Quote :

"wow. really? you are not saying that you are ok with such an action are you? "

Another stupid question? Are you really asking me if I want nuclear war to break out?
No, I don't want Iran to nuke israel, which doesn't even matter because israel wouldn't let it happen. Israel is a big boy. It's got money and weapons, it doesn't need us to baby it. This is it's situation, it can handle it fine by itself.

Quote :

"Sorry, but that means yes--this is the very point of the exercise."

No it doesn't, I apparently just made the mistake of treating you as reasonable.

[Edited on August 18, 2010 at 2:23 PM. Reason : ]

8/18/2010 2:22:14 PM

oh ok so your stance is that it is none of our business and that Israel should defend itself.

I get it, but it completely ignores the affect something like that would have on the world as a whole, not to mention the region. it would be fucking chaos.

[Edited on August 18, 2010 at 2:25 PM. Reason : a or e]

8/18/2010 2:25:06 PM

^^ Would you please try to make one post without "stupid" or any related words in it? Just asking.

If you're not prepared to support military action even if Iran "outright stated thier [sic] intention to use [a nuke] against israel [sic]" and you only partially support sanctions, which don't work, what are you prepared to do? It sounds a lot like nothing--this is why you're in the "Yes" column.

And, just to clarify, are you against military action conducted just by the United States, just by Israel, or joint operations? I'm just trying to understand your position.

8/18/2010 2:37:51 PM

Quote :

"I get it, but it completely ignores the affect something like that would have on the world as a whole, not to mention the region. it would be fucking chaos. "

Why would it? The only way it's going to be world war 3 is if a whole bunch of larger countries start jumping in like you are suggesting.

Quote :

""outright stated thier [sic] intention to use [a nuke] against israel [sic]""

Stop being such a tool, I'm at work and I can't have spellcheck on my browser.

Quote :

"what are you prepared to do?"

Hey, you actually asked a good question!

Quote :

"are you against military action conducted just by the United States, just by Israel, or joint operations?"

Only the US or anything involving the US. The US should only be interested if Iran threatens it or possibly some country that can't defend itself.

Quote :

"I'm just trying to understand your position."

Do you now realize how useless your question was? I was able to answer it without providing any relevant or meaningful information.

8/18/2010 2:43:18 PM

^ Um. . .I wasn't trying to be a "tool"--I honestly just didn't want people to think it was my spelling. I mean, you need to check the spelling of "their"? Really?

Quote :

"Hey, you actually asked a good question!"

Thanks. If you'd answer it, that'd be great--you know, without another dozen or so to-and-fro posts in which you simply insult me.

And if you can't see that your position puts you firmly in the "Yes" column, I can't help you. You've basically stated that you would allow pretty much nothing to be done, so you're in the category of prepared to allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. The fact that, theoretically, you don't want anyone to have nukes--while fascinating--is irrelevant.

[Edited on August 18, 2010 at 2:56 PM. Reason : With me now? No?]

8/18/2010 2:55:19 PM

I'm not sure what I would do about the Iran nuclear situation which makes me glad I'm not the President or a Chief of Staff or something.

8/18/2010 3:25:12 PM

Quote :

"I mean, you need to check the spelling of "their"? Really?"

I'm a computer programmer, I can type faster than I think, seriously, stop being a tool.

Quote :

"And if you can't see that your position puts you firmly in the "Yes" column, I can't help you."

And if you don't understand why it doesn't, then you still don't understand why your question is meaningless, which is what I've been trying to get across to you. Having a small debate about Israel's dependence on the US for military support while the US has little control over the actions it takes is really secondary to me teaching you how to debate, and asking meaningful questions is a part of it. The point is that I can answer "No" to your question as well as "No" to mine, and still be correct. You've framed the question in a logically inconsistent manner. Really what you've done is attempt to marginalize my position and force me to either agree with your position or take an arguement that is easier for you to debate against. I've seen you do it several times now in other threads, I just thought this one would be an easy one to show it to you on.

8/18/2010 3:36:36 PM

^ That is not the case at all. My response to you was quite clear:

Quote :

"And if you can't see that your position puts you firmly in the 'Yes' column, I can't help you. You've basically stated that you would allow pretty much nothing to be done, so you're in the category of prepared to allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. The fact that, theoretically, you don't want anyone to have nukes--while fascinating--is irrelevant."

According to your post, you would not allow military action and you would only support partial sanctions, which don't work. If this isn't basically doing nothing, then what is it?

So, what would you be willing to do to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon?

(And when I use "you," I mean the United States and/or other countries on your behalf. But if you want to get down to the individual level, I would be willing to reenlist in the military to prevent Iran from going nuclear--I feel that strongly about it.)

[Edited on August 19, 2010 at 12:31 AM. Reason : ^^ At least you're honest about it. Cred. +1.]

8/19/2010 12:29:12 AM

Quote :

"According to your post, you would not allow military action and you would only support partial sanctions, which don't work. If this isn't basically doing nothing, then what is?"

It's all we need to do. This is Israel's problem.

But again, my efforts are much more pointed in getting you to realize the little fallacious tricks you are inadvertently using. I guess this is all I really get to do with that as I've shown you the point you really want to debate.

Quote :

"So, what would you be willing to do to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon?"

The question is more "what do I need to do?" or more importantly "what do I have to do". Once again, you've framed the question in a way that ignores points that you don't want to deal with.

8/19/2010 12:42:07 AM

Are you prepared to allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon? Yes or no?

1. hooksaw: No.

2. DeltaBeta: No.

3. DaBird: No.

4. Kris: Yes.

I invite others to please answer the question.

8/19/2010 3:25:08 AM

^ at what cost?

8/19/2010 8:26:18 AM

^

Quote :

"Please respond yes or no first. If you wish to elaborate on your reasoning, then fine."

hooksaw

message_topic.aspx?topic=576740&page=13

8/19/2010 8:30:03 AM

Quote :

"^ at what cost?"

while we certainly do not have the treasure, manpower or resolve at this moment to start another war, the bigger question is, "what is the cost if Iran does obtain a weapon?"

millions of lives? a new age of terrorism? balance of power shift in the middle east? a chaotic scramble of alliances? nothing at all?

you reach that conclusion first...the end result, then worry about justifying the cost to prevent it.

[Edited on August 19, 2010 at 8:39 AM. Reason : ..]

8/19/2010 8:38:49 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Also since we're just making up answers for people instead of using what they actually say:
Is hooksaw a faggot? Yes or no?

1. hooksaw: Yes.

2. DeltaBeta: Yes.

3. DaBird: Yes.

4. Kris: Yes.

I invite others to please answer the question.

8/19/2010 9:11:51 AM

yes on both counts

8/19/2010 1:33:05 PM

shocker.

let me guess...because it isnt fair that the US has them and Iran doesnt...right?

[Edited on August 19, 2010 at 2:43 PM. Reason : .]

8/19/2010 2:42:58 PM

Anybody who thinks that Iran would use a nuclear weapon on any group or country or foreign force, is fucking stupid.

8/19/2010 5:41:26 PM

^ There's still the leverage that it would offer them as more of a regional hegemon, and the likelihood that they wouldn't keep ironclad control over the weapons.


My question for you, though--and this is not a rhetorical question; it's legitimate curiosity--is if there is context beyond face value in Ahmadinejad's apparently apocalyptic desire to hasten the return of the 12th Imam. I'm no Islamic scholar--I know only enough to be dangerous, as the saying goes. I'm interested in the comments of someone with significant background in both the Islamic world, both culturally and religiously--and the West.

[Edited on August 19, 2010 at 6:57 PM. Reason : VV--Kris, your point was made the first time. Enough of that.]

8/19/2010 5:56:30 PM

Bush was trying to bring on the apocalypse because he's a Christian and wants Jesus to come back and judge the living and the dead.

I mean really. how STUPID can you be?

Quote :

".because it isnt fair that the US has them and Iran doesnt...right?"

no. i rahter nobody have nuclear weapons and I don't even necessarily WANT Iran to obtain them but I'm prepared to see them with one because its not our place to tell them not to have them and them having them will probably deter Israel from starting world war 3.

8/19/2010 6:27:36 PM

awww post balleted

at least I didn't get b&hammered

8/19/2010 7:10:56 PM

Quote :

"no. i rahter nobody have nuclear weapons and I don't even necessarily WANT Iran to obtain them but I'm prepared to see them with one because its not our place to tell them not to have them and them having them will probably deter Israel from starting world war 3."

you are such the silly goose.

you said no to my question and then played the "isnt fair" line in the same sentence.

8/19/2010 10:14:30 PM

No. Even if we didn't have nuclear weapons it wouldn't be our place to tell Iran if they could or not. It just would no longer be hypocrisy.

8/19/2010 10:22:11 PM

Christopher Hitchens: The price of not disarming Iran
August 20, 2010

Quote :

"With Russia's ever-helpful policy of assisting Iran to accelerate its reactor program, allied to the millimetrical progress of sanctions on the Ahmadinejad regime and the increasingly hopeless state of negotiations with the Palestinians, there is likely to be no let-up in the speculation about an Israeli 'first strike' on Iran's covert but ever-more-flagrant nuclear weapons installations. I have lost count of the number of essays and columns on the subject that were published this month alone. The most significant and detailed such contribution, though, came from my friend and colleague Jeffrey Goldberg in a cover story in the Atlantic. From any close reading of this piece, it was possible to be sure of at least one thing: The government of Benjamin Netanyahu wants it to be understood that, in the absence of an American decision to do so, Israel can and will mount such an attack in the not-too-distant future. The keyword of the current anguished argument — the word existential — is thought by a strategic majority of Israel's political and military leadership to apply in its fullest meaning. To them, an Iranian bomb is incompatible with the long-term survival of the Israeli state and even of the Jewish people. It would be a real pity if the argument went on being conducted in these relatively narrow terms. A sentence from Goldberg’s report will illustrate what I mean: 'Israel, Netanyahu told me, is worried about an entire complex of problems, not only that Iran, or one of its proxies, would destroy Tel Aviv.' Why Tel Aviv? It is admittedly the most Jewish of Israel's centres of population, and it was built only in the course of the last century. It is also the most secular and modern and sexually licentious of Israel's cities, which might also qualify it for the apocalyptic wrath of the mullahs. But it is also home to many Arabs and Muslims, as are the coastal towns adjacent to it. And, as I never tire of pointing out, there is no weapon of mass destruction yet devised that can discriminate on the basis of religion or ethnicity. So why did Netanyahu not say Jerusalem, which he and his party regard as Israel's true capital? Surely because this would immediately raise the question of whether the Iranian theocracy seriously intends to immolate the Dome of the Rock and the other Islamic holy places along with the poisonous 'Zionist entity.' And that's to say nothing of the number of Palestinians who would be slaughtered in any such assault. There is something sectarian, almost racist, in the way this aspect of the issue is always overlooked. I tried to raise the same question in print when Menachem Begin ordered the bombing of Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981. On that occasion, the worst he could find to say about Saddam Hussein's genocidal ambitions was that they, too, constituted a threat to Jewish survival. Yet every knowledgeable person understands that if Saddam Hussein had come into possession of a bomb, he would have used it in the first instance on what his propaganda always defined as 'the Persian racists.' (This is why the Iranian air force had tried and failed to hit the very same reactor a short time before.) When speaking of the Zionist foe, incidentally, Saddam's most aggressive public speech promised only that with his chemical and other weapons, he would 'burn up half of Israel.' The late megalomaniac was not notorious for speaking of half-measures. It's possible that even in some part of his reptilian brain he understood that Palestine is not populated only by Jews. The whole emphasis on Israel's salience in this matter, and of the related idea of subcontracting a strike to the Israeli Defense Forces, is an evasion, somewhat ethnically tinged, of what is an international responsibility. If the Iranian dictatorship succeeds in 'breaking out' and becoming a nuclear power, the following things will have happened: • International law and the stewardship of the United Nations will have been irretrievably ruined. The mullahs will have broken every solemn undertaking that they ever gave: to the International Atomic Energy Agency; to the European Union, which has been their main negotiating interlocutor up until now; and to the United Nations. (Tehran specifically rejects the right of the UN Security Council to have any say in this question.) Those who usually fetishize the role of the United Nations and of the international nuclear inspectors have a special responsibility to notice this appalling outcome. • The 'Revolutionary Guards,' who last year shot and raped their way to near-absolute power in Iran, are also the guardians of the underground weapons program. A successful consummation of that program would be an immeasurable enhancement of the most aggressive faction of the current dictatorship. • The power of the guards to project violence outside Iran's borders would likewise be increased. Any Hezbollah subversion of Lebanese democracy or missile attack on Israel; any Iranian collusion with the Taliban or with nihilist forces in Iraq would be harder to counter in that it would involve a confrontation with a nuclear godfather. • The same powerful strategic ambiguity would apply in the case of any Iranian move on a neighboring Sunni Arab Gulf state, such as Bahrain. The more extreme of Iran's theocratic newspapers already gloat at such a prospect, which is why so many Arab regimes hope — sometimes publicly — that this 'existential' threat to them also be removed. • There will never be a settlement of the Israel-Palestine dispute, because the rejectionist Palestinians will be even more a proxy of a regime that calls for Israel's elimination, and the rejectionist Jews will be vindicated in their belief that concessions are a waste of time, if not worse. • The concept of 'nonproliferation,' so dear to the heart of the right-thinking, will go straight into the history books along with the League of Nations. These, then, are some of the prices to be paid for not disarming Iran. Is it not obvious that the international interest in facing this question squarely, and in considering it as 'existential' for civilization, is far stronger than any political calculation to be made in Netanyahu's office?"

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/08/20/christopher-hitchens-the-price-of-not-disarming-iran/

Excellent points. And please see OP and p. 1 concerning NP reference.

8/20/2010 8:21:50 AM

thanks for posting. interesting points.

8/20/2010 8:29:11 AM

^ You're quite welcome, sir.

8/20/2010 8:30:35 AM

Its hard to imagine another 6 months without some sort of military action in Iran. The question is, what dominoes will fall after said action? More Russian involvement? An Iranian blockade of the Gulf? Increased Iranian funding/support to al queda or some faction? Which Arab states would back us or *GASP* Israel in action against the Iranians?

8/20/2010 8:37:29 AM

^Hopefully none and I'm not entirely confident the UN wouldn't step in to sanction/restrict any unprovoked attack on Iran. China would be pissed and sell our shares.

8/21/2010 12:44:20 AM

^ We could absolutely sodomize China economically if we wanted to. We'd bleed, but they'd have it much worse.

If military action was to be taken by us, I'm pretty sure that Israel would be told in no uncertain terms to sit on their hands, or else...a la Desert Storm...and I think that Saudi Arabia would be aligned with us, as they (1) don't care at all for Iran, and (2) are not interested in Iran disrupting their oil sales.

If Iran blocked the Straits of Hormuz, well, a blockade is an act of war. If we were OK with firing the first shots by bombing them to begin with, you can bet that we'd be OK with sending their Navy to the bottom of the Gulf, and bombing any relevant surface-surface missile sites if they threated the Straits.

I don't know what the UN's wishes will be if it comes down to it. Russia will be obstinate. The UN is slow to condone force, but Iran has hardly been in their good graces. I don't think they'd sanction or restrict an attack, though, and who gives a shit if they do, anyway?


As far as possible fallout:

-Straits of Hormuz
-Increased funding for and encouragement of Hezbollah
-Increased interference in both Iraq (where they want us gone, but also want Iraq crippled) and Afghanistan (where they have actually offered assistance from time to time)


A military strike against Iran is a very unattractive option, and I think that we (both America and the world) will REALLY exhaust all options before doing that. I really don't think that either America or Israel will ever allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, though. Nor should we, in my opinion.

8/21/2010 1:03:34 AM

Are you prepared to allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon? Yes or no?

1. hooksaw: No.

2. DeltaBeta: No.

3. DaBird: No.

4. Kris: Yes.

5. theDuke866: No.

I invite others to please answer the question.

8/21/2010 7:10:16 AM

BEU: No

They are crazy

8/21/2010 12:34:54 PM

Horribly worded question. I'm not prepared to do shit. What you really mean to ask is, "are you prepared to disallow Iran from getting nuclear weapons." Allowing them to obtain nuclear weapons requires no action on my part, or preparation. Intervention requires the deaths of Americans, the deaths of Iranians, billions in money we don't have and will never have, the generation of even more terrorists or other people that hate us, or the possible initiation of a world war.

I don't think we should take any action. We're not going to be able to keep everyone we don't like from getting a nuclear weapon forever. Technology is advancing too fast, and eventually, Iran will get their hands on a nuke. They're not going to use it. It's going to be like everyone else: they'll have some for the sake of mutually assured destruction. Iran knows what the consequences of using a nuclear weapon are.

It's not our right to interfere, and it's not in our interests to interfere. We need to mind our own fucking business. Imperialism always comes to a nasty end.

8/21/2010 12:47:19 PM

Sure. If you think that allowing a racist, misogynistic, illegitimate theocratic military dictatorship that kills and imprisons political opponents, minority leaders, and reform-minded protesters, to obtain a weapon that could, at the very least, solidify its grip on the country and give it the ability to blackmail its neighbors, or at worst, slaughter millions of people, that this is in the interest of the US, the region, and the Iranian people, then yes, you would have something of a point.

8/21/2010 1:23:05 PM

Quote :

"If you think that allowing a racist, misogynistic, illegitimate theocratic military dictatorship that kills and imprisons political opponents, minority leaders, and reform-minded protesters, to obtain a weapon that could, at the very least, solidify its grip on the country"

Neither this nor the best interests of the Iranian people are any justification for an American strike or being complicit in an Israeli strike. This is about U.S. interests, and conducting a strike for any of those reasons would be contary to U.S. interests.

Americans like their wars to be honorable, feel-good affairs--the American white knight going to the rescue of the downtrodden. There is almost always a legitimate element of that, but it is always played up to an extent. Wars almost always have a significant connection to money, power (this was a big player in Cold War proxies--both sides wanted to have influence in strategic places), or especially in our case, security (we have plenty of money and power).

I can't think of any military actions in modern American history that could even be argued as primarily humanitarian rather than primarily self-serving, other than maybe the Balkans campaign or Somalia, and even those were definitely intertwined with geopolitics. If I learned more of the details of the history on them, it wouldn't surprise me to find more connection to American/Western interests.

I'm not saying that we should allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. I'm just saying to be honest with yourself as to why we can't allow that to happen.

8/21/2010 2:05:52 PM

Quote :

"Neither this nor the best interests of the Iranian people are any justification for an American strike or being complicit in an Israeli strike. This is about U.S. interests, and conducting a strike for any of those reasons would be contary to U.S. interests."

Even if I shared your insular opinion about what constitutes a legitimate use of American military power, which I don't, I would still have to disagree with your unsupported assertion that a strike on the regime's nuclear facilities runs counter to American interests. Allowing an unstable, messianic regime in a vital part of the world to obtain an apocalyptic weapon is not in America's best interest no matter how you look at it.

And, in case there's some confusion, I did not say that military actions have to be purely humanitarian in order to be justified. That an action may have positive security, economic, or geopolitical implications would not necessarily be a disqualifying factor.

[Edited on August 21, 2010 at 2:42 PM. Reason : ]

8/21/2010 2:41:00 PM

1. What I'm saying is that positive humanitarian impact is just a bonus. I'm not saying that we should have utterly Machiavellian foreign policy (nor is that really in our long-term self-interest). I'm saying that Americans, including me, like for our military actions to be about saving the world, whereas at the end of the day, they're pretty much always about furthering U.S. interests. If the humanitarian impact makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside and makes the action an easier sell politically (domestically and/or internationally), then so much the better...but that's not the bottom line or even requisite.

I personally joined the USMC to make the world a better place and help out the downtrodden by killing bad people who fuck everything up...and that's still a motivation of mine on an individual level. That's not what the military or our foreign policy in general is about, though.


2. What about my statements is "insular"?

3.

Quote :

"I would still have to disagree with your unsupported assertion that a strike on the regime's nuclear facilities runs counter to American interests. "

a. Unsupported my ass!

As far as possible fallout:

-Straits of Hormuz
-Increased funding for and encouragement of Hezbollah
-Increased interference in both Iraq (where they want us gone, but also want Iraq crippled) and Afghanistan (where they have actually offered assistance from time to time)

b. Read what I said. There's a reason that I said at least twice that I don't think that we can allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, but stated that a strike simply for the humanitarian reasons that I quoted from you would run counter to American interests. In other words, it would be fucking stupid to subject ourselves to the fallout listed above in (a) just for the sake of denying them power due to their racism, misogyny, theocracy, and intolerance of dissidents.

Those things really have nothing to do with it. If we attack Iran to prevent them from fielding nukes, it will be because of the geopolitical benefits to America. Any benefits received by women or liberals in Iran are simply tangential and a nice bonus.

8/22/2010 12:04:46 AM

8/22/2010 2:45:28 AM

war is hell, moron. nukes in the hands of madmen are even worse.

[Edited on August 22, 2010 at 8:35 AM. Reason : code]

8/22/2010 8:35:33 AM

^stupid statement. how could nukes simply being in someones possession be worse than hundreds of thousands dead?

Last time I checked the worst case scenario from a nuke is hundreds of thousands dead.

Nevermind the fact that nukes are just a large scale "beware of dog" "don't fuck with me or my property" sign....unless you're the US, of course.

8/22/2010 9:57:53 AM

if Iran builds a bomb, there will be blood spilled as a result. maybe not immediately, but through proliferation.

and it is not a 'beware of dog' sign. it is the dog.

8/22/2010 10:18:03 AM

double

[Edited on August 22, 2010 at 10:20 AM. Reason : pelosi]

8/22/2010 10:20:18 AM

Keep in mind Iran isn't building a nuke. They "might be moving towards the abiility to build a nuke.

---

Ok so you agree with me when I say individuals shouldn't be allowed to own guns?

8/22/2010 10:20:40 AM

there is no "might" about it...unless you are naive.

are you trying to equate an individual owning a gun to a nation having a WMD? really? why dont you keep this thread on topic.

8/22/2010 10:31:45 AM

Its the same exact logical process according to the people who I've heard argue on behalf of individual rights to owning a gun for the past several years. Maybe its not and I'm just very ignorant but in that case could you please explain the differences in the logical thought process used to justify individual gun ownership and a nation having a nuclear weapon.

Quote :

" there is no "might" about it...unless you are naive. "

I am not too naive to admit the strong possibility but I don't jump to conclusions sorry. Right now all evidence and parties involved indicate iran's nuclear program is for research, healthcare and electricity.

[Edited on August 22, 2010 at 10:37 AM. Reason : show me evidence of weapons?]

[Edited on August 22, 2010 at 10:38 AM. Reason : there was no "might" about Iraq's smoking gun either. Howd that work out?]

8/22/2010 10:35:34 AM

not everyone in our country is allowed to own a gun.

beyond that, I am not going to waste the time or energy explaining the difference between gun ownership and nuclear proliferation.

Quote :

" I am not too naive to admit the strong possibility but I don't jump to conclusions sorry. Right now all evidence and parties involved indicate iran's nuclear program is for research, healthcare and electricity. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/7266349/UN-accuses-Iran-of-working-to-build-nuclear-bomb.html

first result on Google. you fail.

8/22/2010 11:23:54 AM

Quote :

"What about my statements is "insular"?"

Well, read your first point. I notice that you choose your words very suspiciously, as if to distance yourself from the position you ultimately end up taking, but what you say is this: The welfare of non-Americans should be but an afterthought when considering US foreign policy. The real concern, as you would have it, are the vaguely defined "interests" of the United States, which apparently don't include democracy or human rights or anything of the sort. This is a provincial way of looking at the world.

You're right to point out that this "realist" approach may indeed have been the driving force behind American foreign policy for the last 50 years or so, but that isn't really a statement about what our interaction with the world ought to be about.

Quote :

"In other words, it would be fucking stupid to subject ourselves to the fallout listed above in (a) just for the sake of denying them power due to their racism, misogyny, theocracy, and intolerance of dissidents."

The things is, everything you listed is already an issue for US foreign policy. If Iran were to obtain a nuclear weapon, there's every reason to think the regime will continue to exploit these issues but with even more impunity.

[Edited on August 22, 2010 at 11:57 AM. Reason : ]

8/22/2010 11:56:30 AM

Iranian stealth drones in operation.

8/22/2010 5:40:14 PM

This might have been scary

............in WW2

[Edited on August 23, 2010 at 12:17 AM. Reason : fsd]

8/23/2010 12:17:14 AM

Looks like they're going to wheel that toy off the stage and have the local high school put on Brigadoon at 7pm.

[Edited on August 23, 2010 at 10:19 AM. Reason : *]

8/23/2010 10:18:56 AM

^^ I'm sure that is just for peaceful purposes like "research, healthcare and electricity."

Are you prepared to allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon? Yes or no?

1. hooksaw: No.

2. DeltaBeta: No.

3. DaBird: No.

4. Kris: Yes.

5. theDuke866: No.

6. BEU: No.

7. lazarus: No.

8/23/2010 11:39:28 AM

It makes it look a lot more drastic when you leave off people that answer yes

8/23/2010 11:41:04 AM