digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

Iran 'reaches nuclear target'

cnn.com — Iran has reached its long-sought goal of running 3,000 centrifuges to enrich uranium for its nuclear program, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced Sunday in a report on state media.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • readthis, on 10/18/2007, -45/+6It is psycho to say your country needs power and then to focus on nuclear. Why not seek wind and geo-thermal energy solutions? Would the media distribute such a request? But, this isn't about electricity is it?
    • kooft, on 10/18/2007, -7/+47Well, they did sign a treaty (NPT) with the US that allows them to develop nuclear technology. If they're submitting to the inspection clauses of the treaty shouldn't they be allowed to develop nuclear technology? If nuclear energy is so pointless, then why does the US have 100+ reactors?
      • StepCousin, on 10/18/2007, -40/+9Nuclear technology is not pointless. It's an efficient energy source, but the Iranians are not responsible enough to be trusted with this technology. Ahmedinejad openly refers to the United States as "The Great Satan". He's nuts.
        • fro0ty, on 10/18/2007, -6/+28Whilst the decider is completly sane... remember that his adminstration has said that nuking Iran is on the table.
          • Charlotte_Web, on 10/10/2007, -9/+5Iran is sitting on top of one of the biggest oil deposits in the world and energy generation is a problem for them?
          • Terr01, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3Charlotte, I have the distinct impression I have already brought this point to your attention before...

            They may get more benefit selling oil than they do burning it for fuel. My napkin-math says replacing an oil-burning power plant with a nuclear one would avoid consuming 11,761,509 barrels/year.
        • Ajajadude, on 10/18/2007, -10/+32Oh, and Americans are? We voted in Bush, twice, are we not "nuts"?
          • SaTaNKiLLeR, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14Yes i think you are.
          • WhereAmI, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Speak for youself, Id didn't vote for the ***** (too young) and I am proud to say I vote all Democrat in the effort to get control of house and senate, and now we have it.
        • JEAH, on 10/10/2007, -6/+47"Ahmedinejad openly refers to the United States as "The Great Satan". He's nuts."
          Bush openly refers to Iran as one of "The Axis of Evil"
          Kinda sounds like both of these guys are ***** pieces of *****.
          • Charlotte_Web, on 10/10/2007, -17/+5I don't suppose it matters to you that Iran has been funding terrorism for roughly three decades.
          • MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17@Charlotte

            So that's your criteria? The US has been funding terrorism for a lot longer than that. Or have you forgotten who trained and funded the Taliban, Contras, Saddam Hussein, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
          • Tiak, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Wait a second... What was the bay of pigs again?... How did the group that eventually became Al Qaida get its first weapons? Who is supporting the terrorist group Jondollah?... All of those attempted coups we supported against communist governments were only different from terrorists in name.
          • StepCousin, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5I agree with Bush; Ahmedinejad IS evil. He reinstated a brutal law, the stoning of women who are guilty of adultery. If that's not evil, I don't know what is.
          • atheinostic, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9Iran gave massive amounts of funding, weapons and training to Al Qaeda in the 1980s. They also sold Saddam Hussein chemical weapons, knowing full well he was going to use them on Iraqi dissidents. They've also been supporting right-wing dictatorships all over the world, even helping them to overthrow democratically-elected governments that were too socialist for their likes. Additionally, Iran currently holds the largest stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in the world. The government refuses to destroy them or even state that use of weapons of mass destruction are "off the table" in future military conflicts.

            Oops, that was the U.S. My bad. Never mind all that, the Iranians are evil and want to destroy our freedoms by aiding terrorists. We have to stop them before they attack democracy or support terrorists!
        • Tiak, on 10/18/2007, -2/+4That is a bit of a mistranslation, it's more of "the big naughty" than "the great satan", but even if it was, Bush openly refers to a large bunch of countries as "The Axis of Evil", if rhetoric like this means a country is irresponsible, should the US be allowed to keep its nuclear technology?...
    • jmpeagle, on 10/18/2007, -4/+18a typical wind turbine only gets 4 MW of power whereas a nuclear power plant will generate 1000+ MW easily. The vast majority of new capacity being created in the U.S. right now is not renewable energy because it is not yet cost efficient compared to other sources such as coal and oil and doesn't add that much to the energy infrastructure.
      • diggless, on 10/18/2007, -7/+6this is simply not true. This data directly refutes your unsupported claim.
        http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2006/Update52_data.htm
        the above data stops 2 years ago, but the trend lines can pretty much be continued.

        renewable energy growth has outpaced fossil fuels for at least a decade.

        the NIMBY effect doesnt impact the renewable installations as much as coal, gas or nuclear.
        • jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6please tell me you replied to wrong post because your graph proved my point....as of 2005 there is a TOTAL of 60,000 MWs of electricity in the ENTIRE world. The world supply of electricity as of 2004 is about 1,864,155 MWs converted from 16,330,000,000,000 kWh https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2042rank.html . With world enegy consumption increasing at about 4% a year, that is about 75000 MWs of new power each year, which means the sum total of all renewables currently producing energy is not even equivalent to one year of added capacity.


          An easier example is this graph http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/presentations/ieo2000/sld002.htm Add all non-renewables together and look how much steeper that would be than renewables. Oil alone is steeper than renewables mean more ADDITIONAL energy capacity is being created from oil than ALL renewables put together.

          Take an Environmental Science class some time, you might learn something.
          • jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3whoops, change the word renewable in my post to wind power in the 1st paragraph
          • WhereAmI, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Why the hell is nuclear set to drop? I suppose some nuclear plants expire at about that time but nuclear is by far the best energy source. Wind is nice but not too efficient (yet, I have seen prototypes on Digg and I look forward to when they are made.)
    • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Nuclear is where it's at right now. The materials are available, the energy production cleaner, and the costs lower than alternative forms. Nuclear is becoming a more highly sought after method of making energy all over the world.
    • BESTenemy, on 10/18/2007, -4/+9Iran wants to invest oil wealth into nuclear energy, before the black gold runs out. We spend our wealth invading other countries securing whatever's left of oil. Who's insane here?
  • vault, on 10/10/2007, -22/+9Typical loud-mouthed bargaining chip rhetoric from Ahmadinejad- they didn't achieve *****.
    • swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -10/+10How dare you interrupt the fear and loathing with a reasonable opinion?
      • Tiak, on 10/18/2007, -1/+3Where was there fear and loathing?... The general sentiment here seems to be that they really want the energy, so we have nothing to fear, and it isn't wrong for them to want this energy, no loathing... This announcement is mostly propaganda, sure, but that doesn't mean they aren't achieving anything, they seem to be achieving quite a bit, even if this is essentially a lie.

        Is there any reasonable reason to believe they didn't achieve *****"?...
  • reeder, on 10/10/2007, -10/+87Great, we have 2 children measuring dicks on the playground. The rest of the world just wants idiot pricks like Bush and Ahmadinejad to jump out of a tall building do we can live our lives in peace.
    • spyd3rweb, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12peace isnt profitable to the government, and you cant demand sweeping emergency powers either.
      • supermanred, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I don't know, China hasnt had a war in a while, and yet they are becoming an economic super power, while America is on a verge of rescession or depression. On the radio today they said 60% chance of a recession in the states in the near future.

        Maybe peace does pay?
      • supermanred, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I don't know, China hasnt had a war in a while, and yet they are becoming an economic super power, while America is on a verge of rescession or depression. On the radio today they said 60% chance of a recession in the states in the near future.

        Maybe peace does pay?
    • kgilbert0, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10So you really think that if Bush and Ahmadinejad were gone, the "rest of the world" would be entirely peaceful?
      • MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9It'd be a hell of a lot closer.

        Throw Putin and Jintao and Jiabao into the mix and we'll be even closer yet.
        • TheOther1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Sure. Because nobody else, just as bad, would step in. Nature LOVES a vacuum.
        • Tiak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4That power vacuum certainly wouldn't bing anyone worse into the fray.
        • LonesomeFighter, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3I won't lie, if all our top world leaders left, I'd give it a shot. But first i would need to obtain power, and since there is going to be chaos, voting will be to impractical. Get my picture I'm painting? One day, you will say "Bush wasn't really all that bad"
        • supermanred, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Hang them all, I hereby volunteer to hold the rope or pull the lever.
    • diazcalvi, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0And someone (above) said "Iranians are not responsible enough to be trusted with this technology"... welll.... hello? ... who a f.. actually dropped "the bomb" twice? ,... Well, here in Europe, we don´t recall calling the 911-US to be police of the world... mmm... yeah.. never mind, probably losing my time here..
  • praha, on 10/10/2007, -22/+8Cruise missiles to launch in 10... 9... 8...
    • sanman, on 10/10/2007, -8/+7Ahmedinejad: We have just reached our target...
      USN: We have just reached our target...
      • praha, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5Hospitals, schools and embassies reduced by ...8 ...9 ...10 ...
  • coffee200am, on 10/10/2007, -16/+6Iran gets nukes.....who's fault will it be?
    • JEAH, on 10/18/2007, -7/+26The blame will lie on the US and its invasion of Iraq and labeling of Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil"
      • StepCousin, on 10/18/2007, -23/+10Why don't you also blame the Danish for drawing the Mohammed cartoons? And don't forget the Jews. Or how about American women in bikinis? They've obviously been cursed by Satan.
      • TGMD, on 10/18/2007, -7/+7While it is true that idiot president of ours calling them part of the axis of evil helped bring in a more extremist and anti-western government I wouldn't say that it's the US's fault.

        A diplomatic solution was tried time and time again, Iran didn't want to listen. You cannot blame the actions of an independent sovereign nation onto another
        • StepCousin, on 10/18/2007, -15/+5"helped bring in a more extremist and anti-western government"

          To hell with Iran. Don't you remember the 1979 hostage crisis? That was backed by the Ayotollah. Pray tell what we did to deserve that insanity.
          • Stormflux, on 10/18/2007, -2/+10We overthrew their government and installed an unpopular one. Then they took it back and also took hostages. You can call Homeland Security on me now...
          • Tiak, on 10/18/2007, -2/+3Run this scenario through your mind...

            -China comes in and somehow manages to crush the current democracy in the US, putting in power an unpopular former leader (let's say, Bush...) as a dictator.
            -The American people get pissed off and revolt, sweeping this leader out of power.
            -The American have a building full of people from China that were working with this massively unpoplar dictator.

            Do we:
            A) Send them back to China, with a plate of freshly baked cookies each.
            B) Keep them hostage with the prospects of trying them and using them as a bargaining piece
            or C) Just kill them.

            I for one don't think the American people would have the restraint not to go for C...
          • StepCousin, on 10/18/2007, -3/+2Wow, Tiak. You think that the US would resort to taking hostages?!!

            Ummmmmm, there's really no way to respond to that idiotic comment.
        • JEAH, on 10/18/2007, -2/+10"Pray tell what we did to deserve that insanity."
          Ever heard of the Shah of Iran? If not, look it up. I'm not going to waste my time writing up a history lesson for you.
          • grrrrrrrrrrrrrr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1 "Pray tell what we did to deserve that insanity." Actually the history is not that simple, according to the excerpts from this book: http://www.netnative.com/news/06/mar/1090.html The strategy is De-Nationalism by balkanization. The endgame is control of the country's oil. (See Iraq ca. 2003 - present)
        • quaxon, on 10/18/2007, -2/+9you got it a little bit wrong, it was actually irans previous, pro-west, president that held his hand out to bush and asked for diplomatic relations and was told to ***** off, which created the climate for ahmedinejad to become president. read a little something, america is usually always in the wrong
        • StepCousin, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Sure, quazon, and Islamo-fascists just mind their own business while The Great Satan constantly ***** with them.

          Brilliant
          • quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2it's quaXon you inbred *****, learn to read. and 'islamo fascists' are a tiny minority of fringe outsiders in the middle east, there are less of them than the christian fundamentalist fascists in this country. the american CIA created the whole notion of al queda, do a bit of research numbskull.
        • atheinostic, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3Actually, Iran was willing to negotiate with the U.S. in 2003, and even went so far as to offer to take the nuclear program completely out of the works. From about 1998 until the "axis of evil" remark, tensions between Iran and the U.S. were going down, while cooperation was going up. Iran actually played a role in helping the U.S. and the Northern Alliance overthrow the Taliban regime in 2001. However, Bush told the Iranians to ***** off, and in response they began taking hard-line positions and doubled their nuclear efforts.
      • orca94, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Don't forget that the UK, Italy, Spain, Japan, New Zealand, The Netherlands and Denmark were also involved in the invasion. I love how British people seem to absolve themselves of this whole debacle just because the Prime Minister than led them down that path isn't in power anymore. It's your fault too! And Tony Blair was a heck of a whole lot less retarded than Bush!
      • supermanred, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"I blame The Jewwwwwwwwww" -Borat

        Nobody's to blame, just the rich kids in office all around the world.
    • chris9902, on 10/18/2007, -1/+9you can't un-invent something. It was only a matter of time before everyone else in the world worked out how to do it.
    • kahrn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I'll look no further than myself.
    • supermanred, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2Who cares? The Pakis, Indians and Jews have Nukes and the world hasn't ended yet. So what if Iran has some nukes? Isn't self defense a right of any country?
  • WiseWeasel, on 10/18/2007, -29/+33Good! Maybe once Iran has nukes, everyone will have to learn to see eye-to-eye... Seems to have done wonders for N. Korea's diplomacy... It's sad that that's what it's going to take, but that's our leaders for ya! Now if only Castro could get nukes so we could make up with Cuba as well...
    • carpespasm, on 10/18/2007, -16/+9castro had nukes, didn't seem to get him much help.
      • jmpeagle, on 10/18/2007, -1/+19no he didn't, the USSR had them, they never gave control of them over to Castro
        • AUmrysh, on 10/18/2007, -8/+2Doesn't matter who has the nukes, cigars are where the money is. I would love to see Cuba recognized as a country finally. Cuban cigars aren't really that much better than their American versions, but it's too much trouble to smuggle them out of Germany just to get them.
    • RedX117, on 10/18/2007, -8/+8What the hell are you talking about? Do you have even the slightest clue what nukes are man? We have anough problems as it is without everyone suddenly arming themselves with nukes...
      • Tiak, on 10/18/2007, -2/+6You see, the thing about nukes is nobody is stupid enough to use them, but everybody is scared enough of everybody else that has them using them that they will try not to be douches.
        • dopplerdog, on 10/18/2007, -1/+5Uh... in case you've forgotten, the United States was "stupid enough to use them" at one point. Two, in fact.
        • vertinox, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2Well that is because the Japanese didn't have anything to shoot back with at that point. If we dropped one on Germany they would have filled a V2 full of nerve gas and shot it at Paris or London.
  • TGMD, on 10/18/2007, -14/+8This won't due for any of Iran's Neighbors.
    China doesn't want another Nuclear power with a possibly unstable government at it's border (Pakistan is one too many), Same goes for Russia
    Pakistan and Turkey have their share of issues with Iran and they won't like this new threat
    Israel won't stand for it either, they'll probably before soon launch an attack.
    The United States, Controlling Afghanistan and Iraq, won't stand for the possible threat

    Someone's going to attack Iraq, hopefully it's just a simple air strike and it doesn't delve into a full scale war.
    • ruthless34, on 10/18/2007, -17/+13Iranian soldiers are not afraid nor hesitant to die defending their country. If the US attacks there will be more casualties on Iranian side but the American forces will find it difficult to advance with the sheer number of forces on Iranian side. Technology alone will not help the US succeed. Expect Iranian soldiers to fight blood and flesh for their country.

      Any US attack will be faced with a miserable failure. The Iranians may not all agree with Ahmadinejad but they would prefer him heck of a lot more than they would prefer an American "liberator".

      The Iranians will never forget the evil-doing the US has done to Iran in the past.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-iraq_war
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaddegh#Operation_Ajax

      To all americans I advice you to educate yourself about the history of Iran-US relations rather than judging by what you see on your biased media.
      • StepCousin, on 10/18/2007, -28/+10Pleeeeeasssse. Iranians are pussies, just like Iraqis. We'll be pulling Ahmedinejad's filthy ass out of a rat-hole in the middle of the desert, just like we did with Saddam.
        • Ajajadude, on 10/18/2007, -6/+20How old are you? 16? Notice how capturing Saddam meant jack ***** to anyone fighting us in Iraq? Hell, at HIS execution, he was a bigger man than the rest of the rabble there. It wouldn't be a good thing if that's how it played out again.
          • thatsmyaibo, on 10/18/2007, -6/+4You'd be surprised. I don't think the US was justified in their decision to go into Iraq, but either way, Sadam had to be removed. He has killed over a million people and has made plenty other 'disappear'. He is the definition of a dictator and though it will take time, the Iraqi people will eventually be better without him.
          • StepCousin, on 10/18/2007, -6/+1@Ajadude

            Why wouldn't it be a good thing to take out Ahmedinejad?

            * Like you know your ass from a hole in the ground (not to mention all of the jackoffs who dugg you up....bunch of morons).
        • RaptorNv25, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1I hope that was sarcastic.
        • quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5guessing from your user name you are prolly an inbred middle american jackass who has never left his state, much less the country, and has no idea what is going on in the world outside of your ann o'reily view-point.
        • CRASSPUNXTEXHTV, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Dude Iran is Known for its ski slopes, It has deserts in it but its not like what people think of the middle east.
          • quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1thank you, ateast their is one person here who doesnt subscribe to the typical stereotypes of the middle-east fed to us by the american government. much like america iran has many different geographical characteristics. btw crass rules, (check out my icon!)
      • malkir, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7America wouldn't have a problem wiping out all of Iran's military infrastructure in a matter of weeks. What we'd have a problem with is the occupation afterwards.

        Also, I do wish the people in power here weren't such bastards and wouldn't treat other countries like *****, but most of us are as powerless as you are in this matter.
        • Krovvy, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4There wouldn't be an occupation, it would only be a military strike in which the nuclear facilities would be destroyed.
          • arnoldrimmer, on 10/18/2007, -1/+2yeaand all the Oil will be untoched....
            Still watching FOX News
            Damm stupid Amis
      • BioTeq, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2There won't be any ground forces invading Iran. The surgical air-to-ground strikes will take care of most of the military targets, unfortunately as during all recent conflicts civilian losses will be unavoidable. 60 years ago this would have erupted into a full blown war with hundreds of thousands of deaths, at least the US has the technology to keep those casualties as low as possible. Iran has a strong opposition to the clerical regime but whether they will be able to take control is doubtful.
        • Tiak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2They have a "strong opposition" in the ideological sense, like the American people have a strong opposition to the war in Iraq... This does not mean they would support being attacked to overthrow this regime, and does not mean they wouldn't try their best to kill these invaders and end up killing each other (with the ones supporting the invasion being stamped out)... Ultimately, nothing would change over there if this happened, except they would hate us a whole lot more, and many of them would be dead.
    • nixonrichard, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16I'm assuming the last "q" you typed was supposed to be an "n"

      You make a good point about Iran's neighbors. Everybody thinks this is about the US v. Iran, but it's not. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt, etc. . . . nobody wants Iran to have nukes. If and when it's discovered that Iran is secretly building nukes, all hell fire and brimstone will reign down on them.
      • TGMD, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Thanks for pointing that out, Yes it was supposed to be an N.
    • d3vmax, on 10/18/2007, -4/+4Israel has already told the Americans that if they don't do something about Iran they are going to as they did to the Iraqi Nuclear Programme. Although this time the situation is more complicated.
      China wont be involved in it as it gets its fuel from Iran and has billion dollar contracts. China is against any military action as it stands to lose strategic resources if Iran is attacked.
      Btw.. Pakistan's became a Nuclear only due to Chinese help.
    • vertinox, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Arrgh... We've got another Miss South Carolina here.

      Iran does not border China. Pakistan and Afghanistan does.
  • carpespasm, on 10/18/2007, -7/+35ok, someone please clear this up for me. Iran's official position is that they are still only making this nuclear material for powerplant use, correct? It's not like they've put out a sign saying "Coming Soon: Iranian nuclear missile control center" anywhere right?
    • swrostmore, on 10/18/2007, -2/+35The IAEA's official position is that Iran's nuclear program is being used for power plants. The UN's official position is that Iran has the right to do what they are doing under international law.
      • elk1, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Sounds to me like someone should give IAEA another nobel peace prize
        • bizchris, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I'm surprised to see you got 20+ diggs on that second comment, swrostmore - it seems to run counter to mainstream news articles even just from yesterday:
          http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/02/iran.nuclear.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

          I'm always willing to be educated - please point me to where I'm wrong if that's the case, but I was under the impression the UN was not pleased with Iran's nuclear activities.
        • swrostmore, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3My mistake - I was under the impression that Iran was fully co-operating with nuclear inspectors. "Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a country has the right to enrich its own fuel for civil nuclear power, under IAEA inspection."
        • SuperMoses, on 10/18/2007, -1/+4@bizchris: If you're surprised it's probably because you rely too much on the mainstream media which has a heavy bias against Iran.
          http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2681
        • bizchris, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2Just came back to see responses, and realized I got suckered by the comment system (first time that's happened) - sorry for jacking your thread elk1, as well as making it confusing to follow the parent conversation.
        • bizchris, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2@SuperMoses: I have to say, I was expecting a pretty biased article myself when I clicked on that - but it surprisingly rang true with what I thought the case was in terms of NPT etc. Thanks for the pointer!
      • floorman56, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2Uranium-235, while occuring in natural uranium to the extent of only 0.71%, is so fissionable with slow neutrons that a self-sustaining fission chain reaction can be made in a reactor constructed from natural uranium and a suitable moderator, such as heavy water or graphite, alone.

        Uranium gun-assembled weapons are the easiest of all nuclear devices to design and build. It is generally conceded to be impossible to prevent any nation having the requisite amount of HEU from building one or more gun-assembled weapons. Therefore, the acquisition of significant quantities of 235 U or a facility in which to separate the fissile material is an indicator that the acquiring state could be in the process of gaining a rudimentary nuclear capability.

    • carpespasm, on 10/18/2007, -1/+12ok, thanks. It's hard to get views other than what you hear on the news sometimes that make the assumption that the only possible use of nuclear materials in iran is for nukes.
      • kazamx, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9America needs (well GWB) needs to scare you all again. Your starting to ask questions, that isn't how it should work.

        Before Spet 11th GWB was one of the most unpopular presidents ever to have won office. He was a joke both inside and outside of the US. 9/11 changed that. When the American public were scared they turned to their President and said "take any freedom you want, just keep us safe". He started to take your freedoms, but you started to resist, so he told you Iraq would kill you al. Once again scared you turned to your president and said "take any freedom you want, just keep us safe" but now your asking questions, holding him to account, this can not happen.

        Now you are told Iran will kill you all. What are you going to do America?
        • raisputin3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1***** yeah dude! Americanas are such pussies for the most part. There are a relatively small number of us though that know our rights under the Constitution ansd excersise them and refuse to let those rights be taken away.

          Don't believe what they say, because it is all designed to get you to relinquish more and more of your liberties until Georgie Boy declares a national emergency and martial law
    • firstprimate, on 10/18/2007, -4/+6Iran's official position is that nuclear weapons are prohibited in Islam. One of their Ayatollah's issued a fatwa to that effect.
    • morcheeba, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'd recommend this book: http://www.amazon.com/Targeting-Iran-Media-David-Barsamian/dp/0872864588
      David's a good speaker - you might be able to find some of his audio on the web.
    • nthug, on 10/18/2007, -6/+2well when you couple for their nuclear plans with their blatant calls for the eradication of Israel and uncooperation with governing nuclear bodies, its probably a good idea to monitor exactly what they are up to
      • raisputin3, on 10/18/2007, -1/+3READ dumbass, read. They do not call for the destruction of Israel, never have....Just go read and LEARN
      • jessehadden, on 10/18/2007, -1/+2Actually, Iran's leader has called for the destruction of the "Zionist regime." That's like someone calling for the destruction of the Apartheid regime, or the Neo-con regime. Zionism is the doctrine that one race of people have more of a "right" to live in the Holy Land than another race of people, similar to Manifest Destiny. Zionism != Israel != Judaism. In fact, there is a fairly powerful anti-Zionism Jewish lobby. Do you believe they are also calling for the destruction of Israel?
      • hcl40u, on 10/18/2007, -1/+2In other words its more like "regime change", a term the Bush Administration used to justify ousting Saddam.
      • foopirata, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Funny. It would seem that the Iranian Broadcasting whatever completely disagrees with the previous 3 posters, saying in two separate posts that Ahmi-boy did use the words "wipe Israel off the map". They seem quite proud of it, even.
        http://digg.com/world_news/Did_he_say_wiped_off_the_map_or_not
        • dibbler, on 10/18/2007, -2/+1It is obvious from the context that (a) he was quoting Khomeini, and (b) he was saying that Khomeini had said that the Shah's regime would end; that Saddam's regime would end; that the Soviet union would end; and that the Zionist regime would end. Quibble over the semantics and the translation all you like, but the context is quite clear.
        • foopirata, on 10/18/2007, -1/+2Oh yeah, the context is quite clear:
          http://www.iribnews.ir/Full_en.asp?news_id=200247

          "As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to the late founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Imam Khomeini.
          "The Islamic umma (community) will not allow its historic enemy to live in its heartland," he said.

          Regarding the Zionist regime's retreat from the Gaza Strip he said, "we should not settle for a piece of land".
          "Anyone who signs a treaty which recognises the entity of Israel means he has signed the surrender of the Muslim world," Ahmadinejad said.

          "Any leaders in the Islamic umma who recognise Israel face the wrath of their own people."
      • Tiak, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3Well, if you couple our nuclear superpower status, our calls for the eradication of the evil states of North Korea and Iran, and our repeated sanctions on anyone else trying to level the playing field, it's probably a good idea not to trust us either...

        They would know that any use of nclear weapons against Israel would be met with nuclear weapons from Israel in kind... And Israel has, and is going to continue to have, a whole lot more nukes than they do. Hell, they'd know that if they nuked Israe, then we'd feel justified nuking them (as messed up as that is).
    • tehpwnrate, on 10/18/2007, -5/+7That's their official stance. However, since they rejected western offers of aid to help them build reactors that used non-weapons grade fuel, it's pretty obvious what they're doing.
      • dibbler, on 10/18/2007, -1/+3Total *****. No reactors require weapons grade fuel; Iran's included. The offer was for reactors that would be entirely reliant on foreign sources for key components... and having an energy policy that leaves you totally reliant on another state is pretty stupid.
    • bdbr, on 10/18/2007, -2/+1Policies can change...quite easily. Since they opted out on nuclear power plants that don't use weapons-grate material, the nuclear weapon option will always an option in the future. Its definitely NOT "obvious what they're doing", and its not obvious where they're heading. It leaves open some dangerous uncertainties.
  • TehSwat, on 10/10/2007, -8/+18In other news, the sales of bomb shelters have risen 2800%.
  • Dragular, on 10/10/2007, -7/+9All I know is that a freaking nuclear war better not keep me from getting to see Season 2 of Jericho, or playing Fallout 3 next fall.
    • zeromancer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4you say that in jest, but really, it's what we all want. we all just want this ***** to go away so we can continue living our lives. for you, that includes Fallout 3. For me, that includes pot.
    • slundal, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9If you're lucky you might get to play the real life version of Fallout.
    • asdfff, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I just want the world to last long enough to ***** finish Lost, ***** oil deposits, Arab pride, Army strong, I just don't give a *****. I just want to watch Lost.
  • pmagayon, on 10/10/2007, -19/+5That's ok. We'll rewind them back to the Stone Age soon enough, lol.
    • chicofaraby, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8"We'll rewind them back to the Stone Age soon," he said, as he sipped his Diet Coke and munched thoughtfully on Cheetos in his comfortable chair.
      • AUmrysh, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Don't forget the Olestra induced anal leakage!
      • RedX117, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Ha ha... whoa there, be careful on your way to the recruiting office there "pmagayon".
    • quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6ironically americans have been exponentially rewinding backwards into stone-age territory since ronald reagan and the moral majority hi-jacked this country.
    • supermanred, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I guess you are first in line to serve in your army and die for your "cause" of obliterating Iran. Have fun, send us a postcard. It'll be a nice funeral service.
  • jmpeagle, on 10/18/2007, -2/+12Ironically, a country of such abundant energy natural resources is also the world's second biggest importer of gasoline (after the U.S.), which is why Iran has started gas rationing (of course lifting the price above the 10 cents per gallon or so they charge Iranian citizens isn't helping)
  • Piedramente, on 10/18/2007, -17/+5Time for a strategic strike of their nuclear facilities. Way overdue
  • Sogosp, on 10/10/2007, -12/+2  by
    WiseWeasel
    2 hours ago

    Good! Maybe once Iran has nukes, everyone will have to learn to see eye-to-eye... Seems to have done wonders for N. Korea's diplomacy... It's sad that that's
    what it's going to take, but that's our leaders for ya! Now if only Castro could get nukes so we could make up with Cuba as well...

    Are you crazy? We need to become energy efficient, then go shut those nuclear power plants down--permanently.
  • firstprimate, on 10/18/2007, -36/+94If you believe any of the following statements are true then you are a brainwashed idiot and probably American:-

    1. Iran is run by an unstable government
    2. Iran has violated treaties it has signed
    3. Iran has attacked another country
    4. Iran has threatened to attack another country
    5. Iran is building nuclear weapons
    6. Iran has threatened to use nuclear weapons against another country, even non-nuclear countries
    7. Iran is a threat to world peace

    If you substitute America for Iran in the above and believe any of the statements are false then you are a brainwashed idiot and probably American.

    • j.carcinogen, on 10/10/2007, -23/+4Do you have penis envy?
    • NikoKun, on 10/18/2007, -7/+12Sadly, I'm sure plenty of those excuses, will be used by Bush, in order to convince American's that he should go to war with Iran...

      This is ***** sick... -_- We really need to impeach the bush administration... get them totally out of office... It's like letting your country be run by insane, war mongering, profit driven, corperation oil company assholes... I know that didn't make sense, I'm to angry at Bush to make sense. XD
    • kazamx, on 10/18/2007, -7/+11But Foxx news and the President say your wrong. Why should we doubt Fox news and our President, they are important and famous, they can't be wrong. Just look at Afghanistan, Osama and Iraq.......oh wait
      • osbjmg, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1For the last time, it's you're.

        you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're you're

        *****!
        • Monk22, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1you should probably head over to the Harvard message boards if you want grammatically correct, insightful discourse. its the Internet no one gives a *****.
    • spyd3rweb, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15Iran's democratically elected government was overthrown by the CIA in the 50's. Operation Ajax.
      • Snakedal337, on 10/10/2007, -8/+11Operation PHP is now under way. Later to come Operation HTML.
    • usaar33, on 10/18/2007, -4/+22. NPT - perhaps - only time will tell
      3. Not directly, but has funded groups that attack other countries (e.g. Hezbollah)
      4. I won't even get into the translation debate
      5. See #2

      As for those being true for America, I'll give you all but #1. What lovely times we live in.
      • firstprimate, on 10/18/2007, -0/+22. Sorry does not count - they have NOT broken a treaty atm.
        3. Hizbollah attacks Israel and only Israel because Israel was occupying Lebanon
        4. Why wimp out?
        5. See reference to why you are an idiot.

        • usaar33, on 10/18/2007, -2/+02. So we are supposed to sit around and wait until they have tested a nuclear weapon?
          3. Here you are the idiot. The rest of the world thinks Sheeba Farms belongs to either Syria or Israel. Not Lebanon. Attacking a country because it is occupying land that isn't yours is hardly a reason.
          Besides, if you count the US Embassy hostage taking, Iran has attacked the US - or at least approved of said attack.
          And of course, in case you forgot history, Hezbollah has attacked the US as well.
          And Argentina
          And - in a sense - Lebanon.

          4. Because it won't accomplish anything.
          But let's try: most translators interpret the Ahmadinejad at least threatening the existing government of Israel. By providing support to a terrorist organization that directly attacks Israel, there is some muscle behind those words.
          • firstprimate, on 10/18/2007, -0/+12. Like I said, they have not broken a treaty, and you agree.
            3. The rest of the world does not count. Lebanon and Syria both say it's Lebanese territory. Either way you are reaching. We are talking about Iran.
            4. *****. Most translators agree that he was quoting Ayatollah Komeni in calling for regime change.
          • usaar33, on 10/18/2007, -1/+02. Still it is violating IEAE rules. That's about as close to braking a treaty as you can get.
            3. Syria thinks Lebanon is Syrian territory. And Hezbollah receives so much funding, training, and general support from Iran that it would be hardly as powerful without Iran. A country can be just as dangerous when it indirectly attacks a country (as Iran does to Israel) as when it directly does.
            Besides, Iran never has had enough capability in its recent history to attack another nation directly and win (while the US has). If the US was a weak nation, it wouldn't be invading other nations. If Iran was powerful, it would be - it already funds groups that attack sovereign nations.
            4. http://www.iribnews.ir/Full_en.asp?news_id=200247 Iran's own translators have him calling it to be "wiped off the map". He is definitely calling for a regime change - and definitely quoting Khomeini. Again, Iran can't militarily attack Israel - given the opportunity, and based on their rhetoric I'm sure they would. This is a country after all that has called for the murder of a citizen of another country, funds and trains terrorist groups, calls for violent revolts in other nations, etc. Don't delude yourself into thinking it is some nice, completely peaceful nation.
    • quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4that sounds like one of those fox news daily bulletins that the government hands to murdoch who then hands to all the shows to bludgeon the audience with daily.
    • rodbibeau, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6Well said. I am an American and I hate this fascist ***** Bush is pulling. He makes us look bad. Please world, forgive us, for it is not us that is trying to kill everyone. It is the chimp in office that we did not even elect.
      • StepCousin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1On your knees, wimp. Beg Ahmedinejad to spare you the sword.
    • nthug, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3thank you! good to see there's sanity around after all
    • GregR, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Good points.
      The timing of this news is interesting - just ahead of much rumoured US attack on Iran.
      Do they really think this isn't obvious to the rest of the world?
      • anonym41414, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The only place a US attack on Iran has been rumored is on the front page of Digg.

        Seriously, you need to take a close look at who's voting for these stories. It's the same core group every time. No clue what their motives are, but it's clear that they're acting with intent.
    • StepCousin, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Pray tell what inbred nation spit you out of its diseased womb.

      * I don't have much tolerance for foreign bastards who haven't yet realized that the US is the best country in the world.
    • gamer3999, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Iran has stressed numerous times they want to bomb Israel so don't give me that they don't want to hurt anyone *****.
      • dibbler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Erm, no they haven't. Please, leave debate to the grown ups and get back to your toys.
    • orca94, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Not that I disagree with anything you've said. But let me guess... You're either British, Australian or from New Zealand. In which case you can suck my ***** balls because as much as I agree with you I'm sick and tired of you ***** blaming this all on the US (a large part is the US's fault) but you guy were there for the invasion too. ***** You.
      • howea, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Go on then, start bawling your eyes out. We won't peek
      • firstprimate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0South African. Although I will admit that if we had the DA in power rather than the ANC we would have been in the *****, right there with you guys.
        • StepCousin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1South African, huh? What a bunch of losers.
        • orca94, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0My comments were than unwarranted and I apologize. I'm just sick and tired of people from the aforementioned countries acting as if they're completely innocent with respect to Iraq.
    • bdbr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Their government may not be unstable, but its corrupt as hell (this is what Iranians are saying).
      • firstprimate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If I was American I would really, really be hesitant to call any other government corrupt. Glass houses and stones.

    • bdbr, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Ahmadinejad has made public speeches to his military praying for Armageddon, while foreign journalists looked on.

      Of course, no one in their right mind would consider that a threat to world peace.
      • dibbler, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Bush, the alcoholic and hard drug abuser, has said that God told him to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. Of course, no one in their right mind would consider that a threat to world peace.
      • firstprimate, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0That's because people in their right minds are athiest, and they know that prayers are not worth the paper they written on (I paraphrased someone there and can't be bothered to check who)
  • TrippleHead, on 10/10/2007, -12/+4I personally love America, land of the free, home of the brave blah blah blah. Really I swear I haven't been arrested looking at my reciept, put in military lockdown for speaking out against bush or any of that.
    • kazamx, on 10/10/2007, -7/+6this the same country that makes you swear to it every morning in school? Crazy ***** man. From the outside this is blatant mind washing.
      • zeromancer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6no one forces you to say the pledge. that whole freedom of speech thing gets in the way of requiring it.
        • Stormflux, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4It's been a while since elementary school, but I'm pretty sure you were better off just saying the pledge. Unless, that is, you expect a 6-year old to take on 30 other classmates and the school Administration all by himself, citing full historical references about the cold war before he can even do basic math..
        • AUmrysh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4They forced us to say the pledge. If a kid didn't, they got sent to the office. I quit saying it in high school once I realized what it really meant. It also helped that I understood the reasons why I could abstain from saying it by then.
      • quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5lol i got sent to the office so many times for not pledging allegience in high-school. i almost got suspended for it when i refused to do it on 9/11 until i threatened with legal action and the school realized they cant force me to do it. and this is a highschool in california (orange county though)
        • eternal464, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2it's not illegal, just incredibly disrespectful. Glad you stood up for your rights...prick.
          • quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3good, i have no ***** respect for this country. anyone who is not ignorant to what we have been up to for the past decade should have no respect for this country either. tell me what is there to respect? what is there to be patriotic about?
        • StepCousin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2You're pathetic.
          • quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2no, pathetic is an uneducated inbred dolt such as yourself.
          • StepCousin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You're a bundle of joy, aren't you?
  • garryw, on 10/10/2007, -6/+15Israel took out the Iraq nuclear program. If they get scared they will take out the Iran program too. They have the means.
  • reddikilowatt, on 10/10/2007, -4/+41st thought: maybe they don't have as much oil as they say. Most experts have been questioning the proven reserves figures from Saudi Arabia for years now, and maybe Iran is not having as much luck drilling as we have been led to believe
    2nd thought: If you export oil and get money for it, why would you use it for domestic energy production? Sure, it may be cheap for you at wholesale rates, but wouldn't you much rather sell it at retail rates?

    I'm just sayin'... I'm sure the byproducts of a reactor are useful, if for no other reason than to keep the populace happy (hey! look, we got nukes! We're a superpower!).
  • cryptomystic, on 10/10/2007, -3/+21So the only way to have peace is to nuke any country thats trying to make nukes to defend themselves from being nuked from that country who already has nukes but doesn't want anybody else to have nukes but themselves because they believe they are more responsible with those said nukes......see doesn't that make perfect sense?
    • AUmrysh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5The logic is that we should have them, because we are us... they shouldn't, because they are not us.
      Mutually Assured Destruction is going to be one hell of a fireworks display, too bad we won't be around to see much of it.
    • Piedramente, on 10/10/2007, -12/+3So you think letting a country that wants to "wipe Israel off the map" and get nukes isn't a threat to peace? Nice perfect world you must be imagining there...
      • swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11you realize Ahmadinejad never said "wipe Israel off the map" don't you? So why put it in quotes?
      • spyd3rweb, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5how about letting a country that wants to wipe iran off the map have nukes? oh wait thats the US.
      • cryptomystic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Who cares if he nukes Isreal? when did Isreal become our problem? they are big boys and can handle themselves quite nicely.
        For historical reference check out the 7 day war.
        Anyway Israel has like thousands nukes so if they needed to they could bomb Iran back to the stone age, what are you so worried about them for when we have so many problems back home to worry about?
        turn off your Foxnews sometime and return to the real world.
        nobody is nuking anybody but the US ( for historical reference see WW2)
        • AUmrysh, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1Israel has been our responsibility since we agreed that it should be a state and we gave the land to them, which we took from the Muslims. I think it should have been done, considering things like Hussein's ties with the Nazis, but it really pissed off the Muslim world over there. Israel can handle it's own problems for sure. We are over there to keep them from doing it. Apparently, if we weren't, Israel would be kicking some major ass. Why we stop them? I do not know.
          • chicofaraby, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3"if we weren't, Israel would be kicking some major ass"
            Israel is only as strong as the amount of money our Congress gives them. Frankly, I'm sick of supporting the war criminals in charge of Israel.
          • Tiak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I suppose the U.S. is France's responsibility then?..... When does this responsibility of yours end?
        • RedX117, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Man quit being a moron by saying that the US is the only one using nukes, that's really unfair! If the US hadn't been the first to use them, then it would have been the Germans or the Japanese or the USSR. You should brush up on your history, because if you did you would know that the only reason why no one else has used nukes to attack another is because we all have seen what those things can do... I'm not saying this because I'm pro US nukes or anything but the U.S. used those nukes as an example or a form of intimidation so that no one else would ever dare to use them...
          • Tiak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Erm... Wait... What?... The Germans never had nukes when they were at war, the Japanese, likewise, didn't get very close to developing them, and they were crumbling before we got a chance to use them, so there was little chance of them getting their ***** together... And the USSR had weapons tests, just as the US nd all other nuclear powers did... Everybody would've known how powerful they were without human targets (in fact, Fat man and little boy are negligible in power when compared to modern nukes... Tsar bomba was the equivalent of around 7,690 Hiroshimas in one weapon... If one needs a demonstration on living people, why didn't they use it?...
    • friedcalamari, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1*applause*
  • AUmrysh, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4Can't wait to see the bombs drop and realize that America is now on its great decline as a world power. "How many times must the cannonballs fly, before they're forever banned?" -Bob Dylan
    Too bad the wind can't speak.
  • jojimbo15, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Why cant we go back to being an isolationist country? Or better yet, why cant we just live out lives without killing, torturing and destroying one another? I don't think it's really that hard to keep to our selves and let everyone else practice what they please, just leave everyone alone and they wouldn't have a reason to be pissed off at you in the first place.
    • AUmrysh, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9The great myth, that we have an enemy determined to destroy us, is supposed to bring us together as a nation. If you see the world in black and white, or with polar opposites of good and evil, the idea makes sesne, but there is never such a thing. Neo-Con powers, activate!
    • ruley, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1because not all countries want to be isolationist.
  • Yage2006, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3I'm sure a rich country like IRAN has a few nukes on hand for a special occasion.
    Even Syria does.
  • barkingmoonbat, on 10/10/2007, -8/+6Well this is Digg, where black usually equals white and 2 plus 2 often equals 13, so yes, Iran should be allowed to have nukes.

    /
    • quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5well on digg 2+2 does in some cases equal 13, bear with me for a moment you have about 4 neocons on this site as whole, those four collectively have 26 digg accounts so they can digg each other up and post with the different accounts to make it look like they have some support. either that or there are more ignorant brainwashed clowns on this site than i thought.
      • AUmrysh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Sadly, I think it is the latter. There are more than you would think in the general population, thus the chance that more would be here, regurgitating the sophisticated sounding ideas they learned.
  • annenk38, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6So in a year with all 3000 centrifuges running they may have enough enriched uranium for 1 Hiroshima. Everyone quick, duck under your desks!
    • ATHEISTinHELL, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Israel has like more than 100 nukes. So Aqua-Velva-Jad better be careful about the whole wiping Israel off that map talk until he has at least one nuke.
    • imgstacke, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3what everyone seems to forget - these centrifuges running will produce enriched uranium of about 2-5%, plenty to be used in a nuclear reactor - for a bomb you need like 85-90% enriched uranium. So conservatively, if they had 50,000 centrifuges running in sequence for a couple of years, then maybe they would have enough to TEST one.
      The Government and the MSM is playing on your ignorance and illiciting fear, otherwise you might realize the US has completely gone Fascist.
  • cybermage, on 10/10/2007, -12/+3I'm sure this will get me flamed, but my _opinion_ is it would be nice if we could... but we won't... just nuke the entire area. Take care of Iran, Iraq, maybe India and a few other troublemakers who want Nuclear power so bad in one fell swoop. They want nuke? Give'em Nuke I say...

    Don't bother with that putting soldiers on the ground crap. Just wipe the Earth clean and start over in a few thousand years.

    Okay, so I don't _really_ mean it, but I don't really see any other solution.
    • SirZRX, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9U just wont my "the dumbest commentary of they day award", how about if we nuke a country that invades some other countrys for oil!
    • shadeOgrey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Obviously you're too stupid to even reason with if you're actually serious about what you just said. I also don't have the time to go over the many many reasons why that's so completely wrong and wouldn't solve a damn thing. So instead I'll just ask you to throw yourself off a bridge before you start sharing any more opinions with anyone. Seriously, never talk, the air you waste could be used for something far more productive, like making a 30 foot tall macaroni Elvis mural.
      • pirloui, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1offtopic, but your macaroni Elvis mural comment made me laugh for real, which is very rare alone at computer.

        Anyhow I fully agree with your comment.
    • annenk38, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Because that would contaminate oil fields?
  • soulpunisher, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit...it's the only way to be sure.
  • RedX117, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Personally, I love this country. I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. And sadly, the reality is that the world is full of dumasses and even worse dumbass leaders! This especially pisses me off because I have pledged to defend the constitution of my home, yet regardless of what I believe, I am forced to obey the political morons in office (not mentioning any names because I am still under oath). And to be perfectly honest, there is never an assassin around when you need one because we need to rid the world of certain dumbasses and learn to live in ***** peace!
    • Tarnum, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3You are right to love Iran, a great country. It's a shame that it is burdened with a ultra-conservative moron for a leader and half the population are uneducated religious fools.
      Ops, my English is not very good, do you talk about Iran or the US?
      • raisputin3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1hehe, I think he was talking about the US, but I can fix yor comment...

        You are right to love US, a great country. It's a shame that it is burdened with a ultra-conservative moron for a leader and half the population are uneducated religious fools.

        there ya go, fixed it right up
    • raisputin3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You don't have to obey them at all...Just say no, make a stand, if you have to go to jail, well at least you know you went to jail for what you believe in. If they make illegal orders, you are not compelled to follow them anyway
      • RedX117, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Its not exactly that simple. I mean sure, it would be the honorable thing to do, but let me ask you this: would you defy your superiors knowing you could face a court martial, prison time, loss of rank and pay, and being discharged from your career? How would I support myself and my family without income while I am in prison? How would I ever find another good career with the words "Dishonorably discharged" written all over my applications? How could I recover all the lost time and effort invested into theat career? I have studied and am still studying and training to further my career as an aerospace engineer for the Air Force. So what am I supposed to do when given the option to carry out my job or throw it all away? Not that simple...
  • biznite, on 10/10/2007, -14/+11While we all probably agree that the Iraq war has been a fiasco to say the least, the reality of Iran with a Nuke program is unacceptable for several reasons.

    1. Their declared intentions of wiping Israel off the map
    2. The risk of Nuclear Proliferation via:
    a.) Their unstable government
    b.) Their funding and support of anti-American, anti-West terrorist organizations
    3. The threat of a Regional Arms Race in the Middle East (god knows they need more weapons)
    4. Their ability to bully the US and any other major power in the region, effectively shutting the US out of Middle Eastern affairs which are key to our energy security

    I mean...the list is endless, but hopefully we won't allow our fear of intervention sparked by the failure in Iraq block our ability to act on the World Stage when it is truly necessary.
    • thewatchman, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4two quotes: "the Iraq war has been a fiasco" and "the failure in Iraq"
      After WWII, Germany and Japan took their lumps (and American aid) and went on to become economic power-houses with stable govts and productive citizenry. There is no American failure in Iraq. Five years later, the Iraqis are still unable to govern themselves. That's not the fault of the U.S. There is something wrong with the Iraqi people (and by extension their immediate neighbors).
      • agentVivid, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3keep in mind it took Germany a hell of a lot longer to 'stabilize' -- the wall didn't fall until the late 80's
      • chicofaraby, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4WW2 was a real war, not an illegal invasion of a country that never attacked us.

        Remember?
        • pirloui, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Exactly. Thank you. Internet gives a scary view on the "publics" level of... ignorance...
    • arnoldrimmer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Sorry if i read this here maybe even Europe should start funding Anti American things.
    • ATHEISTinHELL, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I agree Iran should never have nukes with their crazy ass leader. But Israel has like more than 100 nukes. So Aqua-Velva-Jad better be careful about the whole wiping Israel off that map talk until he has at least one nuke.
    • Infinite84, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3He did not express intrest in "wiping Israel off the map" that was a deliberate mistranslation to boost support for military action against them by the Mossad connected MEMRI. The accurate intepretation of what he said is "The Imam said that the regime that occupies Jerusalem must be erased from the pages of history"
      • foopirata, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Really? Is MEMRI controlling IRIB, the Iranian Broadcasting something-or-another?
        2005/10/26
        Ahmadinejad: Israel must be wiped off the map
        http://www.iribnews.ir/Full_en.asp?news_id=200247
        • firstprimate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0It was a mis-translation. It does not matter who made the mistake. Those of you who wish to assume that it was true, even though you know the truth as you obviously do, are doing so in an effort to start a war. You should be ashamed of yourself.

        • foopirata, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Really. So the official translators of the Iranian republic don't know...farsi?
          Wow. That's quite the accomplishment for the Iranian Republic eh?
        • firstprimate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Did you ever stop to consider that it's their English that caused the problem? Dumbass.

          • foopirata, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Don't you think in that case that, oh, i don't know, 2 ***** YEARS after the fact they would have corrected it? So they're a nation of illiterate dumbasses? If so...I know where you came from.
  • kaiser44, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Saudi Arabia and Jordan and Egypt, along with the Israel and the U.S. have already decided that Iran will not have nuclear weapons.
    They program will be destroyed by the U.S. before G.bush leaves office in 18 months.
    It is pretty much a done deal.
    The U.S will take the lead and we will take out and cripple what ever we can, We are doing it at the behest of the above mentioned countries.
    Israel would do it, but the U.S. will step in like always and do what it believes is in it's best interest.
    So hold on to your seats kids, we are in for a bumpy flight.
  • archer75, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6The EU isn't happy about Iran having nukes either. The US is most certainly not alone in this. If anything I think the EU is more worked up about this than the US.
  • thewatchman, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3if the Allies had gutted Hitler in the late '30s, 40 million people needn't have died... Islam and the secular govts of the West are irreconcilable, they cannot co-exist. One will eventually consume the other. WW3 can't be avoided, only delayed. The longer it's delayed, the more people will die.
    • supermanred, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They've managed to sort of co-exist for thousands of years, mind you the odd war here and there but we'll work it out. You want to see how it works? Visit Canada.
  • rento, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Iran I am so glad you have reached your target, honestly well done mate. So.. what are you going to do with it? Yeah I mean is great for the news but you cant really show it off to friends, like in a party. I mean, isn't that boring? A mass destructive quantity of toxic material, wooooooo that's so 1980s. Were you trying to impress your friends, hay? Oh well, never mind, well done mate! Pity is just boring...
    • jorkk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1stop typing with that accent

      its really annoying
  • BioTeq, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3Well... it was nice while it lasted... for once I have to say, I'm all for Bush, I will be truly happy to see the 10 000+ rockets and bombs sending those a**holes back to the stoneage. If the clash of cultures has to be resolved with war, better now, then when they actually have the bomb and rockets to attach it to.
    • pirloui, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Now, what did Iran do to you to deserve so much hate?
      Assholes?
      Let's see. You're the one who want to kill millions of innocent civilians.
      Please pretty please tell me us the cause of your hatred.
  • AUmrysh, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Wow, this got really nasty, really quick. If the idea pisses you off so much, why don't you start some riots when it really goes down? Give me a time, place, and date, and I will be there.
    • Infinite84, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Why do you think Bush has signed all those executive orders for a military dictatorship to be established if something like that goes down?
    • bdbr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That would require several hours away from Digg.

      (This is sarcasm BTW; I'm not one of the "pissed off" ones that is happy to see Ahmadinejad thumbing his nose to the UN.
  • Akiha_Tohno, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Iran isn't nearly as bad as the media makes it out to be, but lets be realistic people... it's not saintly either. Iran has done its fair share of shady things just like everybody else. Not that I can say anything for sure about their intentions, but playing the victim in a situation can be a benefit to some, and its the attitude that's been adopted quite a lot lately around the world.
  • crapatastic, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Seriously Digg. This sensationalist ***** has to stop. I have long stopped coming here day to day, instead glancing at the headlines from popurls. Digg has become just as bad as Fox, CNN and every other media outlet. And you can't blame it on the man, it's a community driven forum.

    /off I go to find ways to block this crap.
    //No ignorance, just tired of the BS knee jerk responses round here.
  • nytel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1In the mean time Russia does not want the US to have a missle defense system in Europe.
    • supermanred, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Maybe Russia should pre-emptive strike US targets in Europe? Blow up a few US bases, I mean if its okay to kill Iranians isnt it okay to kill Americans? Or wait, how many Iranian dead children equals one American dead child... hmmm I don't know what twisted thoughts are in these peoples minds when they say "Yeah nuke em" or "Bomb them to the stone age"

      You keep pissing off the WORLD and you know what, eventually they strike back. If you don't believe me google "World War 2" or "Nazi Germany" and learn about what happens to a country that pisses off most of the world. THEY get bombed to the stone age.
  • VermiciousKnid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5A little saying comes to mind:
    "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

    • pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2wrong, it's "fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again"
    • sedawknawk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The UN is pretty easy to fool.
  • Willravel, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3When they build nuclear power plants, they can export more oil and electricity. It's called opportunity cost. They will get more profit for less work, assuming the US won't carpet bomb Tehran before Bush leaves office. So long as Iran doesn't continue to enrich their nuclear material (reactor grade, or the goal of the Iranians, is about 3-4%... weapons grade is 90%, just to give you an idea of how terribly far they are from weapons grade), they should be left to use nuclear power. They are free to do that. It's 100% legal for non-prolifs to use nuclear power.
    • firstprimate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0And in a single post you have managed to show how ignorant Americans are. I bet the number of Americans that were aware of the above is vanishingly small. I also bet that after reading the above the number of Americans who understand it's implications is vanishingly small.
      • Willravel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I'm an American. Born and raised. Some people are smart, some dumb. Some people lead and some are led. There's no need to stereotype. Don't forget that 51% of us voted against Bush.
  • wil2200, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0news from the MSM - why am i having such a difficult time believing this, conveniently when congress is about to resume, bush is in australia, some sort of report is due and the Red Cross is asking war crime questions
  • bsmeteronhigh, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Well, I think we need to ask a big question. How is their nuke power plant coming along and are the electrical transmission wires in place? Cause if they're claiming that this is for peaceful purposes, that infrastructure construction should be underway. I know they've been late in paying Russia for the power plant. Who knows about the electric lines?
    • dibbler, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Do you honestly think that if there was no transmission infrastructure in place you wouldn't have heard about it?
    • Todamont, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Maybe if Iran wanted nuclear power they could build a light-water reactor... You know, the modern kind that produces way more electricity and no fissionable material...They don't seem to be so interested in that for some reason...
  • sedawknawk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Ah, but the UN will come through as usual, won't they???
  • xombiefarts, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3More power to them.
  • Badtastic, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3*cough*
    It's no secret Bush was completely wrong about Iraq which may explain why he's fallen prey to the old fable of the boy who called wolf all too many times thus ending up as the fool that no one took seriously. If you think he's unpopular now, just wait and see what happens that sickening morning when we realize the Iranians now command an arsenal of long-range (now nuclear) Shahab missiles they actually intend to use. Read the following and connect the dots: http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/060523a.aspx

    Nothing stings more than a missed opportunity + Better the ape of a president you know than the nuclear-armed, Farsi-speaking psycho you don't.
    • dibbler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You do realise that Ahmedinejad's belief in the return of the Hidden Imam is as much a tenet of Shia Islam as the Christian belief in the return of the Messiah?
      • Badtastic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yes, I'm aware of that but the crucial difference here between Christians fundamentalists and fanatical Muslims either Sunni (wahabbi rag-headed) or Shia (turban-headed) is that Christians (no matter how excrement-headed) aren't prone to employing suicidal Jihadi tactics.
        Add a little nuclear sauce to the Jihadi mix and.... *poof* Nice knowing you..
  • fLUx1337, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1aka.....hahaha, Bush, you dare....
  • 911cartoon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1buried as propaganda
  • jlhoben, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Fear = war = profits
  • caponumen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Meanwhile Iran laughing sitting on those shiny new Russian nukes......
  • supermanred, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11. Kill hundreds of thousands of Iranians.
    2. ?
    3. Profit!

    What are you guys? The Nuclear Underwear Gnomes?
  • spyd3rweb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The russians having 1000's of nukes didnt seem to be such a big problem, how is iran having ONE this giant problem?
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.