And now for some real news

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » September 1, 2004, 3:28 pm

By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer

VIENNA, Austria - Iran has announced plans to turn tons of uranium into a substance that can be used to make nuclear weapons, the U.N. atomic watchdog agency said Wednesday in a report stoking concern about Tehran's nuclear agenda.

The confidential report of the International Atomic Energy Agency said the agency had been informed that the Islamic Republic planned to process more than 40 tons of raw uranium into uranium hexafluoride.

Uranium hexafluoride is spun in centrifuges to produce enriched uranium, which in turn can be used to generate power or make nuclear warheads, depending on the degree of enrichment.

A senior diplomat familiar with the agency declined to say how much hexafluoride could be obtained from that amount of raw uranium, also known as yellowcake, beyond saying it was a "substantial amount."

Another diplomat, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, said that enough highly enriched uranium could be produced from the hexafluoride derived to make several explosive devices.

Talk amongst yourselves.

noel · Post by **noel** » September 1, 2004, 3:31 pm

/midnyte ON

FUCKING MUSLIMS!!!1!!!1111

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » September 1, 2004, 3:32 pm

noel wrote:/midnyte ON

FUCKING MUSLIMS!!!1!!!1111

Bah beat me by like 5 seconds!...

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » September 1, 2004, 3:57 pm

I see an Israeli airstrike in their future, and a nuke dropping on our troops heads in the gulf because of it.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 1, 2004, 3:58 pm

why do you say that when Iran has literally no history of hostile actions against anyone other than Iraq since at least the 1960s?

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » September 1, 2004, 4:02 pm

Is my memory faulty or didn't Iran take U.S. hostages in the 80's?

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » September 1, 2004, 4:08 pm

kyoukan wrote:why do you say that when Iran has literally no history of hostile actions against anyone other than Iraq since at least the 1960s?

I'm saying that if Israel attacks them there will be hell to pay and we would pay along with them. I don't see them just keeping their attacks on Israel if Israel did a pre-emptive strike. I could be wrong, but Israel attacking their plants with America being on their borders would not sit pretty with them.

-edit Oh did you think I meant that they would do a pre-emptive strike on Israel? That's not what I meant, I meant the other way around.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » September 1, 2004, 4:14 pm

kyoukan wrote:why do you say that when Iran has literally no history of hostile actions against anyone other than Iraq since at least the 1960s?

They wear towels on there heads, they have dark skin, and they are not christian...so if they have weapons they must be part of "the axis of evil" and Bush will not hesitate to abandon Iraq and Afghanistan (as he already did) to blow them up if hes around for four more years.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 1, 2004, 4:16 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Is my memory faulty or didn't Iran take U.S. hostages in the 80's?

1979! They released them on the day Reagan was inaugurated because they knew he'd kick ass just like most republican presidents!

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » September 1, 2004, 4:16 pm

Xzion wrote:
kyoukan wrote:why do you say that when Iran has literally no history of hostile actions against anyone other than Iraq since at least the 1960s?
They wear towels on there heads, they have dark skin, and they are not christian...so if they have weapons they must be part of "the axis of evil" and Bush will not hesitate to abandon Iraq and Afghanistan (as he already did) to blow them up if hes around for four more years.

/yawn

Your tripe gets old, when your balls drop come back please.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » September 1, 2004, 4:16 pm

Oh give me a break, both of you misunderstood what I said by 180 degrees.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » September 1, 2004, 4:27 pm

Well they are one of the founding members of the Axis of Evil(tm), as stated by the Prophet, G'Dubyah. Of course, a jihad on their unholy arma cumulus clades would be out of the question, seeing as how the holy warriors of G'Dubyah are already crusading throughout other parts of the Middle East and Asia. No, in this case the Prophet may have to smite down the heathens from above, in the name of Lord, amen.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » September 1, 2004, 4:33 pm

Xzion wrote:
kyoukan wrote:why do you say that when Iran has literally no history of hostile actions against anyone other than Iraq since at least the 1960s?
They wear towels on there heads, they have dark skin, and they are not christian...so if they have weapons they must be part of "the axis of evil" and Bush will not hesitate to abandon Iraq and Afghanistan (as he already did) to blow them up if hes around for four more years.

Abandon Afghanistan? We are still there imbecile.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 1, 2004, 4:55 pm

lol there's less than a thousand US troops in afghanistan. canada recently scaled back their presence in that country and we still outnumber the US troops 2 to 1.

why do you think those hostages were taken in iran in 1979? because iranians are evil and they arbitrarily decided to start taking hostages?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 1, 2004, 5:06 pm

kyoukan wrote:lol there's less than a thousand US troops in afghanistan. canada recently scaled back their presence in that country and we still outnumber the US troops 2 to 1.

why do you think those hostages were taken in iran in 1979? because iranians are evil and they arbitrarily decided to start taking hostages?

Why did we take down the Afghanistan government? Did we just decide to head on over there or did something else happen 2 months earlier?

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » September 1, 2004, 5:15 pm

Winnow wrote:
kyoukan wrote:lol there's less than a thousand US troops in afghanistan. canada recently scaled back their presence in that country and we still outnumber the US troops 2 to 1.

why do you think those hostages were taken in iran in 1979? because iranians are evil and they arbitrarily decided to start taking hostages?
Why did we take down the Afghanistan government? Did we just decide to head on over there or did something else happen 2 months earlier?

Are you saying you support the actions Iran took when they kidnapped the Americans?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · September 1, 2004, 5:21 pm

noel wrote:/midnyte ON

FUCKING MUSLIMS!!!1!!!1111

If the shoe fits.....

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » September 1, 2004, 5:23 pm

Midnyte, that's quite a prejudiced remark. I wouldn't complain anymore if people call you bigoted if I were you.

-=Lohrno

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » September 1, 2004, 5:23 pm

Careful Dregor, you might make his head explode with that one.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » September 1, 2004, 5:26 pm

Seriously Mid, wtf does that comment have to do with anything?

Q. What did you have to eat?
A. I washed my car today.

add idiot to that resume aswell.

Edit: My PC cant multitask 10 things at once...pffft

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » September 1, 2004, 5:27 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
Xzion wrote:
kyoukan wrote:why do you say that when Iran has literally no history of hostile actions against anyone other than Iraq since at least the 1960s?
They wear towels on there heads, they have dark skin, and they are not christian...so if they have weapons they must be part of "the axis of evil" and Bush will not hesitate to abandon Iraq and Afghanistan (as he already did) to blow them up if hes around for four more years.
Abandon Afghanistan? We are still there imbecile.

my cousins there, but we largely abandoned afghanistan for iraq. You are pretty godamn bad at interpritations

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 1, 2004, 5:34 pm

The definition of "hostile" has nothing to do with any event in the past.

kyoukan's comment was meaningless. A hostile action doesn't define whether it's a good or bad act.

Hostile:

-Characterized by enmity or ill will
-Not belonging to your own country's forces or those of an ally
-Very unfriendly

kyoukan stated that Iran had taken no hostile action toward any country except Iraq since the 60's. That's incorrect.

When the US invaded afghanistan it was considered a hostile action by the Taliban.

Iran taking american hostages was "very unfriendly" and "characterized by enmity or ill will". Previous events don't matter on both sides except when it comes to pussy liberals who think only the U.S. commits hostile acts.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » September 1, 2004, 5:35 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:If the shoe fits.....

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » September 1, 2004, 5:36 pm

rofl.

noel · Post by **noel** » September 1, 2004, 5:39 pm

touche!

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » September 1, 2004, 5:43 pm

This is the perfect opportunity for the UN to prove its relevance by solving this issue.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » September 1, 2004, 5:47 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:This is the perfect opportunity for the UN to prove its relevance by solving this issue.

ROFL!!!

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » September 1, 2004, 5:47 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:This is the perfect opportunity for the UN to prove its relevance by solving this issue.

Well if you aren't just a self-righteous twat for feeling the rest of the world needs to prove something to you. You'll take anything you're spoonfed by your party like it were ambrosia, you'll believe in a mythical being as the source of your life and what you should devote your being to, but when it comes to billions of people and how they approach the politics of the world, they need to prove something to you. The only issue here is yours, cornbread.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » September 1, 2004, 5:50 pm

Yes I honestly would like to see the UN act in a public manner and make a difference for this world.

Call it an optimistic expectation.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » September 1, 2004, 5:54 pm

Imagine the impact the UN would have if they solved the issues surrounding a nuclear Iran.

It would provide a resounding example to encourage America to trust the UN when dealing with such things.

I'm surprised you don't share my position on this issue Dregor.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 1, 2004, 6:00 pm

The fact that an American asks the UN to do anything is ridiculous. The US has been a major force in making sure the UN can't do anything at all. And the UN wont be able to do anything until the US along with the other countries give up their veto rights and actually understands that the UN wont always support their will.

Until then.. you can't have it both ways. You told the UN to fuck off.. now asking for them to do something? That is laughable.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » September 1, 2004, 6:03 pm

How does telling the UN to fuck off regarding Iraq have anything to do with the Iran issue? Because they're neighbors?

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » September 1, 2004, 6:04 pm

Iran took those hostages because the US had been supporting a dictator that was almost, yes I said almost, as bad as Saddam. Of course NOW, since we have no WMD, we did it to save those people - which I personally think IS a good thing. However we TOTALLY ignored the problem for decades in Iran because WE put him in power. He had all the same murdering death squads that were in Iraq, for the Iranian people things were almost as bad.

Thus the people had a... <bonk> revolution (which is different than an invasion) to oust the guy. Since we had been his primary source of backing (see Oil) they pretty much saw us as the bad guy as well and took hostages. Certantily wasn't the hostages vault, nor do I in ANY way condone terrorism but it's pretty easy to see where the hatred came from... isn't it, what pushed them to hate Americans?

Carter, the current President took action but the attempt failed. It probably would have failed if a Republican was in as well be cause we were decreasing our military (Note from the Chaney thread this would be Nixon's military, not Carters). After it fails the Democratic President created groups to look into the issues which eventually resulted in some of our Special Forces groups. Which of course neocons will say was because of Reagan because that is when the studies finished...

Fast forward about 20 years... The people of Iran, while not being murdered anymore, realize that they traded one dictator for another and begin protesting their Muslim goverment's rule... but only slightly. Then 9/11 happens, the High Cleric, realizing his people aren't happy, extends their sorrow and outrage at what happend to the US. NOT an olive branch or even a hand shake but at least it's a wave. A week later GWB includes them in the "Axis of Evil" (because they are brown I think) and any POSSIBLE hope for bringing our countries closer together in the near future is lost... which of course is exactly what Bush wanted... it makes it easier to convince people we need to bomb them.

So since then the students have still protested, people still want freedom but rather than listening or loosing their ties the Iranian Gov. has held firm. The possibility of a true democracy in Iraq is a VERY REAL threat to their current power structure. Thus they are going to do whatever they can now to thewart the process...

Where as if Bush had waved back and started talks back in 2001 I believe we would be farther towards democracy now in Iran than Iraq. Why because if the Gov. would have allowed more freedoms slowly then the people would have been fairly content until the day the Gov. finally changed hands peacefully. As it is now, because they are standing firm against Bush and the US, the Gov. of Iran know that if they fail now they will probably loose everything they have AND their heads...

But war is the way of the world is it not? I mean for the majority of the population has man REALLY learned anything in the past 10,000 years on how to live together?

Marb

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » September 1, 2004, 6:15 pm

The UN proved their worth to me during the last bit of Iraq inspections (especially since hindsight is 20/20). I have no problem with them helping in this crisis, as long as America does not start cock waiving and telling them to get out of the way.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » September 1, 2004, 6:16 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Imagine the impact the UN would have if they solved the issues surrounding a nuclear Iran.

It would provide a resounding example to encourage America to trust the UN when dealing with such things.

I'm surprised you don't share my position on this issue Dregor.

Oh, I'm all for the UN solving the issue, don't get me wrong. It should be only through an orginzation such as the UN that these kinds of issues are handled, and not through cowboy actions such as telling them to piss off and invading anyways. What I have issue with is you now saying that you'd like to see the UN step up and show you what they've got.

I think now would be a good time for God to show his face and do something about this nuclear issue in Iran.

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » September 1, 2004, 6:32 pm

The problem is that if the UN actually try to do something about Iran, and Bush get reelected, what is to stop Bush from saying that Iran got WMDs (which might actually be correct this time), tell the UN to buzz off and start a new war?

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » September 1, 2004, 6:56 pm

Kelshara wrote:You told the UN to fuck off.. now asking for them to do something? That is laughable.

Not exactly,

We went to the UN first. We asked the UN for help and they dropped the ball because of conflicting interests. So America did what it had to without the UN.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » September 1, 2004, 6:58 pm

well Iran is going to develope nukes, it is obviously the ticket to the "adult table".

I'm not sure if i would really agree with that characterization Adex. It was pretty clear that we went to the UN half-heartedly. In fact Bush had to be big time convinced to go by Powell. Up until Sept 2002 we had begun to the military machinary in motion without a genuine effort.

I'm not saying that the UN would have voted differently had the Bush White House been skillful in their diplomacy. But the fact is, that the Bush administration was hamfisted in playing its diplomatic hand - which frankly was only done half-heartedly.

Regardless of the necessity of using the UN to invade Iraq, or potentially Iran, the fact that we did not make a genuine effort to use them from the initial phase of our military mobilization has weakened the UN, and it has not really helped the US

2 years ago, the persons who suckle at the teet of the right wing propagandists were saying "who needs other countries to invade Iraq?". The answer is obviously that we did not need anybody to help with the invasion.

Everybody who understood the issue knew the military invasion was not the hard part. We did need the international community to help us with the post-war scenario, and BUsh has been scrambling in 2004 to cobble together something going to the UN, the EU, and NATO.

If he had skillfully positioned the diplomatic scenario from the outset, it would have put our military in a position of maximum advantage by spreading the view of legitimacy of the operation to a higher percentage of citizens of EU members, allowing the cost in lives and dollars to be defrayed from the US.

that is the reality of the situation in my view.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » September 1, 2004, 7:00 pm

Dregor Thule wrote:I think now would be a good time for God to show his face and do something about this nuclear issue in Iran.

God tends to not violate people's free will to make bad decisions. (Unless they ask for his guidance.) When guidance is requested he does step in and helps people make sound decisions. Thus is always a great idea to pray for your decision makers.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » September 1, 2004, 7:06 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:
Kelshara wrote:You told the UN to fuck off.. now asking for them to do something? That is laughable.
Not exactly,

We went to the UN first. We asked the UN for help and they dropped the ball because of conflicting interests. So America did what it had to without the UN.

Actually, exactly. You just said it yourself. You went to the UN, you didn't get the answer you wanted, and you told them to fuck off. In nicer, political terms of course.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » September 1, 2004, 7:07 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:
Dregor Thule wrote:I think now would be a good time for God to show his face and do something about this nuclear issue in Iran.
God tends to not violate people's free will to make bad decisions. (Unless they ask for his guidance.) When guidance is requested he does step in and helps people make sound decisions. Thus is always a great idea to pray for your decision makers.

not according to the bible.

in fact one time the people on the earth did so much bad shit, that God killed all of them except for a family who built a boat.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » September 1, 2004, 7:11 pm

Don't forget nuking Gamorrah and turning all the Sodomites into pillars of salt.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » September 1, 2004, 7:12 pm

Voronwë wrote:not according to the bible.

in fact one time the people on the earth did so much bad shit, that God killed all of them except for a family who built a boat.

I think I saw that one. Didn't they land on an island and build a really cool tree fort with the help of monkeys? I loved that one as a kid, I wished I'd get marooned!

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 1, 2004, 7:18 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:
Kelshara wrote:You told the UN to fuck off.. now asking for them to do something? That is laughable.
Not exactly,

We went to the UN first. We asked the UN for help and they dropped the ball because of conflicting interests. So America did what it had to without the UN.

Eh no. You showed them a laughable powerpoint presentation and said "ATTACK NOW!" They said "No we need more proof of WMDs". You said "Fuck you!" and attacked. And found no WMDs.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » September 1, 2004, 7:21 pm

Voronwë wrote: in fact one time the people on the earth did so much bad shit, that God killed all of them except for a family who built a boat.

Voronwe you overlooked the ending of that story.

Genesis 9:8-17
8 Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: 9 "I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you 10 and with every living creature that was with you-the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you-every living creature on earth. 11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth."
12 And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth."

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » September 1, 2004, 7:22 pm

Once he sent Jesus, he stopped all the burning bush type messages. He did always allow people the right to make their own choice, but he punished them severely for being evil.

Maybe the U.S. is a weapon of God set forth by his guidance to eliminate evil. It is not ours to know his exact plan. Things are definitely progressing to what is written in Revelations though....

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » September 1, 2004, 7:28 pm

Dregor Thule wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:
Kelshara wrote:You told the UN to fuck off.. now asking for them to do something? That is laughable.
Not exactly,

We went to the UN first. We asked the UN for help and they dropped the ball because of conflicting interests. So America did what it had to without the UN.
Actually, exactly. You just said it yourself. You went to the UN, you didn't get the answer you wanted, and you told them to fuck off. In nicer, political terms of course.

The US was not going to allow a nuclear terrorist act to bloom while the UN debated and passed resolutions for another 14 years. The threat was too big to ignore. The US acted when action was warranted.

Now you can slant that truth into some phrase about the US being a spoiled bully, and get a laugh.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » September 1, 2004, 7:33 pm

A nuclear terrorist act, NO, but a nuclear strike from N Korea, YES.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 1, 2004, 7:57 pm

I whole-heartedly support Iran going nuclear anyway. Maybe a few hundred ICBM's aimed at Israel is exactly what that country needs to stop acting like a bunch of land grabbing assholes. Maybe Bush and his neocon moron brigade would be less likely to swing his cock around regarding the region if Iran could just nuke Rumsfeld's chess pieces right out of the desert. For the most part neocons have a habit of negotiating more with countries that they can't blow up in easy wars, because they are all a bunch of fucking pussies.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » September 1, 2004, 9:09 pm

Exactly. N Korea is a working model for why countries SHOULD have nukes. Seems that's the only language America seems to understand.