(full site)
Fark.com

Back To Main
   In a move sure to ease tensions in the region, the UN announces that Iran "has made a significant advancement in its nuclear program"

17 Nov 2012 01:07 PM   |   3335 clicks   |   CNN
Add Comment
Showing 1-50 of 117 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
me texan    [TotalFark]  
If the trend continues, Iran is horked.
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net

17 Nov 2012 12:03 PM
Reply
GAT_00     
Doesn't really bother me. Israel will have to exercise restraint with Iran if the Iranians have nuclear weapons. They have no incentive to do so now.

A nuclear Iran will stabilize, not destabilize the region.

17 Nov 2012 12:11 PM
Reply
Darth_Lukecash    [TotalFark]  

GAT_00: Doesn't really bother me. Israel will have to exercise restraint with Iran if the Iranians have nuclear weapons. They have no incentive to do so now.

A nuclear Iran will stabilize, not destabilize the region.


You're assuming that people are as rational as you are.

You are assuming that are feeling powerless wont drive countries to desperate measures.

17 Nov 2012 12:24 PM
Reply
GAT_00     

Darth_Lukecash: GAT_00: Doesn't really bother me. Israel will have to exercise restraint with Iran if the Iranians have nuclear weapons. They have no incentive to do so now.

A nuclear Iran will stabilize, not destabilize the region.

You're assuming that people are as rational as you are.

You are assuming that are feeling powerless wont drive countries to desperate measures.


Israel can't threaten to bomb Iran any time they want if they know they can get nuked back. The ME is unstable because Israel can dictate to others with the threat of nuclear annihilation backing it up. A counter force to return the threat of annihilation with annihilation means the initial threat isn't made. Stability.

See also India and Pakistan, which have been fighting a whole lot less since they have been able to nuke each other.

17 Nov 2012 12:29 PM
Reply
vygramul    [TotalFark]  
b-b-b-but the NIE from years ago said they hadn't done squat!

17 Nov 2012 12:32 PM
Reply
vygramul    [TotalFark]  

Darth_Lukecash: GAT_00: Doesn't really bother me. Israel will have to exercise restraint with Iran if the Iranians have nuclear weapons. They have no incentive to do so now.

A nuclear Iran will stabilize, not destabilize the region.

You're assuming that people are as rational as you are.

You are assuming that are feeling powerless wont drive countries to desperate measures.


Countries tend to be pretty rational Even Hitler. He had chemical weapons and never used them.

17 Nov 2012 12:33 PM
Reply
Tatsuma     
Well that's not throwing gas on an already raging fire.

Also some people cheering for Iran to get weapons. Just how retardly anti-Israel can one get?

17 Nov 2012 12:51 PM
Reply
LegacyDL     
It truly is the end of times.

Well it was fun while it lasted. But seriously Iran isn't dumb and yes Israel will kill whomever it has to in order to keep existing.

Sometimes I wonder if it were better if the Middle East wasn't around anymore. If people can't play nice then I believe nobody deserves claim to the land.

17 Nov 2012 01:12 PM
Reply
KawaiiNot     
Armageddon it.

/Seriously it's not looking pretty in the middle east lately

17 Nov 2012 01:12 PM
Reply
Matthew Keene     
Screw it all. Blow the whole planet up. I don't want to live in a world without Twinkies.

www.thebluegrassspecial.com

17 Nov 2012 01:13 PM
Reply
Tatsuma     

KawaiiNot: /Seriously it's not looking pretty in the middle east lately


Oh come on it is really not that bad. Hamas has farked up, there is no way that Syria is getting involved, Hizbullah came out and literally said 'Nope, not doing anything about it'.

Its really not that dire.

17 Nov 2012 01:15 PM
Reply
ThatGuyFromTheInternet     

Tatsuma: Well that's not throwing gas on an already raging fire.

Also some people cheering for Iran to get weapons. Just how retardly anti-Israel can one get?


I've said it before, and I'll say it again: fark Israel.

17 Nov 2012 01:17 PM
Reply
GranoblasticMan     

me texan: If the trend continues, Iran is horked.
[sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 850x490]


We must not allow a Twinkie gap!

17 Nov 2012 01:18 PM
Reply
Tatsuma     

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: I've said it before, and I'll say it again: fark Israel.


Thank you for this eloquent and elaborate feedback, will make sure to take it into account in the future.

17 Nov 2012 01:19 PM
Reply
Holocaust Agnostic     
In 100% of all cases, nuclear weapons have brought stability, not war. Did the U.S and Soviets ever slug it out? How many times has Pakistan invaded India once they both had the bomb? Where are the wars in Europe, that their bombs should have brought? Why has China not used its weapons to reclaim the territory it has reckoned as lost?

nuclear bombs are the most powerful force for peace in this world. To be pro-bomb is to be pro-humanity.

img339.imageshack.us

17 Nov 2012 01:19 PM
Reply
PC LOAD LETTER    [TotalFark]  
Tatsuma:

You seemed informed on regional politics (though from a specific POV). I have been looking for more info on the following trichotomy: 1) Kahmeni issued a Fatwah forbidding Iran from possessing nuclear weapons 2) Ahmamentalnutjob's braying about destruction of Israel 3) the relative influence and power of each on Iranian power and military ambitions. Can you help us folks dependent on American news to sort this out?

17 Nov 2012 01:19 PM
Reply
generallyso     
Yawn.

17 Nov 2012 01:20 PM
Reply
Brick-House     
www.dailysquib.co.uk

17 Nov 2012 01:20 PM
Reply
BolshyGreatYarblocks     
"'Til Armageddon, no Salam, no Shalom...."

--Johnny Cash
"When the Man Comes Around"

www.bdoutdoors.com

images.nymag.com

17 Nov 2012 01:21 PM
Reply
Johnsnownw     

GAT_00: Darth_Lukecash: GAT_00: Doesn't really bother me. Israel will have to exercise restraint with Iran if the Iranians have nuclear weapons. They have no incentive to do so now.

A nuclear Iran will stabilize, not destabilize the region.

You're assuming that people are as rational as you are.

You are assuming that are feeling powerless wont drive countries to desperate measures.

Israel can't threaten to bomb Iran any time they want if they know they can get nuked back. The ME is unstable because Israel can dictate to others with the threat of nuclear annihilation backing it up. A counter force to return the threat of annihilation with annihilation means the initial threat isn't made. Stability.

See also India and Pakistan, which have been fighting a whole lot less since they have been able to nuke each other.


Uhh, No. The ME is unstable because the majority of its citizens are uneducated farkwits who are ruled by tyrannical leaders. They are the equivalent of Catholic congregations in the 14th century.

The problem is, this is no longer the 14th century, and their leaders have the ability to coerce these poor a-holes into giving up their lives, and are able to inflict massive damage in the process.

17 Nov 2012 01:21 PM
Reply
BolshyGreatYarblocks     
The salami photo didn't upload; do I get at least one internets?

17 Nov 2012 01:22 PM
Reply
GranoblasticMan     

Holocaust Agnostic: In 100% of all cases, nuclear weapons have brought stability, not war.


I know you're being fatuous, but so far that actually has been arguably true so far (if you start the set of "all cases" as "after 1945"). Of course, that's ignoring the fact we're only talking about a very short period of time (67 years).

17 Nov 2012 01:23 PM
Reply
Brick-House     
During that so called press conference where the one so called reporter stopped just shot of giving Obama a blow job, I wish one reporter would have had the balles to ask 0bama what would be the United States response when Egypt joins Hamas in a war against Israel?

17 Nov 2012 01:24 PM
Reply
GAT_00     

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Tatsuma: Well that's not throwing gas on an already raging fire.

Also some people cheering for Iran to get weapons. Just how retardly anti-Israel can one get?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: fark Israel.


The funny part is he doesn't realize that making another nuclear power for balance would make Israel safer. Wars are less common when there is a power balance.

But then, that would involve something besides Israel Uber Alles, so that's his problem with it.

17 Nov 2012 01:24 PM
Reply
Tatsuma     

PC LOAD LETTER: 1) Kahmeni issued a Fatwah forbidding Iran from possessing nuclear weapons


Actually, that fatwa most likely does not exist. No one has seen it, heard its text, or posted a copy of it anywhere.

PC LOAD LETTER: 2) Ahmamentalnutjob's braying about destruction of Israel


We take it seriously. He would not be saying these things if Khameini did not approve of it. Also they have done many many things in the past that shows that they are serious, from support to terrorist groups to, much recently, using Hizbullah as a launch pad to send a drone inside Israeli airspace.

PC LOAD LETTER: 3) the relative influence and power of each on Iranian power and military ambitions.


Fatwa, which most likely doesn't exist, has no impact, and Ahmadinejad is the tool of the Powers That Be in Iran, and therefore the public face of their ambitions.

17 Nov 2012 01:25 PM
Reply
Johnsnownw     

Holocaust Agnostic: In 100% of all cases, nuclear weapons have brought stability, not war. Did the U.S and Soviets ever slug it out? How many times has Pakistan invaded India once they both had the bomb? Where are the wars in Europe, that their bombs should have brought? Why has China not used its weapons to reclaim the territory it has reckoned as lost?

nuclear bombs are the most powerful force for peace in this world. To be pro-bomb is to be pro-humanity.

[img339.imageshack.us image 378x432]


There are for more players than country vs country. If only India and Pakistan and nuclear weapons, I wouldn't count on that fact to keep either one from using them. Alliances, more than the nuke, keep the relative peace.

17 Nov 2012 01:26 PM
Reply
GranoblasticMan     

GranoblasticMan: Holocaust Agnostic: In 100% of all cases, nuclear weapons have brought stability, not war.

I know you're being fatuous, but so far that actually has been arguably true so far (if you start the set of "all cases" as "after 1945"). Of course, that's ignoring the fact we're only talking about a very short period of time (67 years).


/I should proof-read, but IDGAF...

17 Nov 2012 01:26 PM
Reply
Tatsuma     

Brick-House: what would be the United States response when Egypt joins Hamas in a war against Israel?


Might as well ask him what will happen once Leprechauns take over London, because that's about just as likely to happen as Egypt getting involved in this.

17 Nov 2012 01:27 PM
Reply
Holocaust Agnostic     

GranoblasticMan: Holocaust Agnostic: In 100% of all cases, nuclear weapons have brought stability, not war.

I know you're being fatuous, but so far that actually has been arguably true so far (if you start the set of "all cases" as "after 1945"). Of course, that's ignoring the fact we're only talking about a very short period of time (67 years).


ending a world war doesn't count as bringing stability? Im sorry, but your standards may be unreasonably high.

17 Nov 2012 01:28 PM
Reply
BolshyGreatYarblocks     

Johnsnownw: GAT_00: Darth_Lukecash: GAT_00: Doesn't really bother me. Israel will have to exercise restraint with Iran if the Iranians have nuclear weapons. They have no incentive to do so now.

A nuclear Iran will stabilize, not destabilize the region.

You're assuming that people are as rational as you are.

You are assuming that are feeling powerless wont drive countries to desperate measures.

Israel can't threaten to bomb Iran any time they want if they know they can get nuked back. The ME is unstable because Israel can dictate to others with the threat of nuclear annihilation backing it up. A counter force to return the threat of annihilation with annihilation means the initial threat isn't made. Stability.

See also India and Pakistan, which have been fighting a whole lot less since they have been able to nuke each other.

Uhh, No. The ME is unstable because the majority of its citizens are uneducated farkwits who are ruled by tyrannical leaders. They are the equivalent of Catholic congregations in the 14th century.

The problem is, this is no longer the 14th century, and their leaders have the ability to coerce these poor a-holes into giving up their lives, and are able to inflict massive damage in the process.


Pictured: 14th-Century nuke-lovin' farkwit:

c481901.r1.cf2.rackcdn.com

http://c481901.r1.cf2.rackcdn.com/wp- content/uploads/2009/10/lemay.jp g

17 Nov 2012 01:29 PM
Reply
Guntram Shatterhand     
Wow, so in the last thirty years, Iran has gotten REALLY REALLY REALLY close to nuclear weapons. But this may be the final straw!

17 Nov 2012 01:30 PM
Reply
CygnusDarius     
You know, the Mayans may not have predicted the end of the world in 2012, but boy are we pushing to go there!.

17 Nov 2012 01:30 PM
Reply
PC LOAD LETTER    [TotalFark]  

Tatsuma: PC LOAD LETTER: 1) Kahmeni issued a Fatwah forbidding Iran from possessing nuclear weapons

Actually, that fatwa most likely does not exist. No one has seen it, heard its text, or posted a copy of it anywhere.

PC LOAD LETTER: 2) Ahmamentalnutjob's braying about destruction of Israel

We take it seriously. He would not be saying these things if Khameini did not approve of it. Also they have done many many things in the past that shows that they are serious, from support to terrorist groups to, much recently, using Hizbullah as a launch pad to send a drone inside Israeli airspace.

PC LOAD LETTER: 3) the relative influence and power of each on Iranian power and military ambitions.

Fatwa, which most likely doesn't exist, has no impact, and Ahmadinejad is the tool of the Powers That Be in Iran, and therefore the public face of their ambitions.


Thanks. What is the power structure in Iran (briefly)? Americans hear "President" and they think ruler, but Kahmeni is the supreme leader. How is this all structured.

17 Nov 2012 01:31 PM
Reply
ThatGuyFromTheInternet     

GAT_00: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Tatsuma: Well that's not throwing gas on an already raging fire.

Also some people cheering for Iran to get weapons. Just how retardly anti-Israel can one get?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: fark Israel.

The funny part is he doesn't realize that making another nuclear power for balance would make Israel safer. Wars are less common when there is a power balance.

But then, that would involve something besides Israel Uber Alles, so that's his problem with it.


Oh but it's the evil Mooslems getting nukes. That's different, because they're all homicidal monsters.

17 Nov 2012 01:31 PM
Reply
Holocaust Agnostic     

Johnsnownw: Holocaust Agnostic: In 100% of all cases, nuclear weapons have brought stability, not war. Did the U.S and Soviets ever slug it out? How many times has Pakistan invaded India once they both had the bomb? Where are the wars in Europe, that their bombs should have brought? Why has China not used its weapons to reclaim the territory it has reckoned as lost?

nuclear bombs are the most powerful force for peace in this world. To be pro-bomb is to be pro-humanity.

[img339.imageshack.us image 378x432]

There are for more players than country vs country. If only India and Pakistan and nuclear weapons, I wouldn't count on that fact to keep either one from using them. Alliances, more than the nuke, keep the relative peace.


Thats why when Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in 1914 the Austro-Hungarian empire worked things out diplomatically with serbia to ensure a fair and equitable resolution to the crisis could be reached. After all, Serbia was aligned to Russia, who was aligned to France. Picking a fight would just be unreasonable wouldn't it?

17 Nov 2012 01:31 PM
Reply
cman    [TotalFark]  

Tatsuma: Well that's not throwing gas on an already raging fire.

Also some people cheering for Iran to get weapons. Just how retardly anti-Israel can one get?


This is just a normal American left v right partisan conflict for him. The right likes Israel so he must be against them. Simple as that.

17 Nov 2012 01:32 PM
Reply
Thorak     

Johnsnownw: Uhh, No. The ME is unstable because the majority of its citizens are uneducated farkwits who are ruled by tyrannical leaders. They are the equivalent of Catholic congregations in the 14th century.

The problem is, this is no longer the 14th century, and their leaders have the ability to coerce these poor a-holes into giving up their lives, and are able to inflict massive damage in the process.


The majority of people in Western society aren't much better. They're just more used to having TVs and running water even if they're poor.

Every society is primarily uneducated farkwits. The Middle East isn't unique in that regard. See also; the US Election. Whichever side you were on, you probably thought the ~50% voting the other way were mostly uneducated farkwits, and if you're honest, you'd probably admit at least half your side was as well.


There is no long-term solution that can be imposed. They need to work it out for themselves. I just don't think anyone outside the region has any business whatsoever in picking and supporting one side or another. Cut off all diplomatic and financial support for the region. You don't need to cut off trade, but no foreign aid of any kind. Let them sort it out.

17 Nov 2012 01:32 PM
Reply
neenerist     

Brick-House: [www.dailysquib.co.uk image 360x270]


You're a sad little personal.

17 Nov 2012 01:33 PM
Reply
cman    [TotalFark]  

cman: Tatsuma: Well that's not throwing gas on an already raging fire.

Also some people cheering for Iran to get weapons. Just how retardly anti-Israel can one get?

This is just a normal American left v right partisan conflict for him. The right likes Israel so he must be against them. Simple as that.


Whoops wrong post quoted

17 Nov 2012 01:33 PM
Reply
shastacola     
You know what's ironical? Saddam Hussien would have kept Iran too busy to ever get to this point.

17 Nov 2012 01:34 PM
Reply
cman    [TotalFark]  

vygramul: Darth_Lukecash: GAT_00: Doesn't really bother me. Israel will have to exercise restraint with Iran if the Iranians have nuclear weapons. They have no incentive to do so now.

A nuclear Iran will stabilize, not destabilize the region.

You're assuming that people are as rational as you are.

You are assuming that are feeling powerless wont drive countries to desperate measures.

Countries tend to be pretty rational Even Hitler. He had chemical weapons and never used them.


This is a left v right partisan battle for him. The only thing he cares about is attacking the right. If the right were anti Israel he would be the biggest supporter of Israel on this site

17 Nov 2012 01:34 PM
Reply
Tatsuma     

PC LOAD LETTER: Thanks. What is the power structure in Iran (briefly)? Americans hear "President" and they think ruler, but Kahmeni is the supreme leader. How is this all structured.


Here's what I wrote back in 2009 for the big update thing:

The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran

- The legislative branch of the Iranian is threefold. There is the Parliament, the Expediency Discernment Council of the System and the Guardian Council, which reigns Supreme, although it is itself under review of the Assembly of Experts, which itself does not intervene in politics.

Majlis

- The Majlis is the Iranian Parliament, with a body of 290 members (5 of them representing the non-Muslim minorities). Members are voted in for terms of 4 years. While the members of the Majlis may appear to benefit from a certain leeway, and can introduce new legislation, each and every member or legislation has to first be approved by the Guardian Council. Reformists and other dissidents have often remarked that the electoral process in the Majlis is in fact nothing more than a theater, where Ayatollahs decide who is permitted to hold seats, and what laws they are permitted to vote for.

President

- Presidency is Iran is the highest position that is elected through popular vote, but not far from the most important in terms of power. As for possible candidates for positions in the Majlis, in order to run for Presidential election one must first be accepted as a candidate by the Guardian Council. Criteria for selection include religious observance and loyalty to the principles of the Islamic Revolution. While the President technically has the power to sign treaties with other countries, appoint ministers and many other Presidential functions, reality is that anything other than a minor decision is usually reviewed by the Guardian Council first. He also has no authority on the armed forces, nuclear program and the general lines of domestic and foreign policies.


Expediency Discernment Council of the System

- Although officially created as a mediator between the Guardian Council and the Majlis, the EDC finds itself to be nothing more than unofficial right arm of the Supreme Leader. It is composed of 34 members, the vast majority issued from the very conservative parties. Unlike the Majlis, however, it also has the authority to enact temporary laws for a duration of 3 years, by-passing the authority or oversight of the Majlis.


Guardian Council

- The Guardian Council is the real seat of Power in Iran. The 12 members of this Council are decided by the Supreme Leader, who controls the Council. 6 of them are clerics that the Supreme Leader handpicks, while the six other members are lawyers submitted by the head of the Judiciary system, himself appointed by the Supreme Leader. The Guardian Council is not only the highest political authority, but it is also the Religious authority in Iran, and considered the Guardian of the Revolution, thus its name. The Council plays a very important role in keeping what it consider the right Islamic system in place for Iran, but it also controls its political activities. While the Council itself does not submitted bills, it controls the political life in Iran through the policies of the Majlis it allows or refuses to come to fruition, or asks the EDC to pass certain laws. Another way it exerts its influence on the political process is by being able to reject or accept any candidate for elections, whether parliamentary or presidential.

Supreme Leader

- The Supreme Leader is considered the Leader of the Revolution, his position enshrined in the Iranian Constitution. He is elected to the position by the Assembly of Experts, a religious council. The title is not mere rhetoric; he is the all-powerful ruler of the Republic, who appoints everyone from commanders of the Army to heads of state-controlled Media, from Judges to who is permitted to run for office, and everyone important in-between. He is also the Religious leader of Iran, and as such decides the appointments of clerics in various organizations and mosques. He controls the domestic and foreign affairs of Iran through the Guardian Council and EDC, as well as the armed forces.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei

- The current Supreme Leader is Ayatollah Khamenei, successor of Ayatollah Khomeini. He was not originally slated to be replacement of Khomeini, but the first candidate for succession had a falling-out with Khomeini over the violent repression of student revolts and was dismissed and Khamenei stepped in. He has been the Supreme Leader of Iran since 1989, when the previous and first Supreme Leader died. He had been a key player during the 1979 Revolution, then became President of Iran from 1981 until his ascension as Supreme Leader. He is considered a very conservative figure and a close confident of the previous Supreme Leader, but was not considered for succession until Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, a rather liberal cleric, criticized the government for the torture and repression of students and lost his place in succession.


Assembly of Experts

- The Assembly of Experts is a body composed of 86 Islamic jurists specialized in the interpretation and application of Sharia, Islamic law. In order to qualify as a possible candidate, one must be known as a devout Muslim and a scholar, someone who believes in upholding the Islamic Revolution and agreed upon by the Government. Then, they are elected by public vote for 8 years terms. They have the power to elect and remove the Supreme Leader.

17 Nov 2012 01:36 PM
Reply
Sagus     

Holocaust Agnostic: In 100% of all cases, nuclear weapons have brought stability, not war. Did the U.S and Soviets ever slug it out? How many times has Pakistan invaded India once they both had the bomb? Where are the wars in Europe, that their bombs should have brought? Why has China not used its weapons to reclaim the territory it has reckoned as lost?

nuclear bombs are the most powerful force for peace in this world. To be pro-bomb is to be pro-humanity.

[img339.imageshack.us image 378x432]


While that might be a true statement none of those countries had a batsh*t crazy government bent on destroying another country

17 Nov 2012 01:36 PM
Reply
GAT_00     

PC LOAD LETTER: Tatsuma: PC LOAD LETTER: 1) Kahmeni issued a Fatwah forbidding Iran from possessing nuclear weapons

Actually, that fatwa most likely does not exist. No one has seen it, heard its text, or posted a copy of it anywhere.

PC LOAD LETTER: 2) Ahmamentalnutjob's braying about destruction of Israel

We take it seriously. He would not be saying these things if Khameini did not approve of it. Also they have done many many things in the past that shows that they are serious, from support to terrorist groups to, much recently, using Hizbullah as a launch pad to send a drone inside Israeli airspace.

PC LOAD LETTER: 3) the relative influence and power of each on Iranian power and military ambitions.

Fatwa, which most likely doesn't exist, has no impact, and Ahmadinejad is the tool of the Powers That Be in Iran, and therefore the public face of their ambitions.

Thanks. What is the power structure in Iran (briefly)? Americans hear "President" and they think ruler, but Kahmeni is the supreme leader. How is this all structured.


You do realize you're asking for political opinion from a guy who once claimed people weren't oppressed in Gaza because there is a beach there and people were on it.

17 Nov 2012 01:38 PM
Reply
shastacola     

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: GAT_00: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Tatsuma: Well that's not throwing gas on an already raging fire.

Also some people cheering for Iran to get weapons. Just how retardly anti-Israel can one get?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: fark Israel.

The funny part is he doesn't realize that making another nuclear power for balance would make Israel safer. Wars are less common when there is a power balance.

But then, that would involve something besides Israel Uber Alles, so that's his problem with it.

Oh but it's the evil Mooslems getting nukes. That's different, because they're all homicidal monsters 14th century religious fundamentalists.


17 Nov 2012 01:38 PM
Reply
GranoblasticMan     

Holocaust Agnostic: GranoblasticMan: Holocaust Agnostic: In 100% of all cases, nuclear weapons have brought stability, not war.

I know you're being fatuous, but so far that actually has been arguably true so far (if you start the set of "all cases" as "after 1945"). Of course, that's ignoring the fact we're only talking about a very short period of time (67 years).

ending a world war doesn't count as bringing stability? Im sorry, but your standards may be unreasonably high.


Maybe I shouldn't have cut your quote so short; your reasons seemed to imply that having a nuclear arsenal has not lead to using it, which is obviously not true for 1945.

17 Nov 2012 01:39 PM
Reply
ThatGuyFromTheInternet     

Sagus: Holocaust Agnostic: In 100% of all cases, nuclear weapons have brought stability, not war. Did the U.S and Soviets ever slug it out? How many times has Pakistan invaded India once they both had the bomb? Where are the wars in Europe, that their bombs should have brought? Why has China not used its weapons to reclaim the territory it has reckoned as lost?

nuclear bombs are the most powerful force for peace in this world. To be pro-bomb is to be pro-humanity.

[img339.imageshack.us image 378x432]

While that might be a true statement none of those countries had a batsh*t crazy government bent on destroying another country


Dubya could've used his on Iraq. Stalin had 'em for a few years. Hell, Israel has them and they wanna eliminate Palestine.

17 Nov 2012 01:40 PM
Reply
neenerist     

GAT_00: .... people weren't oppressed in Gaza because there is a beach there and people were on it.


Some might own microwaves.

17 Nov 2012 01:41 PM
Reply
Thorak     

Sagus:
While that might be a true statement none of those countries had a batsh*t crazy government bent on destroying another country


Do you seriously not remember the Cold War?

17 Nov 2012 01:41 PM
Reply
Holocaust Agnostic     

Sagus: Holocaust Agnostic: In 100% of all cases, nuclear weapons have brought stability, not war. Did the U.S and Soviets ever slug it out? How many times has Pakistan invaded India once they both had the bomb? Where are the wars in Europe, that their bombs should have brought? Why has China not used its weapons to reclaim the territory it has reckoned as lost?

nuclear bombs are the most powerful force for peace in this world. To be pro-bomb is to be pro-humanity.

[img339.imageshack.us image 378x432]

While that might be a true statement none of those countries had a batsh*t crazy government bent on destroying another country


The soviets were ruled by a series of delusional paranoids. The US occasionally elects bloodthirsty madmen like Kennedy. and yet those two countries managed to dance on the edge for half a century.

No one able to successfully run a nation state for any period of time is not irrational enough to use nuclear weapons.

17 Nov 2012 01:42 PM
Reply
Showing 1-50 of 117 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
This thread is closed to new comments.


Back To Main

More Headlines:
Main | Sports | Business | Geek | Entertainment | Politics | Video | FarkUs | Contests | Fark Party | Combined