherry, etc.
LOVE pumpkin, though...
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-04-14 13:27:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-04-14 13:25:29 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-04-14 13:09:55 (#)
Ranking: 0
wow thats like...7 posts on most heated satroaight.
---------------------
Try 17.
That's gotta be some kind of record.
===
throwing tomatoes at a self-important fucking idiot sure attracts a lot of people
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-04-14 13:25:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-04-14 13:09:55 (#)
Ranking: 0
wow thats like...7 posts on most heated satroaight.
---------------------
Try 17.
That's gotta be some kind of record.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-04-14 13:11:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
satroaight.
heh, typing one handed ( I am actually eating a pie right now, chicken pie.)
straight
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-04-14 13:09:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
wow thats like...7 posts on most heated satroaight.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-04-14 13:09:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yeah cake for me, especially seeing as you americans put fruit in your pies.
Why the hell would anyone want cherry pie rather than steak.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-04-14 13:02:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
So, DC, no cake, then?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-04-14 12:08:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
They ARENT making hughly enriched uranium, if they were it would have been all over the news and even the french would be flying out there to bomb the facility.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-04-14 11:59:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Anyone here want cake?
Cake sounds good.
Or pie.
Pumpkin pie.
Doesn't have to be Thanksgiving or Christmas, pumkin pie is good year round.
MMMmph... Mmm jaaaaam...
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-04-14 11:53:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-04-14 11:09:50 (#)
Ranking: 0
The point I would like to get across is that invading Iran would be a really fucking bad idea.
Even If you think they WANT nuclear weapons its gonna be years before its even possible for them to get them.
And thats if they chucked the UN inspectors out, with them there its going to be almost impossible for them to even make a start on it, the inspectors are keeping a damn close eye on the enrichment facilities and the second they start enriching anything to near weapons grade it'll be bombed flat.
Even If you think they want NW they can not get them as long as the inspectors are there.
If you invade, firstly it'll make Iraq look like a fucking picnic, secondly you'll be using the pre-emptive invasion because they have WMD excuse again, which you already used recently and was prooved to be totally incorrect and would definately not be correct in this case.
You would be invading a sovereign democratic nation, the leading Muslim country in the world, because, basically, you feel like it.
I don't care what you think of their intentions invasion would be a catastrophe.
-------------------------------------
I don't know anyone here is arguing that invading would be a good idea.
As far as nuclear inspectorsa simply being there preventing them from having nuclear weapons is flat out wrong. To make nuclear weapons all you need is powerful high explosives, highly enriched uranium, and some know how. Right now they are making highly enriched uranium, they have stated plane to build more facilities so they can make enriched uranium faster. How do the inspectors stop that?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-04-14 11:09:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The point I would like to get across is that invading Iran would be a really fucking bad idea.
Even If you think they WANT nuclear weapons its gonna be years before its even possible for them to get them.
And thats if they chucked the UN inspectors out, with them there its going to be almost impossible for them to even make a start on it, the inspectors are keeping a damn close eye on the enrichment facilities and the second they start enriching anything to near weapons grade it'll be bombed flat.
Even If you think they want NW they can not get them as long as the inspectors are there.
If you invade, firstly it'll make Iraq look like a fucking picnic, secondly you'll be using the pre-emptive invasion because they have WMD excuse again, which you already used recently and was prooved to be totally incorrect and would definately not be correct in this case.
You would be invading a sovereign democratic nation, the leading Muslim country in the world, because, basically, you feel like it.
I don't care what you think of their intentions invasion would be a catastrophe.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-04-14 10:57:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-04-14 06:03:30 (#)
Ranking: 0
as far as we knew they did have WMDs. The burden of proof fell on Iraq to prove the WMDs we gave them were gotten rid of. They failed to do so. Furthermore, they failed to be fully compliant with 17 UN resolutions regarding weapons inspections.
war = justified.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The simple passage of time prooved that they didn't have them any more, the type of materials Saddam had have a sell by date of so many years. They could not possibly still have had them in working order.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-04-14 10:56:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-04-14 10:49:04 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Call911 (user info) at 2006-04-14 09:05:07 (#)
Ranking: 2
America is the only country to drop the bomb on another country...
Think about this.
Hypocritical. Iran is being punished for doing nothing wrong.
------------------------
And the allies were the only people to ever fire bomb a city, so they shouldn't try and limit other countries access to bombs?
Iran is not even being punished yet.
Go fucking burn an american flag and protest america as the most evil country in the world, but is your head really so far up your ass you feel safer with Iran free reign to pursue a nuclear program that can't possibly be for purely peaceful means.
===
"Dude, america is evil. Dude...come on! "
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-04-14 10:49:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Call911 (user info) at 2006-04-14 09:05:07 (#)
Ranking: 2
America is the only country to drop the bomb on another country...
Think about this.
Hypocritical. Iran is being punished for doing nothing wrong.
------------------------
And the allies were the only people to ever fire bomb a city, so they shouldn't try and limit other countries access to bombs?
Iran is not even being punished yet.
Go fucking burn an american flag and protest america as the most evil country in the world, but is your head really so far up your ass you feel safer with Iran free reign to pursue a nuclear program that can't possibly be for purely peaceful means.
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2006-04-14 10:33:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-04-14 08:16:01 (#)
Ranking: -2
Anyway, once again right here I proved ETS 100% wrong on this post. http://www.ubersite.com/m/86581#1930990
There are no absolutes, only exceptions. Nothing and no one is EVER 100% anything. Quit being a dick.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-04-14 10:22:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Call911 (user info) at 2006-04-14 09:05:07 (#)
Ranking: 2
America is the only country to drop the bomb on another country...
Think about this.
Hypocritical. Iran is being punished for doing nothing wrong.
===
So, because America dropped the bomb, every nationalist fundementalist whackjob nation should naturally be allowed the right to nuclear armanents. Brilliant. We'll be extinct in no time.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-04-14 09:17:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I hate how ETS and FA address everyone with "Dude, blah blah blah"
Instead of simply stating their counter-opinion like normal people, it's necessary for them to start with an ambiguous way to tell you that everything you said is shit.
"Dude, you're wrong!"
"Dude, dude, dude, wake up!"
"Dude...using the familiar expression 'dude' automatically grants me the right to be more personal with you and at the same time imply that you're being a fucking idiot without actually saying it because I'm an arrogant coward"
Submitted by Call911 (user info) at 2006-04-14 09:05:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
America is the only country to drop the bomb on another country...
Think about this.
Hypocritical. Iran is being punished for doing nothing wrong.
Submitted by Call911 (user info) at 2006-04-14 09:02:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This is a perfect example of American propaganda. It's so obvious though it makes me sick. We'll have fun invading Iran. Eventually something is going to go wrong.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-04-14 08:43:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-04-14 06:13:33 (#)
Ranking: 2
There are really only two scenarios here dude. 1. we knew they didn't have WMDs and we lied about it to cover our real intentions or 2. intelligence told us they had WMDs but that intelligence proved to be an absolute bag of wank - we staked a multi-billion dollar operation and countless lives on something we weren't sure of
Neither of those scenarios say "these people can be trusted to make the right decision" to me.
-------------------
What would you have preffered? Iraq to continue to ignore the UN, all the while gaining support from every muslim country in the world for their "unjust" treatment (a treatment continued entirely because of their govt's actions)? Iran would be accelerating it's nuclear program even faster since UN resolutions are meaningless. In the case of a war with Iran, we ARE in a better positon. Muslim countries know we aren't fucking around. Iraq doesn't have an army to support Iran.
Lets pretend that Iraq would have unfucked itself, and the US is completely retarted.
What do you suggest about Iran? How are we not using diplomacy? You need a carrot and a stick. Look at Clinton and North Korea, the carrot alone doesn't work, especially with a relatively rich country.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-04-14 08:42:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
FA, did I say I trusted Georgie?
Shit no. I never will.
I trust the soldiers on the ground and the generals there with them.
And yes, I trust that the US will not drop a nuke on another country without being attacked with a nuclear weapon first.
Unlike Iran, who would, on a bad day, decide to wipe out Israel.
There is a reason it takes a 24 word confirmation to even get to a readiness point on nukes in America.
The on top of that, you need another 24 word confirmation to launch, and well, let's just say GWB can't shoot on off for shits and giggles.
(Holy fuck, HOW am I defending that schmo?)
((I know, at least he's got people around him who have, you know, degrees in polysci and many many other things, and people who've worked on the world stage for their entire careers.))
(((Unlike the poster here, who probably just has a tech degree, or a liberal arts degree in something like Sanskrit, and works at an IT job)))
((((I like parenthases))))
(((((A lot)))))
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-04-14 08:16:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-04-13 13:58:30 (#)
Ranking: 0
Yeah, cos at the start of WW2 the UK invaded Germany because they didn't like them building up such an army.
--------------
No I am saying WWII could have been prevented if Chamberlain hadn't been a pussy. I know it wasn't just him, bu the was a leader in the appeasment process, and clear proof it does not work.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-04-13 13:57:17 (#)
Ranking: 0
"As for the program being popular among the people, where do you get that from?"
respected independant poling organistaions.
----------------------------------
How independent do you think they are? Who do you htink they get to talk to? It isn't the UK reporters can't wander around and interview anyone they want, foreign reporters there are not give free reign. And I am pretty sure it was BBC that carried a report about it being unpopular, but they couldn't gather and protest.
Anyway, once again right here I proved ETS 100% wrong on this post. http://www.ubersite.com/m/86581#1930990
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-04-14 06:13:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-04-14 06:05:47 (#)
Ranking: 0
Last I checked, America was the only country to have actually proved that they can't be trusted with nuclear capability.
=========================
how exactly does a country who has vowed to destroy another country be trusted with nukes?
===
I don't think Iran can be trusted with them, but I also don't think that a country that has already nuked the shit out of someone else can be trusted with them either.
I'm not defending Iran here dude - I'm just pointing out that America isn't some great all-knowing benevolent god that we should never question.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-04-14 06:03:30 (#)
Ranking: 0
as far as we knew they did have WMDs.
===
There are really only two scenarios here dude. 1. we knew they didn't have WMDs and we lied about it to cover our real intentions or 2. intelligence told us they had WMDs but that intelligence proved to be an absolute bag of wank - we staked a multi-billion dollar operation and countless lives on something we weren't sure of
Neither of those scenarios say "these people can be trusted to make the right decision" to me.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-04-14 06:10:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
you know what? nevermind.
please don't answer me. I don't want to listen to what comes out of your mouth.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-04-14 06:05:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Last I checked, America was the only country to have actually proved that they can't be trusted with nuclear capability.
=========================
how exactly does a country who has vowed to destroy another country be trusted with nukes?
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-04-14 06:03:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
as far as we knew they did have WMDs. The burden of proof fell on Iraq to prove the WMDs we gave them were gotten rid of. They failed to do so. Furthermore, they failed to be fully compliant with 17 UN resolutions regarding weapons inspections.
war = justified.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-04-14 05:52:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-04-14 05:35:54 (#)
Ranking: -2
Also, I really don't trust a country who's political leader fully believes that the holocaust never existed, and that it was all a massive staged farce from the Jews.
===
And rightly so. But if you don't trust that country, why would you trust the intentions of a country whose political leader is openly mocked worldwide for being a simpleton and who lied to his own people in order to justify a war?
You do remember the original justification for Iraq, right? You do remember the whole "They have WMDs" thing, right? You trusted their intentions over Iraq and look what happened. Now you want to commit the same mistake again with Iran. Does that honestly make sense to you?
Last I checked, America was the only country to have actually proved that they can't be trusted with nuclear capability.
Submitted by Nobb (user info) at 2006-04-14 05:50:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-04-14 05:45:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ubersite.com/m/68618
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-04-14 05:35:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
And another good point.
|
|
|
V
Also, I really don't trust a country who's political leader fully believes that the holocaust never existed, and that it was all a massive staged farce from the Jews.
They're PERFECTLY sane, I say.
Besides, (and dear God I can not believe I am saying this) Georgie, Dickie and Donnie are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more informed about the situation in Iran than you are, no matter how many blogs and new sites you read.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2006-04-14 05:29:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You want a country that has vowed to "wipe Israel off the map" to have nuclear weapons? You are truly insane, no bones about it. Insane.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-04-14 05:16:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-04-14 03:53:53 (#)
Ranking: 2
Whoops.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-04-14 05:16:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-04-14 04:34:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
FA, if the government listened to everything they were told by the people, we'd never pay taxes, oil companies would make gas for free, every square inch of the country would be a protected wilderness, we'd be praying every hour in school, NASCAR would be cause for holidays, etc etc etc etc.
Again, people are making the mistake thinking we're a DEMOCRACY.
We're not.
We're a REPUBLIC.
We vote for people who we believe will do what is right for our city/state/country. We don't always get the person we want, because we may be in the minority. And the people we elect do not HAVE to listen to everyone.
Again, I know NOTHING about foreign policy. I know NOTHING about how war is waged on anything smaller than a "grand stage" idea. So you know what I do? I KEEP MY SHIT OUT OF IT.
I trust the decisions of people who are career soldiers waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than I trust the decisions of my neighbor, or some drug-addled hippie who has threatened the government by withholding all of like, $200.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-04-14 03:53:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Whoops.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-04-14 03:53:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-04-14 03:46:57 (#)
Ranking: -2
Yes Brad.
WE should think through the actions of our government, because DAMN SKIPPY they listen to people who have NO EXPERIENCE AT ALL IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM THAT MAKES THEM QUALIFIED TO SAY ANYTHING.
===
Dude, it's their job to listen to the people. That's what being an elected REPRESENTATIVE is all about.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-04-14 03:46:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Yes Brad.
WE should think through the actions of our government, because DAMN SKIPPY they listen to people who have NO EXPERIENCE AT ALL IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM THAT MAKES THEM QUALIFIED TO SAY ANYTHING.
I'm not saying they're right.
I'm saying you're wrong.
And I'm going to bed now.
'Night.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-04-14 03:36:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by jack11058 (user info) at 2006-04-13 14:48:56 (#)
Ranking: 0
one more thought.
Say what you will about our country and the evils of democracy and capitalism. I'd rather live here where my wife can wear a short-sleeved shirt outside without being condemned.
Islamo-facism represents the greatest threat to the world since Nazism. Mark my words. It will only get worse and worse. I pray our bumbling hasn't already sealed our fate. I wish to Christ GW never invaded Iraq, I do. We should have finished with Afghanistan and gone home. No one with a modicum of sense still thinks Iraq was a good move.
But take a look at Islam. I keep waiting for the peace-loving mainstream Muslims to come out of the woodwork and guide Islam towards peace, towards a belief system whose first response to an imagined affront is NOT to strap a bomb to their 12 year old daughter's chest and send her to blow up a bus of civilians.
But guess what? That's not going to happen Brad. Islam today, particularly the salafists and wahhabists draw some scary comparisons to the Spanish Inquisition.
Brad, I have been to an Islamic country and walked the streets for a good portion of the year. I have personally put six of them in the ground, from varied distances of sometimes no more than four feet away. I have looked into the eyes of the enemy and seen what lies therein.
I wouldn't give one of them a letter opener, much less a nuclear weapon. But we can wait and see if you want. Know what the most likely scenario for WW3 is? Iran gets a nuke. They aren't going for it to get a better seat at the table. They are going for it to destroy their mortal enemy.
And when their holy flames rise over Tel Aviv and Haifa, you can bet the remains of Israel will strike back in a rage, with HUNDREDS of nuclear weapons. They will wipe Iran off the map, and may well decide to say Fuck It and take Syria, Jordan and Egypt along as well.
-------------------
Dude dude DUDE dude dude....
I'm not saying take on their culture...
I'm not saying let their president lead us to the promised land...
I'm saying that OUR LEADERS are using the same Apocalyptic mind control to convince people that unless we DO SOMETHING about the deadly Iranians, we're all gonna DIE!!!
They've already done this to us on numerous occasions, the last of which wasn't even that fucking long ago. All I'm saying is this time, let's think this fucking thing through and try being truely diplomatic for once, rather than SAYING we're using diplomacy when we're actually prodding the opposition the whole time.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-04-14 01:02:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
But I am still not siding with Brad.
No way in hell.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-04-14 01:02:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Roccdocc, invading Iran isn't going to DETER WW3.
If anything, it's going to START WW3.
Submitted by rockdocc (user info) at 2006-04-13 22:51:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Say what you will about our country and the evils of democracy and capitalism. I'd rather live here where my wife can wear a short-sleeved shirt outside without being condemned.
Islamo-facism represents the greatest threat to the world since Nazism. Mark my words. It will only get worse and worse. I pray our bumbling hasn't already sealed our fate. I wish to Christ GW never invaded Iraq, I do. We should have finished with Afghanistan and gone home. No one with a modicum of sense still thinks Iraq was a good move.
But take a look at Islam. I keep waiting for the peace-loving mainstream Muslims to come out of the woodwork and guide Islam towards peace, towards a belief system whose first response to an imagined affront is NOT to strap a bomb to their 12 year old daughter's chest and send her to blow up a bus of civilians.
But guess what? That's not going to happen Brad. Islam today, particularly the salafists and wahhabists draw some scary comparisons to the Spanish Inquisition.
Brad, I have been to an Islamic country and walked the streets for a good portion of the year. I have personally put six of them in the ground, from varied distances of sometimes no more than four feet away. I have looked into the eyes of the enemy and seen what lies therein.
I wouldn't give one of them a letter opener, much less a nuclear weapon. But we can wait and see if you want. Know what the most likely scenario for WW3 is? Iran gets a nuke. They aren't going for it to get a better seat at the table. They are going for it to destroy their mortal enemy.
And when their holy flames rise over Tel Aviv and Haifa, you can bet the remains of Israel will strike back in a rage, with HUNDREDS of nuclear weapons. They will wipe Iran off the map, and may well decide to say Fuck It and take Syria, Jordan and Egypt along as well.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
It's coming kiddies and for those of us who haven't had the chance to visit sunny iraq, we are heading to Iran. Make no fucking mistakes, it is going to happen. If it's going to deter world war 3, then by all means we'll go in. Just...could we have someone other than rumsfeld running the show? yeah..he didn't do too well...
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-04-13 22:39:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-04-13 10:15:54 (#)
Ranking: -2
ETS and the pot smoking crew sure fucking suck at rationality.
------
And ETS, I agree invading Iran will happen and it's a HUGE mistake.
BUT...
BUTBUTBUT...
If you think they're doing this ALL in the name of peaceful energy, you're even more off your gourd than I thought.
Submitted by ConorJS (user info) at 2006-04-13 21:26:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
congrats on MVA #29.
It doesn't SAY you have it, but check the numbers... you do.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-04-13 14:56:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
http://stuff.ubersite.com/1144953661880412388/1/et.swf
Submitted by jack11058 (user info) at 2006-04-13 14:48:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
one more thought.
Say what you will about our country and the evils of democracy and capitalism. I'd rather live here where my wife can wear a short-sleeved shirt outside without being condemned.
Islamo-facism represents the greatest threat to the world since Nazism. Mark my words. It will only get worse and worse. I pray our bumbling hasn't already sealed our fate. I wish to Christ GW never invaded Iraq, I do. We should have finished with Afghanistan and gone home. No one with a modicum of sense still thinks Iraq was a good move.
But take a look at Islam. I keep waiting for the peace-loving mainstream Muslims to come out of the woodwork and guide Islam towards peace, towards a belief system whose first response to an imagined affront is NOT to strap a bomb to their 12 year old daughter's chest and send her to blow up a bus of civilians.
But guess what? That's not going to happen Brad. Islam today, particularly the salafists and wahhabists draw some scary comparisons to the Spanish Inquisition.
Brad, I have been to an Islamic country and walked the streets for a good portion of the year. I have personally put six of them in the ground, from varied distances of sometimes no more than four feet away. I have looked into the eyes of the enemy and seen what lies therein.
I wouldn't give one of them a letter opener, much less a nuclear weapon. But we can wait and see if you want. Know what the most likely scenario for WW3 is? Iran gets a nuke. They aren't going for it to get a better seat at the table. They are going for it to destroy their mortal enemy.
And when their holy flames rise over Tel Aviv and Haifa, you can bet the remains of Israel will strike back in a rage, with HUNDREDS of nuclear weapons. They will wipe Iran off the map, and may well decide to say Fuck It and take Syria, Jordan and Egypt along as well.
Submitted by jack11058 (user info) at 2006-04-13 14:21:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Dude.
Mr. Ahmadinejad belongs to the Hojjatieh sect of radical Shiite Islam. While saying "radical Shiite Islam" is as redundant as saying "Bush has poor grammar skills", the Hojjatiehs are serious business. In addition, he has packed his cabinet and military leadership with them.
Hojjas basically believe the long-lost 12th Imam (their messiah equivalent) will return to Earth only after a period of World-War induced chaos. Ahmadinejad believes this must occur within the next several years.
Iranian moderates fear he will try to induce this world war. Hell yes I think there's no way he should have access to nuclear energy WITHOUT the IEIA having full UNRESTRICTED access to all facilities.
Notice, I didn't say we should go in and bomb his country back to the stone age (even Bush wouldn't be stupid enough to do that).
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-04-13 13:58:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yeah, cos at the start of WW2 the UK invaded Germany because they didn't like them building up such an army.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-04-13 13:57:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"As for the program being popular among the people, where do you get that from?"
respected independant poling organistaions.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-04-13 13:55:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh contrare Indon, it IS an idolated quote. You go and find another one.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-04-13 13:39:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
what indo said... sorry, i've been working...
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-04-13 10:17:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"OMG! BUSH = HITLER AND IRAN'S PRESIDENT = NESLON MANDALA!"
"WE MUST WELCOME THEM WITH OPEN ARMS!" (<- actual quote)
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-04-13 10:15:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
ETS and the pot smoking crew sure fucking suck at rationality.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-04-13 09:42:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-04-13 09:01:15 (#)
Ranking: 2
I could seriously see the start of WW3 as a result and the US would be Germany, Iran Poland.
It would be more accurate if I could say Iran's Russia, but those bloody Germans did everything in the wrong order.
--------------------------
Iran would be germany, and the US would be the UK except we don't have a pussy like chamberlain in charge.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-04-13 09:40:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-04-13 08:50:04 (#)
Ranking: 2
Whats the fucking difference.
Two democracies.
quote from pres mahmood "As the Imam said, Israel should be wiped of the map"
quote from george bush about invading Iraq "god told me it was the right thing to do"
------------------------------------------------
There is no difference?
Are you fucking blind? Do you htink when they say israel should be wiped off the map, they are just talking about the govt? They want to kill every jewsih man woman and child in the middle east, they consider a living jew in israel an affront to them. And that is not an isolated quote or sentiment, that has been repeated constantly from Iran.
When bush said god told him invading Iraq was the right thing to do, did he say it was his main reason? Did he say that Iraq should be wiped off the map? Did he infer that Muslims are evil and that they all should be killed?
There is a huge fucking difference.
As for the program being popular among the people, where do you get that from? How many Iranians do you know? I used to work with some, and they all said it is not something they care about. It does nothing for the common man, they don't have an energy shortage ans will only get thm disliked in the western world. Maybe they aren't the common guys, they would drink beers and look for chicks with me. However, there are reports out there that reflect these sentiments. There are reports that say the opposite, however in an oil rich country with that much poverty I can't see them thinking nuclear power should be a huge goal.
Don't compare Iran to the US as a democracy. Ever hear of the Guardian Council of the Constitution? It has veto power over the Iranian parliament. Its members are composed of Islamic clerics and lawyers. In the last major legislative election they banned thousands of candidates from running, because they were not hardline enough. People go nuts and say Bush stole the election, and the US isn't a democracy anymore, but Iran who has one de facto party it is considered a democracy?
Anyway to the point of this post look at my earlier replies. They are clearly violating the treaty of the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. There recent statements are ludicris, they will only cooperate with the IAEA if it doesn't refer them to the security council? What is the point of that? That is saying you can regulate me, but if you try and regulate me I won't listen.
All that being said, I don't think we should or will invade Iran. Hopefully since all permanent members of the UN security council, and germany are pretty much in agreement on this they will stop. If they don't I forsee bombing of facilities, maybe with nukes because of their location.
Submitted by MistressFist (user info) at 2006-04-13 09:25:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
We don't have enough $$ and manpower to start another war.
Then again the Iranians aren't enriching uranium for shits and giggles.
And we know that sanctions really mean bullshit.
Head for your nearest fallout shelter and stock up on Dinty Moore Beef Stew.
I wonder what would happen in all nations (even the US) surrendered their nukes? Pipedreams.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-04-13 09:02:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
reasons against invasion
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-04-13 09:01:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Even if you ignore all the other reasons, the main one is the repurcusions of invasion.
Firstly it would turn into a Vietnam type scenario, Iran has a much much better army than saddam said, and if you think the religious attacks in Iraq are bad you should think about the way Saddam violently stamped out all powerful organisations except his own, non-religious, one. Now compare that to the situation in Iran.
Secondly it would start a Jihad, Osama already called one but the vast vast majority of the muslim world thought 'what a nutter' and carried on as normal.
US invading the leading Islamic nation, which has made no attacks on the US, which IS democratic having to rebel against a dictatorship set up by the west to gain democracy, for the old WMD reason (which will be proved wrong AGAIN because no matter what you thikn about their intentions, hte simple truth of it is that they can't have made a nuclear missile even if they wanted to)...is a REALLY REALLY BAD IDEA.
I could seriously see the start of WW3 as a result and the US would be Germany, Iran Poland.
It would be more accurate if I could say Iran's Russia, but those bloody Germans did everything in the wrong order.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-04-13 08:50:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-04-12 20:34:24 (#)
Ranking: -2
ets, iran is nothing like us -- they don't deserve to be at our table. get a fucking clue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whats the fucking difference.
Two democracies.
quote from pres mahmood "As the Imam said, Israel should be wiped of the map"
quote from george bush about invading Iraq "god told me it was the right thing to do"
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-04-13 08:37:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"To them, it is a matter of pride, and they are standing on principle."
Thats the thing.
The nuclear power project is massively popular in Iran, the avergae man on the street doesn't really like the US and anything the US doesn't want them to do they're gonna do everything they can to get it done, especially when it involves Iran developing highly advanced technology that they can be proud of.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-04-13 08:33:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Why, pray tell, does the west think this? Are they going to give us evidence that supports this heresay? Will they attempt to substantiate this belief with real evidence, or with mountains of rhetoric, hoping that the sheer volume of unsubstantiated complaints will suffice?"
This sounds like someone on uber, can't think who though.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-04-13 07:43:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2006-04-13 07:15:14 (#)
Ranking: 2
Perhaps people here can think of other reasons to attack Iran; but noone can argue this point that ETS has made. Well done.
-------------------
Really?
"Article II
Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices."
Look at ETS's own link from BBC. Here http://www.ubersite.com/m/86581#1930419
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4667970.stm
"The IAEA brief also said the agency had seen an Iranian document which can only be used in making nuclear weapons parts."
- that isn't a clear violation?
"In addition, the report said Iran had declined to answer questions about tests related to high explosives which could have a military dimension."
- could be interpreted as a violation, not as clear as the first one.
You can also look at the link I provided aerlier which has links to all the IAEA reports that spell out each one of Iran's violations.
A fucking cursory investigation of the subject shows clear violations.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2006-04-13 07:15:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Perhaps people here can think of other reasons to attack Iran; but noone can argue this point that ETS has made. Well done.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-04-13 07:09:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-04-13 02:31:18 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-04-12 22:06:31 (#)
Ranking: -2
Did you ask for your money back from Uncle sam yet? Didn't think so pussy. I guess you realized that was too much work so you decided to rant about something else.
"But, what do I know?"
Jack shit. If they were concerned with only peaceful means why do they not take fuel from Russia as they offered? Why would they be working for HEU that isn't needed for peaceful purposes? Go ahead and ignore these questions. If you could understand them you would realize that you are wrong.
-------------------------------
Surprise....I've already answered that question too:
http://www.ubersite.com/m/86581#1930419
As for the Russian solution... Again, I don't mean to presume too much, but in my view, the Iranians feel like they're being pushed around by Big Brother in the west. They surely have to feel like they've been singled out unduly. Following George "Monkeyman" Bush's State of the Union address in 2002, and our history of self-involvement in oppressive Iranian regimes, it's not hard to see why such a country would be resentful of us and hesitant to back down from what they undoubtedly see as unwarranted western meddling in the region and in their country's past, present, and future.
To them, it is a matter of pride, and they are standing on principle.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Where did you answer the question? Explain why they were found with HEU and why are they working towards working towards making more? It isn't needed in Nuclear plants but is needed in weapons.
It isn't a matter of pride it is a matter of them building fucking nukes and you thinking like chamberlain. Read a fucking history book. Listen to what they are actually saying in Iran, and tell me they want peace.
How is that act of defiance coming along? Still haven't done anything, huh, way to go. what a rebel.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-04-13 03:35:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
oh, and do you even know what a family tree is? lay off the drugs, dude...
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-04-13 03:24:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
how is that middle of the road?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-04-13 03:19:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-04-13 03:08:20 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-04-12 20:15:39 (#)
Ranking: 0
Like I said, Coyote, I agree they're probably looking into or at least interested in producing weapons, but they will know, just like the rest of the nuclear world knows, you can't DEPLOY them in a real-life scenario (unless of course you're the U.S. and you get the Senate to approve a provision for a nuclear bunker buster adding a whole new EXCITING grey area to the explosive mixture).
-----------------------------------
so what, we should test this theory? why don't we just give everyone nukes and just see how responsible everyone can be, eh? the idea of bunker busters doesn't create a grey area, it creates a powerful weapon that can be used to disable a military without the use of ground troops or harming civilian lives. realistically, this is a lot better option than just dropping fifty thousand bombs or a few regular nukes, but fuck, i don't know shit, right?
------------------------
How middle of the road of you... There must be no limbs in your family tree seeing as you're so scared to go out one once in a while.
Keep repeating your 'credible sources', Wardy. They suit you.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-04-13 03:08:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-04-12 20:15:39 (#)
Ranking: 0
Like I said, Coyote, I agree they're probably looking into or at least interested in producing weapons, but they will know, just like the rest of the nuclear world knows, you can't DEPLOY them in a real-life scenario (unless of course you're the U.S. and you get the Senate to approve a provision for a nuclear bunker buster adding a whole new EXCITING grey area to the explosive mixture).
-----------------------------------
so what, we should test this theory? why don't we just give everyone nukes and just see how responsible everyone can be, eh? the idea of bunker busters doesn't create a grey area, it creates a powerful weapon that can be used to disable a military without the use of ground troops or harming civilian lives. realistically, this is a lot better option than just dropping fifty thousand bombs or a few regular nukes, but fuck, i don't know shit, right?
oh, and way to go on complete mis-use of the term "Big Brother." douche.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-04-13 02:31:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-04-12 22:06:31 (#)
Ranking: -2
Did you ask for your money back from Uncle sam yet? Didn't think so pussy. I guess you realized that was too much work so you decided to rant about something else.
"But, what do I know?"
Jack shit. If they were concerned with only peaceful means why do they not take fuel from Russia as they offered? Why would they be working for HEU that isn't needed for peaceful purposes? Go ahead and ignore these questions. If you could understand them you would realize that you are wrong.
-------------------------------
Surprise....I've already answered that question too:
http://www.ubersite.com/m/86581#1930419
As for the Russian solution... Again, I don't mean to presume too much, but in my view, the Iranians feel like they're being pushed around by Big Brother in the west. They surely have to feel like they've been singled out unduly. Following George "Monkeyman" Bush's State of the Union address in 2002, and our history of self-involvement in oppressive Iranian regimes, it's not hard to see why such a country would be resentful of us and hesitant to back down from what they undoubtedly see as unwarranted western meddling in the region and in their country's past, present, and future.
To them, it is a matter of pride, and they are standing on principle.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-04-13 02:24:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-04-12 22:06:42 (#)
Ranking: 0
Completely and utterly unsubstantiated.
-----
So is your thought that they aren't trying to build weapons.
------------------------
I'm sorry? What was that?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-04-12 20:15:39 (#)
Ranking: 0
Like I said, Coyote, I agree they're probably looking into or at least interested in producing weapons, but they will know, just like the rest of the nuclear world knows, you can't DEPLOY them in a real-life scenario (unless of course you're the U.S. and you get the Senate to approve a provision for a nuclear bunker buster adding a whole new EXCITING grey area to the explosive mixture).
Submitted by r0fl (user info) at 2006-04-12 22:45:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
It feels like we're becoming too big of a 'protector' of the world.
I can definately see how some nations would see us as the big bully.
With the environment the way its going and all that global warming shite, you'd figure we'd be promoting nuclear energy development.
But if a nation disagrees with us, and (Yes, Jack_McCallum, they threaten an ENTIRE people), we apparently have an obligation to invade.
The sad part is, if we weren't in Afganistan AND Iraq, I would think it might possibly be a necessary issue to investigate.
But then again, I could be an idiot.
Submitted by MrSparkle847 (user info) at 2006-04-12 22:36:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Personally I wouldn't trust any powerful leader from Iran and surrounding countries with nuclear anything, but they did sign the treaty, so they should be able to play with enriched uranium just as much as we should. It grates with me a little that the government makes lots of big decisions based on assumption alone.
Submitted by r0fl (user info) at 2006-04-12 22:25:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I saw that article earlier at work, and thought, "Gee, I'm going to post about that shit tonight."
But just in case, I checked you first.
Bastard.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-04-12 22:10:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=brad+linzy
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-04-12 22:06:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Completely and utterly unsubstantiated.
-----
So is your thought that they aren't trying to build weapons.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-04-12 22:06:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Did you ask for your money back from Uncle sam yet? Didn't think so pussy. I guess you realized that was too much work so you decided to rant about something else.
"But, what do I know?"
Jack shit. If they were concerned with only peaceful means why do they not take fuel from Russia as they offered? Why would they be working for HEU that isn't needed for peaceful purposes? Go ahead and ignore these questions. If you could understand them you would realize that you are wrong.
This took me two seconds to find.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/nuke/
"There are ongoing investigations by the International Atomic Energy Agency concerning Iran's compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. At the end of August 2003, the IAEA stated in a confidential report leaked to the media that trace elements of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) were found in an Iranian nuclear facility. In June of 2003, a IAEA Director General report stated that Iran had not met the obligations required of it by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. A November 2003 report identified further violations. In February 2004 it was discovered that Iran had blueprints for an advanced centrifuge design usable for uranium enrichment that it had withheld from nuclear inspectors. In December 2003, Iran signed an additional protocol authorizing IAEA inspectors to make intrusive, snap inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities. The protocol was signed as an addition to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Remaining uncertainties surrounding Iran's uranium enrichment activities were addressed in the IAEA's November 2004 report. IAEA deputy director for safeguards Pierre Goldschmidt reported in June 2005 that Iran had admitted to separating out small amounts of plutonium as recently as 1998."
Go ahead and call the link biased even though it sites and links directly to the pertinent IAEA reports.
If you believe Iran's search for nuclear power is peaceful, and they are harmless, why don't you go work there and pay their taxes.
I am really curious who you are going to spout your retarted theories to when you are living off the grid? Oh yeah that is right, you won't do it.
Like you didn't join the peace corp.
Like you didn't move to the UK.
Like you didn't perform an act of defiance with your taxes by asking for your money back, you did nothing.
Like you always do nothing.
Hope it is working out for you.
Submitted by Ingsoc (user info) at 2006-04-12 21:50:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
What's all this then? Stop going to bat for other countries. It doesn't matter if you're a self-hating American, you're still as underqualified as the next jobless pothead for this kind of crap.
You're a political dinosaur. It wouldn't surprise me if you and your friends sat around in a Dunkin' Donuts being all like, "MAN I CANT BELIEVE GBUSH STOLE THE PRESIDENCY 4:20 SMOKE A BOWL EVERYDAY".
Life is life. Bombs fall. Politicians make decisions with which nutballs like you tend to disagree. Grow a pair and stop complaining about The Great Injustice. It's simply not there.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-04-12 20:34:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
ets, iran is nothing like us -- they don't deserve to be at our table. get a fucking clue.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-04-12 20:15:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Like I said, Coyote, I agree they're probably looking into or at least interested in producing weapons, but they will know, just like the rest of the nuclear world knows, you can't DEPLOY them in a real-life scenario (unless of course you're the U.S. and you get the Senate to approve a provision for a nuclear bunker buster adding a whole new EXCITING grey area to the explosive mixture).
It's only for a better seat at the table that Iran would want a nuke. In this day and age, it's a fact that countries without the nukes are far worse off economically because they aren't playing with the same set of cards as everyone else at the table. They aren't allowed to have face cards at all.
In fact, they aren't even AT the table, they are at the little kiddy table with their sippy cups.
My point is, they have just as much right to sit with us at that table as we do, and unless we're making efforts to disarm ourselves, we have NO room to talk about Iran.
But again, I am not going to be convinced solely on what the IAEA says either. Reliable information is always at a premium when there is an agenda afoot, and you know as well as I that the neo-cons have one and are pulling out all the stops.
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2006-04-12 19:59:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
"But the IAEA found that many aspects of Iran's fuel cycle activities and experiments, particularly in the areas of uranium enrichment, uranium conversion and plutonium research, had not been declared to the Agency in accordance with Iran's obligations under its Safeguards Agreement."
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
That's from the center for nonproliferation studies website. So while Iran is within legal limits in some aspects of its efforts, it's clearly out of line in others.
And there's a word there that should set off major alarm bells. That word is plutonium, which is completely unnecessary to any civilian nuclear program. The fact that there's ANY plutonium research tells me beyond doubt that they're acting in bad faith.
Why is it no one ever stands on principle when it would weaken their military might? And what's the difference between standing on principle and walking around with a chip on your shoulder daring someone to knock it off?
It's rampant stupidity. Which still shouldn't be countered with more stupidity-- it's going to take years for them to get enough material to build a bomb after all.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-04-12 19:55:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
as usual you've forgotten to set your alarm. the logic train left a few hours before you even thought about typing this up, didn't it?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-04-12 19:51:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-04-12 19:34:13 (#)
Ranking: -2
it's not hard to see why such a country would be resentful of us and hesitant to back down from what they undoubtedly see as unwarranted western meddling in the region and in their country's past, present, and future.
-----------------
and yet, they persist in the construction of facilities to produce nuclear weapons - the Russians offered to set up a whole system for them, but they refused.
Why?
Because they're trying to make an atomic bomb.
-------------------------
Completely and utterly unsubstantiated.
This is the kind of crap I hope people will see through this time, whereas they didn't with Iraq.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2006-04-12 19:49:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Howe's that trailer park dream working out for you, Cletis?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-04-12 19:42:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
To them, it is a matter of pride, and they are standing on principle
-------
This is true. That's why the announcement yesterday looked like the opening ceremonies of the Olympics
-------------------------
It's a signal to Iranians they are progressing as a nation. To take that away from them for the mere suspicion of more is a bad idea.
We are actually fucking up by not welcoming them with open arms and congratulating them on their national progress.
In an ideal world, there should have been representatives there from every western nation cutting ribbons and shaking hands and making speeches about the benefits of non-carbon-based energy in the 21st century.
It would have given us more bargaining power to ensure Iran was on the up and up with respect to the weapons side of things, especially if the UN Security Council's permanent members (the five big nuclear powers on the planet) were displaying a concerted commitment to disarmament and world peace.
Instead, we've got more neo-con agendas being pushed up against other international agendas. Throw the lobbying from the industiral military complex in there, who are no doubt ITCHING for a war with Iran, and you've got another recipie for disaster.
This is just not the way governments should operate. If we would just THINK for a moment about these things and try to see them on the level of people instead of governments, it's easy to see how inviting the 'enemy' to dinner with you to make amends and plan a cohesive vision of the future, one that is mutually beneficial, is far better than throwing unwarranted insults and provoking them CONSTANTLY like the Bushs of the world.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-04-12 19:34:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
it's not hard to see why such a country would be resentful of us and hesitant to back down from what they undoubtedly see as unwarranted western meddling in the region and in their country's past, present, and future.
-----------------
and yet, they persist in the construction of facilities to produce nuclear weapons - the Russians offered to set up a whole system for them, but they refused.
Why?
Because they're trying to make an atomic bomb.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-04-12 19:32:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This BBC timeline might be a little helpful:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/country_profiles/806268.stm
2002 September - Russian technicians begin construction of Iran's first nuclear reactor at Bushehr despite strong objections from US.
[we were on them from the get-go.]
2003 September - UN nuclear watchdog, IAEA, gives Tehran weeks to prove it is not pursuing an atomic weapons programme.
[Again, we're asking them to PROVE a negative. And it ends up being the IAEA's word (which is arguably controlled by the west and her interests) against Iran's.]
2003 November - Iran says it is suspending its uranium enrichment programme and will allow tougher UN inspections of its nuclear facilities. IAEA concludes there is no evidence of a weapons programme.
[Iran submits to tougher inspections even though she didn't really HAVE to under the letter of the NPT.]
2004 June - Iran is rebuked by the IAEA for failing to fully cooperate with an inquiry into its nuclear activities.
2004 November - Iran agrees to suspend most of its uranium enrichment under a deal with the EU.
[Not sure about the contents of this deal.]
2005 August-September - Tehran says it has resumed uranium conversion at its Isfahan plant and insists the programme is for peaceful purposes. IAEA finds Iran in violation of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
[Again, I don't see where they are in direct violation for this alone, but there you go.]
2006 January - Iran breaks IAEA seals at its Natanz nuclear research facility.
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-04-12 19:23:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-04-12 19:16:40 (#)
Ranking: 0
However... you can't ignore the fact that Iran booted the IAEA inspectors, rejected a Russian-sponsored deal that would have given them civilian nuclear power capability without the opportunity for weapons research, and has repeatedly lied about first the existence, and then the extent of their nuclear program-- not to the US, either, but to the very people who were trying to help them out diplomatically.
----------------------------------
I can't presume to know all of Iran's reasons, and I don't rule out a possible or even a very likely rush to produce a nuclear weapon, but they booted inspectors because the inspectors kept shutting them down without notice, and the IAEA was making new rules about surprise visits apparently just for the sake of Iran, which is contrary to the treaty Iran signed in the first place. PLUS, they were given ample warning by the Iranian government they would be kicked out. This is my understanding of it.
-------
They were making those new rules after Iraq and North Korea had broken the treaty. The new rules weren't singalling out Iran, just fixing an existing problem with the original treaty. They wanted to be able to do more in depth inspections, and to require more documention from the agreeing countries.
--
--
To them, it is a matter of pride, and they are standing on principle
-------
This is true. That's why the announcement yesterday looked like the opening ceremonies of the Olympics
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-04-12 19:16:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
However... you can't ignore the fact that Iran booted the IAEA inspectors, rejected a Russian-sponsored deal that would have given them civilian nuclear power capability without the opportunity for weapons research, and has repeatedly lied about first the existence, and then the extent of their nuclear program-- not to the US, either, but to the very people who were trying to help them out diplomatically.
----------------------------------
I can't presume to know all of Iran's reasons, and I don't rule out a possible or even a very likely rush to produce a nuclear weapon, but they booted inspectors because the inspectors kept shutting them down without notice, and the IAEA was making new rules about surprise visits apparently just for the sake of Iran, which is contrary to the treaty Iran signed in the first place. PLUS, they were given ample warning by the Iranian government they would be kicked out. This is my understanding of it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4667970.stm
Nonetheless, the inspectors are back in the country for the moment, yet the rhetoric is growing MORE, not less, heated from the west.
As for the Russian solution... Again, I don't mean to presume too much, but in my view, the Iranians feel like they're being pushed around by Big Brother in the west. They surely have to feel like they've been singled out unduly. Following George "Monkeyman" Bush's State of the Union address in 2002, and our history of self-involvement in oppressive Iranian regimes, it's not hard to see why such a country would be resentful of us and hesitant to back down from what they undoubtedly see as unwarranted western meddling in the region and in their country's past, present, and future.
To them, it is a matter of pride, and they are standing on principle.
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (