Be a Supporter!

Iran's nuclear program

  • 2,962 Views
  • 102 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
morefngdbs
morefngdbs
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Art Lover
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 11th, 2012 @ 07:21 PM Reply

At 9/11/12 05:49 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 9/11/12 05:43 PM, morefngdbs wrote:
You need to get out more & turn off your TV, there ain't nothing' on there that has anything to do with reality child.
Pot, meet kettle :)

;;; I don't have cable, I don't have a satelite dish & where I live in rural Canada.... there is no 'air' wave TV signal.
So That = No T V
which means the pot can't meet the kettle !


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More

Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 11th, 2012 @ 07:55 PM Reply

At 9/11/12 04:59 PM, adrshepard wrote:
It's not a lie when you realize Iran has thousands of pounds of U235 which can be refined into 90% enriched uranium using the same techniques Iran is using now. Technically, Iran has enough uranium for several bombs, it just hasn't been enriched enough yet (so we think).

And there are two more lies. Lets do some simple math here. Refer to the first table under "Uranium Availability" on http://www.world-nuclear.org/http://www.world-nuclear.org/in fo/inf75.html

The total amount of potentially extractable natural Uranium ore in the world is 5,327,200 tonnes. Only .73% of that is extractable Uranium 235, so 38,888.56 tonnes globally. If you look at the chart you'll see that "other countries" not mentioned in the chart have a combined total of 3% of the world's Uranium. So it is safe to assume that Iran has no viable means of mining its own Uranium for a nuclear reactor, much less for a bomb. This means Iran must buy its Uranium from other countries.

Referring to http://www.un.org/ you can see all of the world's major and significant suppliers of Uranium are members of the U.N. (Including, funny enough if you notice, Iran, which doesn't have a viable source of Uranium, just a member of the U.N). Most members of the U.N. do not believe that Iran it attempting to develop nuclear weaponry and none of them would dare trade them enough U-235 to potentially create enough enriched U-235 for a bomb. This is once again assuming has the technology to reach the 90% enrichment, which they don't. On top of this, most of the Uranium traded between nations for nuclear reactor use is U-238 (which if you remember, is not used in a fission reaction of a nuclear bomb), because it is much cheaper and more abundant than the U-235 isotope.

In the record, it states that a discovery by the U.N. in 2003 found that Iran hasn't revealed its nuclear activity to the U.N. for 18 years. So that's 18 years since 2003, it's been 27 years since Iran has started a nuclear program. It has taken Iran 27 years to reach 20% Uranium 235 enrichment. Uranium is radioactive, and like I said before, Iran's, and the world's supply is constantly decaying. Not including how exponentially more difficult it becomes to purify Uranium the higher concentration you wish to reach (90%) and not including potential future restrictions on Uranium 235 trade and enrichment, it would take Iran at least 122 more years to reach 90% enrichment, which is a complete underestimate. This is based on the prior 27 years to reach 20% enrichment, it is safe to assume that 27 years is an appropriate and viable amount of time past to calculate rough, at greatest capacity, predictions. This further supports that Iran just does not have the technology or the resources to become a nuclear threat.

None of you should have any concern about Iran's nuclear program, it's just nonsense.
Yet you link to an article that says Iran refused inspectors access to an area where they allegedly worked on an nuclear detonator and which Iran has rushed to demolish and cover up over the past several months. The article also quotes the IAEA as saying that Iran's uncooperative nature has not assured anyone of its peaceful intentions.

The United states is one of the few countries that believes Iran may not have peaceful intentions with nuclear resources. Therefore, an article from the United States will most likely be biased towards this position.

It's about trust. Iran doesn't the rest of the world's trust, and while countries like Russia and China don't give a damn, we can't afford to take Iran at its word. After all, if Iran has nothing to hide, this sort of obstruction doesn't exactly reflect the "rational" approach you assign to the Iranian leadership, right?

That's another lie, most of the world does believe that Iran's intention's with radioactive supplies and purely for energy. By this lie you've told me, it's obvious you've never been outside of the U.S. to another industrialized nation. Why should other countries take our word for the U.S's potential intentions for Iran? Or take our word for Iran potentially creating and holding "weapons of mass destruction" or nuclear weapons, ring a bell? Probably not, most americans have phased that part of recent history out of their minds. We lied about "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq to invade them, then changed our position to taking out Sadam, then we changed it to occupying it for the sake of helping to establish a stable government. This is does not even include the multiples of other countries we have invaded and have occupied. You can't possibly imagine how the rest of the world (and the U.N.) must view us much less even trust us for waltzing into whatever country we want and imposing our demands and making up these ridiculous reasons for doing so.

This country is so full of itself and so packed with pride, but so easily succumbed into fearing anything the news tells them to. Absolutely hilarious and ironic.

As for claiming that Iran is a rational government or its leaders as rational, that's another lie. I never stated or implied that, in fact if you would take one second and read what I wrote before spewing crap out of your mouth, you would have read that I said exactly the opposite. No country engaged in any war in the middle east is doing anything rational nor guided by any justified or logical motives, other than acting upon their own ancestral instincts to fight and cause pointless conflict.

Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 11th, 2012 @ 07:58 PM Reply

At 9/11/12 05:01 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
Don't you know that because we back Israel, their actions/aggression are okay?

Haha very good my man. I assume you're being facetious, because we are the only country supporting Israel, it makes any of Israel's actions ok, because we are the police of the world ahaha.

GrizzlyOne
GrizzlyOne
  • Member since: Jul. 16, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Audiophile
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 11th, 2012 @ 08:48 PM Reply

if Iran launches a fuckin nuke at somebody (Israel of course) then we're destroying Iran, no question about that

One of the reasons the U.S. is in so much debt is because we act like the big bro in the world and poke our nose into other people's business that we shouldn't have in the first place.


BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 11th, 2012 @ 08:58 PM Reply

At 9/11/12 07:21 PM, morefngdbs wrote:
So That = No T V
which means the pot can't meet the kettle !

Well you have to get that dipshittery form somewhere

adrshepard
adrshepard
  • Member since: Jun. 18, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 11th, 2012 @ 09:43 PM Reply

At 9/11/12 07:55 PM, Saen wrote: And there are two more lies. Lets do some simple math here. Refer to the first table under "Uranium Availability" on http://www.world-nuclear.org/http://www.world-nuclear.org/in fo/inf75.html

Here you begin a train of very specious logic.

The total amount of potentially extractable natural Uranium ore in the world is 5,327,200 tonnes. Only .73% of that is extractable Uranium 235, so 38,888.56 tonnes globally...This means Iran must buy its Uranium from other countries.

This is totally irrelevant, as I'll show you.

Referring to http://www.un.org/ you can see all of the world's major and significant suppliers of Uranium are members of the U.N. (Including, funny enough if you notice, Iran, which doesn't have a viable source of Uranium, just a member of the U.N). Most members of the U.N. do not believe that Iran it attempting to develop nuclear weaponry and none of them would dare trade them enough U-235 to potentially create enough enriched U-235 for a bomb.

Iran received roughly 531 tons of yellowcake uranium ore from South Africa in the 1980s. A report from 2009 said that the IAEA put Iran's quantity of UF6, which can be refined to produce nuclear weapons, at 366 tons. Iran has enough fissile material to make several bombs once it is enriched enough; this is not in dispute by anyone besides yourself.

This is once again assuming has the technology to reach the 90% enrichment, which they don't.

http://www.fas.org/pubs/_docs/IssueBrief_Jan2011_Iran.pdf
Read the very first page. Then read page 19 to see that Iran could conceivably produce enough highly enriched uranium in less than four years, given its capacity in 2011.

Yet you link to an article that says Iran refused inspectors access to an area where they allegedly worked on an nuclear detonator and which Iran has rushed to demolish and cover up over the past several months. The article also quotes the IAEA as saying that Iran's uncooperative nature has not assured anyone of its peaceful intentions.
The United states is one of the few countries that believes Iran may not have peaceful intentions with nuclear resources. Therefore, an article from the United States will most likely be biased towards this position.

The IAEA is an international organization which is quoted in the article. The fact that the Washington Post wrote the story is irrelevant. The quote is verbatim from the IAEA's August 30 report "...Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation, including by not implementing its Additional Protocol, the agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities." Page 11 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2012/sep/04/iaea -report-full-document

That's another lie, most of the world does believe that Iran's intention's with radioactive supplies and purely for energy. By this lie you've told me, it's obvious you've never been outside of the U.S. to another industrialized nation.

I don't have to; I read the news.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/france-iran-continue s-to-be-two-faced-on-nuclear-issue-1.417054
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/nuclear-armed -iran-not-an-option-says-german-foreign-minister/story-e6frf 7k6-1226468703229
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-11-21/world/world_europe_uk-ira n-sanctions_1_nuclear-program-military-dimensions-iranian-ba nks?_s=PM:EUROPE
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-24/world/world_europe_iran-a ustralia-sanctions_1_nuclear-program-nuclear-watchdog-intern ational-atomic-energy-agency?_s=PM:EUROPE
And this extends to Middle Eastern countries as well
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-16/how-iran-nuclear-st andoff-looks-from-saudi-arabia-mustafa-alani.html

As for claiming that Iran is a rational government or its leaders as rational, that's another lie. I never stated or implied that,

You, in your last post:
"You're also stereotyping about Iran's leadership and its people by assuming they're extremists, which you are also entirely incorrect about."

Or are "extremism" and "rationality" not mutually exclusive in your mind?

By all means, continue to enlighten me on the "lies" I've just posted.

kakalxlax
kakalxlax
  • Member since: Jun. 2, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 11th, 2012 @ 10:23 PM Reply

At 9/11/12 04:54 PM, Saen wrote: Also, flip the senario around to Israel. If you're classifying Iran's leadership as being Muslim extremists because there are waging a war and die over a religious, "sacred", piece of dirt? Wouldn't Israel's Jews be guilty of the same extremism

1) isreal was attacked first
2) israel tried to negotiate peace many times
3) just watch statements made by each parts leaders

especially since they are actually getting aid from us for their own selfish religious cause?

ive never seen any Israeli leader saying that they should wipe out the planet every non-jew


The problem is that this is a war backed by religious intent, and those wars between religious zealots never end. The U.S should have known better to become involved in the first place.

its the duty of every sentient person to get involved thus, if someone is threatening to wipe you out, you will want someone to jump in your defense


Its only rape if you say no.

Say no to rape.

Seatbeltnazi
Seatbeltnazi
  • Member since: Jul. 6, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 11th, 2012 @ 11:46 PM Reply

Iran sees itself beset on all sides by hostile forces that have threatened them with war multiple times, and are threatening their economic security. They see the only possible way out is a nuclear deterrant.

It always works the same way with the Nuclear Club. All of the members want the club to stay the same size, and will do anything to stop another power from joining. The power interested in joining must keep it a complete secret from the club, or it will expect retaliation and destruction(in the case of 'hostile powers' in the mind of the west, which is just about everyone outside the west).

It was the same case with Iraq, and it is the same with Iran, as well as Pakistan and others.

Duh, Iran is obviously building a bomb. But they need to get the right rockets ready(as well as a functional bomb, with the best outcome, multiple) to be able to deter Israel and the West from striking.

Only when they have the potential to obliterate Israel will their intents become obvious, because any moment before then will result in a massive strike against them.


Is marijuana addictive? Yes, in the sense that most of the really pleasant things in life are worth endlessly repeating.

Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 12th, 2012 @ 12:33 AM Reply

At 9/11/12 09:43 PM, adrshepard wrote:
Iran received roughly 531 tons of yellowcake uranium ore from South Africa in the 1980s. A report from 2009 said that the IAEA put Iran's quantity of UF6, which can be refined to produce nuclear weapons, at 366 tons. Iran has enough fissile material to make several bombs once it is enriched enough; this is not in dispute by anyone besides yourself.

Once again, this amount of Uranium (366 tons) is not pure U-235 as stated in the article several times. This uranium oxide would have to be heavily centrifuged if any desire to stockpile U-235 is desired by Iran. Also in the article it stated that most of the Uranium would likely be reserved for a reactor, not bombs.

This is once again assuming has the technology to reach the 90% enrichment, which they don't.
http://www.fas.org/pubs/_docs/IssueBrief_Jan2011_Iran.pdf
Read the very first page. Then read page 19 to see that Iran could conceivably produce enough highly enriched uranium in less than four years, given its capacity in 2011.

That statement was made by Israeli intelligence, not by the FAS. So if you're suggesting the credibilities are equal, you're out of your mind.

Yet you link to an article that says Iran refused inspectors access to an area where they allegedly worked on an nuclear detonator and which Iran has rushed to demolish and cover up over the past several months. The article also quotes the IAEA as saying that Iran's uncooperative nature has not assured anyone of its peaceful intentions.

Which is also stated in the U.N. conference, however most of the U.N. does not accept accusations of Iran developing nuclear weaponry. Although Iran's prior secrecy on nuclear projects may be violating the U.N.'s policies, secrecy is not enough evidence or may not be considered evidence for Irans building nukes.

The United states is one of the few countries that believes Iran may not have peaceful intentions with nuclear resources. Therefore, an article from the United States will most likely be biased towards this position.
The IAEA is an international organization which is quoted in the article. The fact that the Washington Post wrote the story is irrelevant. The quote is verbatim from the IAEA's August 30 report "...Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation, including by not implementing its Additional Protocol, the agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities." Page 11 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2012/sep/04/iaea -report-full-document

The term "Additional Protocol" because it is capitalized, must be a specific term coined/defined by the IAEA's investigation/data collecting processes. Basically this is a form of deception, by not directly stating that, "Iran has enriched U-235 hidden from us" and saying that phrase instead. They don't have the proof to make that direct statement, so they coin a word and use that to create the impression that Iran is hiding U-235. This article is deceptive and doesnt proof a thing.

That's another lie, most of the world does believe that Iran's intention's with radioactive supplies and purely for energy. By this lie you've told me, it's obvious you've never been outside of the U.S. to another industrialized nation.
I don't have to; I read the news.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/france-iran-continue s-to-be-two-faced-on-nuclear-issue-1.417054
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/nuclear-armed -iran-not-an-option-says-german-foreign-minister/story-e6frf 7k6-1226468703229
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-11-21/world/world_europe_uk-ira n-sanctions_1_nuclear-program-military-dimensions-iranian-ba nks?_s=PM:EUROPE
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-24/world/world_europe_iran-a ustralia-sanctions_1_nuclear-program-nuclear-watchdog-intern ational-atomic-energy-agency?_s=PM:EUROPE
And this extends to Middle Eastern countries as well
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-16/how-iran-nuclear-st andoff-looks-from-saudi-arabia-mustafa-alani.html

The thing about media resources is that they always favor the more juicy and exciting position. What's more exciting, a slim possibility that Iran could produce a nuclear weapon, then carry on the imagination writing about the potential devastation to be caused, or reporting that most likely Iran is not attempting this. Most of all people, especially in Europe are not even slightly concerned by the threat, because they understand the threat does not exist. On top of this, I have visited and worked Ireland and Northern Ireland (keep in mind, part of the U.K., involved in the war on terror) four times, including last winter. There was not one headline or news story of any kind in the paper or on the tele that expressed any concern of Ireland, the U.K., or even Europe on the issue of Iran producing nuclear weapons. None of my cousins, aunt's and uncles, nephews, or my grandma even brought up the subject in the numerous political conversations we had. None of the people I visited in a pub or a nightclub, or even publicized on the streets of Dublin mention anything about Iran producing nuclear weapons.

I understand it may be talked about a bit and written about in the paper, but as far as I've experienced, at least in Ireland and the U.K., the issue of Iran potentially developing nuclear weapons is definitely not a headline story, nor an issue used in an election.

So the skeptic may ask, why does Europe generally not consider this to be a huge issue while the U.S. presidential candidates are using it as an essential part the current political platform? It's a good question.

Go to anyplace and Europe, you will be shocked by how different people think, how much you will learn about their view on the U.S., and most importantly how to be skeptical. You and a good proportion of Americans are obsessing over a threat that just isn't valid and creating personal fear out of media fluff.

As for claiming that Iran is a rational government or its leaders as rational, that's another lie. I never stated or implied that,
You, in your last post:
"You're also stereotyping about Iran's leadership and its people by assuming they're extremists, which you are also entirely incorrect about."
Or are "extremism" and "rationality" not mutually exclusive in your mind?

Just because I strongly stated the Iranian government isn't extremist doesn't make the government rational, this is obvious to a person who isn't limiting in reading black and white. Once again, if you had actually read what i wrote, i made the argument that the war they are fighting in is retarded because it is being waged for religious motives.

By all means, continue to enlighten me on the "lies" I've just posted.

No, apparently you are too brain dead or morally absent to enlighten yourself (much less let anyone else) of what lying and deceiving are defined as. Oops I also forgot twisting and manipulating another's words as shown in your prior statement.

Find and watch several interviews with physics professors around the world and watch those, or sit on on a lecture by a physicist. When he starts a lecture on nuclear fission, ask about this Iranian conspiracy, he will enlighten you quite firmly ahaha. Or you can simply email one here. FSU is world-renowned for its physics department and its research, but you obviously choose another university.

Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 12th, 2012 @ 12:53 AM Reply

At 9/11/12 10:23 PM, kakalxlax wrote:
At 9/11/12 04:54 PM, Saen wrote: Also, flip the senario around to Israel. If you're classifying Iran's leadership as being Muslim extremists because there are waging a war and die over a religious, "sacred", piece of dirt? Wouldn't Israel's Jews be guilty of the same extremism
1) isreal was attacked first
2) israel tried to negotiate peace many times
3) just watch statements made by each parts leaders

Yes, unprovoked attacks on a nation are unjustified and terrible, but the history of this land needs to be accounted for. Who controlled the holy land before it was named under Israel? Muslims. This land has constantly been captured, exchanged hands, fought over, and claimed by all of the monotheistic religions for thousands of years. This fact does NOT mean we need to become involved, the holy land is an endless zone of conflict, ironically enough! Because when will a war backed by religion end? Never.

Since this land has enchanted hands so frequently, it is very easy to flip the senario to a Muslim group controlling the holy land. When they are challenged by Christians or Jews (which they undoubtedly will be) as that Muslim nation, would you immediate reaction be to instantly retaliate, making it easier for other nations to leave it as an isolated war. Or make time to recruit aid from another nation, enabling you to at least hold the land longer?


especially since they are actually getting aid from us for their own selfish religious cause?
ive never seen any Israeli leader saying that they should wipe out the planet every non-jew

I never stated that they are trying to commit genocide or fighting this war simply to kill people of another belief. I wrote that their war is over holy land and who should own it (which i believe this is the third time I've actually written this out now), not about exterminating people of another religion. You guys have the awesome tendency to manipulate people's words into meritless criticisms. My jaw literally drops every time I read a twist like this.


The problem is that this is a war backed by religious intent, and those wars between religious zealots never end. The U.S should have known better to become involved in the first place.
its the duty of every sentient person to get involved thus, if someone is threatening to wipe you out, you will want someone to jump in your defense
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 12th, 2012 @ 02:19 AM Reply

At 9/11/12 10:23 PM, kakalxlax wrote:
1) isreal was attacked first

Israel was attacked first?!

Holy shit, people cannot be this ignorant.

Brae
Brae
  • Member since: Feb. 28, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Gamer
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 12th, 2012 @ 11:48 AM Reply

At 9/12/12 02:19 AM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 9/11/12 10:23 PM, kakalxlax wrote:
1) isreal was attacked first
Israel was attacked first?!

Holy shit, people cannot be this ignorant.

More important than the literal history of the tiny, tiny strip of land that is now Israel is the history of its neighbors. Islam has a longstanding history of attacking and ravaging every non-Muslim neighbor within reach for not being Muslim. When they didn't have any non-Muslim neighbors to attack, they killed each other for being the wrong type of Muslim or not being Muslim enough. It's a popular misconception every time we have a Democrat in the president's chair that if only Israel would go away, that region of the world would magically become peaceful.

Somehow, an ignorant segment of the American populace seriously believes that Israel is evil, itching for war, and has unceremoniously dragged the US into its evil and wrongful business. Israel's been making all kinds of unpopular concessions for peace since the day it was formed. And every time they give a chunk of land back to their Muslim neighbors, their friendly neighbors quickly take advantage of the closer vantage point from which to launch ordnance at Israeli non-combatants. Once Israel's gone, the Muslims will just turn on America, Europe, each other, or whatever's convenient.

I know there are moderate, normal Muslims out there, and that they're even the large majority of this group of people. But every time a non-moderate, non-normal Muslim blows something up, the first thing a moderate, normal Muslim says isn't, "Holy shit. That guy is a crazy murdering terrorist, I condemn him, and I sure hope the US government kicks his ass before my people find him, because the things they're going to do him for using our religion as an excuse to kill innocents are going to make Guantanamo look like Disney World." Instead, the first thing a moderalte, normal Muslim says is, "Well, the US really needs to understand how threatened our unfortunate brothers feel and why they think they have no other recourse. If the US would change its ways, they wouldn't be faced with this. Oh, and everyone needs to be sure not to become bigoted against Muslims over this, and the longstanding history our extremist brothers have for killing innocent people."

Rational nations don't launch nuclear weapons because they fear the consequences. Extremist religious nations like Iran aren't rational and don't fear those consequences. Whether or not Iran does or can produce nuclear weapons today, when they do get their hands on something destructive, unlike a more sane nation, they're going to use it.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 12th, 2012 @ 02:00 PM Reply

At 9/12/12 11:48 AM, Brae wrote:

More important than the literal history of the tiny, tiny strip of land that is now Israel is the history of its neighbors. Islam has a longstanding history of attacking and ravaging every non-Muslim neighbor within reach for not being Muslim.

Oh really? That's so interesting. Tell me more

/sarcasm

adrshepard
adrshepard
  • Member since: Jun. 18, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 12th, 2012 @ 02:42 PM Reply

At 9/12/12 12:33 AM, Saen wrote:
At 9/11/12 09:43 PM, adrshepard wrote:
Once again, this amount of Uranium (366 tons) is not pure U-235 as stated in the article several times. This uranium oxide would have to be heavily centrifuged if any desire to stockpile U-235 is desired by Iran. Also in the article it stated that most of the Uranium would likely be reserved for a reactor, not bombs.

And they have enough of it to produce the quantities of highly enriched uranium needed for nuclear weapons. Again, I don't see what you don't understand.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/26/us-nuclear-iran-ur anium-idUSBRE84O0SN20120526

Read the very first page. Then read page 19 to see that Iran could conceivably produce enough highly enriched uranium in less than four years, given its capacity in 2011.
That statement was made by Israeli intelligence, not by the FAS. So if you're suggesting the credibilities are equal, you're out of your mind.

Did you not read the very first page? It says,
"Specifically, the same centrifuges that produce low-enriched uranium (LEU) for reactors could make highly-enriched uranium (HEU) for a bomb. There is, therefore, no question that Tehran has the technical capability to produce a nuclear
weapon,3 if it chooses to do so..."
That footnote does not reference Israel in any way, and this statement is not hedged by saying "According to Israeli intelligence..." or hedged at all, for that matter.

Which is also stated in the U.N. conference, however most of the U.N. does not accept accusations of Iran developing nuclear weaponry. Although Iran's prior secrecy on nuclear projects may be violating the U.N.'s policies, secrecy is not enough evidence or may not be considered evidence for Irans building nukes.

No one said it was. But it's reason to be suspicious of their intentions.

The term "Additional Protocol" because it is capitalized, must be a specific term coined/defined by the IAEA's investigation/data collecting processes. Basically this is a form of deception, by not directly stating that, "Iran has enriched U-235 hidden from us" and saying that phrase instead. They don't have the proof to make that direct statement, so they coin a word and use that to create the impression that Iran is hiding U-235. This article is deceptive and doesnt proof a thing.

No, the "Additional Protocol" refers to additional safeguards of nuclear enrichment that are meant to ensure none of it is being diverted to weapons development. Iran agreed to abide by the Additional Protocol in 2003. The IAEA report is stating that Iran is not abiding by the terms it voluntarily agreed to, and therefore the IAEA cannot confirm that Iran is not declaring all of its nuclear material.

The thing about media resources is that they always favor the more juicy and exciting position. What's more exciting, a slim possibility that Iran could produce a nuclear weapon, then carry on the imagination writing about the potential devastation to be caused, or reporting that most likely Iran is not attempting this.

It's important and plausible enough that the governments of several major countries believe in sanctions against Iran and continued inspections.

Most of all people, especially in Europe are not even slightly concerned by the threat, because they understand the threat does not exist. On top of this, I have visited and worked Ireland and Northern Ireland (keep in mind, part of the U.K., involved in the war on terror) four times, including last winter.

Your personal experiences mean nothing.

So the skeptic may ask, why does Europe generally not consider this to be a huge issue while the U.S. presidential candidates are using it as an essential part the current political platform? It's a good question.

Because Europe is in no position to do anything about it, even if it wanted to. That and it has less stake in Middle Eastern affairs than the US does.

As for claiming that Iran is a rational government or its leaders as rational, that's another lie. I never stated or implied that,
You, in your last post:
"You're also stereotyping about Iran's leadership and its people by assuming they're extremists, which you are also entirely incorrect about."
Or are "extremism" and "rationality" not mutually exclusive in your mind?
Just because I strongly stated the Iranian government isn't extremist doesn't make the government rational, this is obvious to a person who isn't limiting in reading black and white. Once again, if you had actually read what i wrote, i made the argument that the war they are fighting in is retarded because it is being waged for religious motives.

Actually, saying it's not extremist is the same thing as calling it rational. Governments look out for their own national interests and goals, regardless of ideology or consistency. Any government that abandons the practical for the ideological, especially at the expense of its own interests, is inherently extreme.

Find and watch several interviews with physics professors around the world and watch those, or sit on on a lecture by a physicist. When he starts a lecture on nuclear fission, ask about this Iranian conspiracy, he will enlighten you quite firmly ahaha.

By all means, give me a link to any scientist who can say that Iran doesn't have enough uranium to produce a nuclear weapon, or that its centerfuges cannot be used to enrich uranium to weapons quality.

kakalxlax
kakalxlax
  • Member since: Jun. 2, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 12th, 2012 @ 03:58 PM Reply

At 9/12/12 12:53 AM, Saen wrote:
At 9/11/12 10:23 PM, kakalxlax wrote:
At 9/11/12 04:54 PM, Saen wrote: Also, flip the senario around to Israel. If you're classifying Iran's leadership as being Muslim extremists because there are waging a war and die over a religious, "sacred", piece of dirt? Wouldn't Israel's Jews be guilty of the same extremism
1) isreal was attacked first
2) israel tried to negotiate peace many times
3) just watch statements made by each parts leaders
Yes, unprovoked attacks on a nation are unjustified and terrible, but the history of this land needs to be accounted for. Who controlled the holy land before it was named under Israel? Muslims.

in fact it was british territory, and there were jews living there too
and if you want to take history in count, hebrews were in israel before the first muslim was even born
so the thing is that there already were enought muslim countries but no jewish one, and even so jews were willing to split the territory with muslims, thing that muslim leaders rejected and consequently attacked israel on its first day

This fact does NOT mean we need to become involved, the holy land is an endless zone of conflict, ironically enough! Because when will a war backed by religion end? Never.

yes, when religion ends


Since this land has enchanted hands so frequently, it is very easy to flip the senario to a Muslim group controlling the holy land. When they are challenged by Christians or Jews (which they undoubtedly will be) as that Muslim nation, would you immediate reaction be to instantly retaliate, making it easier for other nations to leave it as an isolated war. Or make time to recruit aid from another nation, enabling you to at least hold the land longer?

well, israeli government allows people from every religion to visit and have their religious events there, and you can be sure that if being controlled by muslims that wouldnt be the case.


especially since they are actually getting aid from us for their own selfish religious cause?
ive never seen any Israeli leader saying that they should wipe out the planet every non-jew
I never stated that they are trying to commit genocide or fighting this war simply to kill people of another belief. I wrote that their war is over holy land and who should own it (which i believe this is the third time I've actually written this out now), not about exterminating people of another religion.

but thats what they said

its the duty of every sentient person to get involved thus, if someone is threatening to wipe you out, you will want someone to jump in your defense
At 9/12/12 02:19 AM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 9/11/12 10:23 PM, kakalxlax wrote:
1) isreal was attacked first
Israel was attacked first?!

Holy shit, people cannot be this ignorant.

ok you are not only ignorant, but also really stupid for talking about shit you dont know about, grab a book and learn about history, israel was attacked from day 1 when it didnt even have an army to defend themselves.

At 9/12/12 11:48 AM, Brae wrote:

Israel's been making all kinds of unpopular concessions for peace since the day it was formed. And every time they give a chunk of land back to their Muslim neighbors, their friendly neighbors quickly take advantage of the closer vantage point from which to launch ordnance at Israeli non-combatants. Once Israel's gone, the Muslims will just turn on America, Europe, each other, or whatever's convenient.

exactly, israel tried to make peace, even giving parts of their land in good faith, and many times the answer was being attacked, thing that taught them "you cant reason with zealots"

But every time a non-moderate, non-normal Muslim blows something up, the first thing a moderate, normal Muslim says isn't, "Holy shit. That guy is a crazy murdering terrorist, I condemn him

indeed, moderated-muslims, if there are, should hate terrorists more than anyone else, thus they are shaming and making a bad stereotype of them

At 9/12/12 02:00 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 9/12/12 11:48 AM, Brae wrote:

More important than the literal history of the tiny, tiny strip of land that is now Israel is the history of its neighbors. Islam has a longstanding history of attacking and ravaging every non-Muslim neighbor within reach for not being Muslim.
Oh really? That's so interesting. Tell me more

/sarcasm

Brae, please finish elementary school and then come talk to us


Its only rape if you say no.

Say no to rape.

kakalxlax
kakalxlax
  • Member since: Jun. 2, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 12th, 2012 @ 03:59 PM Reply

At 9/12/12 02:00 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

Brae, please finish elementary school and then come talk to us

Sorry, that last sentence was directed to LemonCrush


Its only rape if you say no.

Say no to rape.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 12th, 2012 @ 04:05 PM Reply

At 9/12/12 03:58 PM, kakalxlax wrote: Brae, please finish elementary school and then come talk to us

Please read some history books. Or, hell, it's the 21st century, use Google. Then come talk to us.

kakalxlax
kakalxlax
  • Member since: Jun. 2, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 12th, 2012 @ 04:07 PM Reply

At 9/12/12 04:05 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 9/12/12 03:58 PM, kakalxlax wrote: LemonCrush, please finish elementary school and then come talk to us
Please read some history books. Or, hell, it's the 21st century, use Google. Then come talk to us.

you are just making my point kid

now, make a good point or you wont be receiving any other anwser, at least from me


Its only rape if you say no.

Say no to rape.

Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 12th, 2012 @ 06:39 PM Reply

At 9/12/12 03:58 PM, kakalxlax wrote:

in fact it was british territory, and there were jews living there too
and if you want to take history in count, hebrews were in israel before the first muslim was even born
so the thing is that there already were enought muslim countries but no jewish one, and even so jews were willing to split the territory with muslims, thing that muslim leaders rejected and consequently attacked israel on its first day

If that diplomacy was implemented first, It was the right thing to do. I cannot tell you from experience why these 3 sects of monotheism find it so important to control this land, but regardless of those reasons the motive is religious. I'm not saying I agree with any of those reason's from any of the three religions, in fact im disagreeing with them.

This fact does NOT mean we need to become involved, the holy land is an endless zone of conflict, ironically enough! Because when will a war backed by religion end? Never.
yes, when religion ends

The point of my last statement in that paragraph was to reinforce the idea that not only do we have no means to become involved in that war, it's a terrible idea. We do not have any purpose to fight a war backed primarily by religious ambitions.


Since this land has enchanted hands so frequently, it is very easy to flip the senario to a Muslim group controlling the holy land. When they are challenged by Christians or Jews (which they undoubtedly will be) as that Muslim nation, would you immediate reaction be to instantly retaliate, making it easier for other nations to leave it as an isolated war. Or make time to recruit aid from another nation, enabling you to at least hold the land longer?
well, israeli government allows people from every religion to visit and have their religious events there, and you can be sure that if being controlled by muslims that wouldnt be the case.

No you can't be sure, however politically it may make sense to share the region between all religions. I say may because intermingling different religions with one another in a land of conflict may not be such a good idea. It's a tough issue to solve. I know as a parent, if three of your kids are fighting over a toy, a good parent would take it away until the kids agree to cooperate. How realistically this analogy may be applied who the hell knows.


I never stated that they are trying to commit genocide or fighting this war simply to kill people of another belief. I wrote that their war is over holy land and who should own it (which i believe this is the third time I've actually written this out now), not about exterminating people of another religion.
but thats what they said

That's what extremists say, please don't account for those being the major population of muslims. Just like there are redneck extremist preachers and religious clans here in America that express the same kind of hatred but towards different ethnicities. Niether are the majority of the U.S. Christian population and its easy for us not to profile that because we live here learned that through experience.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 12th, 2012 @ 07:18 PM Reply

At 9/12/12 04:07 PM, kakalxlax wrote: now, make a good point or you wont be receiving any other anwser, at least from me

Here

Now kindly screw off, you terrorist sympathizer

tyler2513
tyler2513
  • Member since: Jan. 6, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 31
Gamer
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 12th, 2012 @ 07:28 PM Reply

At 9/4/12 07:37 PM, beakerboy wrote: So uh I don't know if anyone else made a thread to discuss Iran's nuclear program but I'm making one now. First of all, if Mitt Romney wins the election, which is a big IF, do you think he will get aggressive towards Iran? Like actually attack them? Do you think Obama would? I think Mitt will attack them and Obama will continue negotiations. If Iran launches a fuckin nuke at somebody (Israel of course) then we're destroying Iran, no question about that. But until that happens should we juust keep a low profile? Seems like a complicated issue. I'm sort of biased because my dad is from Iran, I don't think Iran wants any nuclear weapons at all. I think they just want it as an energy resource.

I think we should just toughen up on our negotiations. My country has even recently severed ties with them a couple days ago which must mean there worse than North Korea. We should apply for a UN Resolution immediately calling for them to disband any toxic or biological weapons from there country. If that doesn't work, than I think Mitt Romney would be a much better choice for commandeering a SHORT (keyword: Short) campaign to take there WMD programs out of power.

seriously, why all the hate on Romney?

BBS Signature
Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 12th, 2012 @ 08:57 PM Reply

At 9/12/12 07:28 PM, tyler2513 wrote:
seriously, why all the hate on Romney?

Few people hate Romney. The problem with Romney is few people know who he is or what he stands for. He's pretty much a stale candidate that few take seriously, mainly because he's flip flopped or has been completely vague on many issues. I support Obama, but if Ron Paul was the Republican nominee, I would have to make a serious decision on who I would vote for. Right now I think I'd prefer Ron Paul, chiefly because of his foreign policy ideas specifically towards war in the middle east, which are entirely relavent to this topic.

kakalxlax
kakalxlax
  • Member since: Jun. 2, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 13th, 2012 @ 01:52 PM Reply

ive responded to this yesterday but for any reason my answer got deleted, i gave more complete answers then

At 9/12/12 06:39 PM, Saen wrote:
At 9/12/12 03:58 PM, kakalxlax wrote:

in fact it was british territory, and there were jews living there too
and if you want to take history in count, hebrews were in israel before the first muslim was even born
so the thing is that there already were enought muslim countries but no jewish one, and even so jews were willing to split the territory with muslims, thing that muslim leaders rejected and consequently attacked israel on its first day
If that diplomacy was implemented first, It was the right thing to do. I cannot tell you from experience why these 3 sects of monotheism find it so important to control this land, but regardless of those reasons the motive is religious. I'm not saying I agree with any of those reason's from any of the three religions, in fact im disagreeing with them.

This fact does NOT mean we need to become involved, the holy land is an endless zone of conflict, ironically enough! Because when will a war backed by religion end? Never.
yes, when religion ends
The point of my last statement in that paragraph was to reinforce the idea that not only do we have no means to become involved in that war, it's a terrible idea. We do not have any purpose to fight a war backed primarily by religious ambitions.

the ones that made it about religion were the muslim fanatics and not because israel is a holy land, but because their zealot megalomaniac leaders say that they should "cleanse the world from infidels"
jews in israel allow anyone from any religion to visit jerusalem, they just want to live there in peace.

well, israeli government allows people from every religion to visit and have their religious events there, and you can be sure that if being controlled by muslims that wouldnt be the case.
No you can't be sure

ok, but you can be 99.99% sure

however politically it may make sense to share the region between all religions.

ok, lets give 1/3 of israel to the muslims and lets give the jews 1/3 of all muslim countries.
and i remind you, in the beginning jews agreed to give 1/2 of the tiny bit of land that they had to the muslims, thing that they rejected because they wanted it all
jews didnt have a sovereign country back then, they were given israel because historically it was the only land they once owned, and due to that every significance israel has is due to them

I know as a parent

note aside, you are 20 and already have more than 1 child?



I never stated that they are trying to commit genocide or fighting this war simply to kill people of another belief. I wrote that their war is over holy land and who should own it (which i believe this is the third time I've actually written this out now), not about exterminating people of another religion.
but thats what they said
That's what extremists say, please don't account for those being the major population of muslims.

thats what their leaders say and so long, that has been their course of action, i know that most muslims are victims of the terrorist and some of them, in their ignorance, still support them, but so far, the extremist/terrorist groups have been the most active ones in this conflict

At 9/12/12 07:18 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 9/12/12 04:07 PM, kakalxlax wrote: now, make a good point or you wont be receiving any other anwser, at least from me
Here

Now kindly screw off, you terrorist sympathizer

sorry i dont mind to insult you but calling you an idiot is the way to go here.
those statements are not only biased as fuck, they are just phrases like if i say "banana is a kind of meat", you are clearly a kid who cant reason for himself so just buys into terrorist propaganda
plus you bored me, next time i wont even bother unless you make a valid point


Its only rape if you say no.

Say no to rape.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 13th, 2012 @ 02:04 PM Reply

At 9/13/12 01:52 PM, kakalxlax wrote:
sorry i dont mind to insult you but calling you an idiot is the way to go here.
those statements are not only biased as fuck, they are just phrases like if i say "banana is a kind of meat", you are clearly a kid who cant reason for himself so just buys into terrorist propaganda
plus you bored me, next time i wont even bother unless you make a valid point

You sound like a typical political idiot to me. "I don't like those facts so they're biased". Do you work for fox news or something?

Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 13th, 2012 @ 02:54 PM Reply

At 9/13/12 02:04 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
You sound like a typical political idiot to me. "I don't like those facts so they're biased". are you a liberal by any chance?

fixed.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 13th, 2012 @ 06:33 PM Reply

At 9/13/12 01:52 PM, kakalxlax wrote:
the ones that made it about religion were the muslim fanatics and not because israel is a holy land, but because their zealot megalomaniac leaders say that they should "cleanse the world from infidels"
jews in israel allow anyone from any religion to visit jerusalem, they just want to live there in peace.

Muslims extremist terrorist group leaders, not Iranian government. I would need an exact quote from Ahmadinejad that he want's to "cleanse the worlds from infidels". Which there is none.

ok, lets give 1/3 of israel to the muslims and lets give the jews 1/3 of all muslim countries.
and i remind you, in the beginning jews agreed to give 1/2 of the tiny bit of land that they had to the muslims, thing that they rejected because they wanted it all

Like I stated earlier, more conflict may arise from doing this, but I'm not sure. Either way, we do not have the authority to do that. Countries in the middle east would have to work out a treaty, which is also very unlikely to happen. So you can tell, it's a shit storm.

jews didnt have a sovereign country back then, they were given israel because historically it was the only land they once owned, and due to that every significance israel has is due to them

Just because it may have been the only land they have owned and permanently settled on, doesn't justify their sole territorial and political possession of it.


note aside, you are 20 and already have more than 1 child?

It was a scenario if you didn't catch that, what I would do hypothetically as a parent. I don't have any children. Otherwise I wouldn't be in college and I wouldn't be pursuing a degree as strenuous as the one I am now.


thats what their leaders say and so long, that has been their course of action, i know that most muslims are victims of the terrorist and some of them, in their ignorance, still support them, but so far, the extremist/terrorist groups have been the most active ones in this conflict

Refer to my first statement and request.

Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 13th, 2012 @ 06:44 PM Reply

Also, all news corporations, at least within America, are controlled by huge, corrupt corporations. So they are all pretty biased and appear to be biased one way or the other, but all for the same purpose. Brainwashing Americans what they should be afraid of, who are the good and bad guys, and mostly importantly what products to buy. Most of everyone in congress, the Judicial branch, and the executive branch has been bought out. No matter who becomes elected, oil companies will always receive supplements in their refinement process, banks will always be bailed out, and mega corporations will always pay less (or any) taxes than you.

Try your best to source your information from scientific journals, international organisations, independent history texts, etc. The news is a quick, easy, and entertaining way to keep you up to date on domestic and global events. However, watch/read too much of it and you will be brainwashed.

morefngdbs
morefngdbs
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Art Lover
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 13th, 2012 @ 07:09 PM Reply

At 9/13/12 06:44 PM, Saen wrote: Try your best to source your information from scientific journals, international organisations, independent history texts, etc. The news is a quick, easy, and entertaining way to keep you up to date on domestic and global events. However, watch/read too much of it and you will be brainwashed.

;;;;
I read this story today from Al Jazeera English
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/20129119423 6970294.html

It points out many things that the mainstream News in America...& here in Canada seem to never mention.
like how large their military is.
How they are strategically located to fuck up the worlds Mid east oil shipments.
Which will absolutely drive oil prices through the roof (which is absolutely WONDERFUL for the Corporate hacks that now run America.)

How much the worlds fragile economy will be wiped out... not to mention how many millions of people who are just trying to make a living, raise their family's & survive & are in no way terroists will die for geo political big business money making bullshit !

Then there's no mention at all on how many American service people will die as well.

Don't swallow the line of BS being fed to you by main stream media, which is owned & controled by the same group who are clamouring for war , or are financing the politicians who are warhawks !

The US is all about war !
you don't like something, you declare war on it .
the war on drugs
the war on cancer
the war on poverty
war on aids
the war on terror

Iraq, wanted to sell oil for euro's & not convert to US dollars .... invasion

Libya wantd to do the same thing . poof lets support the poor downtrodden libyan people .... never mind they have been dictated over for 42 god damned years by Gaddafi , make the attempt to set up a multination African currency to compete against the US dollar & POOF good bye Gaddafi !

Iran was refusing to sell their oil for American dollars .... THEY ARE A NUCLEAR THREAT .... its all bullshit


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More

Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 13th, 2012 @ 09:14 PM Reply

At 9/13/12 07:09 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

The US is all about war !
you don't like something, you declare war on it .
the war on drugs
the war on cancer
the war on poverty
war on aids
the war on terror

Ahaha I've never thought to describe the U.S's love of war in this context, great analogy!


Iran was refusing to sell their oil for American dollars .... THEY ARE A NUCLEAR THREAT .... its all bullshit

All great points! A perfect, short and sweet way to summarize your main idea. However, I try not to obsess or dig into the reasons why the U.S. wants to invade these oil-rich countries, other than the phony excuses have been pushed before.

Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, we must invade, Iran is a nuclear threat, we must invade. I remember when I was younger, in around 2003 the same nuclear threat message was being publicized. Sometime before or after that car-bombs were the next hottest thing! The Iranian government is funding terrorists with car bombs, interchanged with whatever word we coined, some acronym I'm sure. These all turned out to be lies, most of Americans eventually realized that, so they're not stories anymore. Oh well, on to the next thing the middle-east is conspiring that we should fear!

It does not require a high I.Q. to take a step back, look at the big picture, and realize just how ridiculous the U.S. government is behaving. I grew up in the conservative south in America. Out of all the issues conservatives discuss here, what I hear the most from people around me is the next big thing to be afraid of. I know this is not the mindset of the rest of the country, because I'm from the North (Massachusetts) and I frequently visit.

No one is the least bit concerned that a Muslim extremist terrorist, wielding a pentagram abortion shovel, is without a doubt, just waiting to ambush your child with a gun-restriction bill, with the hidden attempt to brainwash him with a permanent, gay-inducing spell. So why do most news corporations broadcast these absurd fear obsessions, like it is the mindset of all Americans?

I don't care, get our fucking soliders out from the middle east, thousands and thousands have died and trillions of dollars have been spent, reinforce our own damn country!!

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Iran's nuclear program Sep. 13th, 2012 @ 11:23 PM Reply

At 9/13/12 02:54 PM, Korriken wrote:
At 9/13/12 02:04 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
You sound like a typical political idiot to me. "I don't like those facts so they're biased". are you a liberal by any chance?
fixed.

Fox News does it more often.