Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17236549

That's agreeable. I'd rather let Iran condemn itself first before we bomb the crap out of it.

There should be a nuclear-free Middle-East and that would include Israel's nuclear missiles at Dimona. Any pre-emptive attack by Israel on Iran would be illegal and classed as terrorism in my book

Heh, I must have been more tired than I thought last night.

*smh at thread title*

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Heh, I must have been more tired than I thought last night.

*smh at thread title*


Don't sweat it. After all people have always been warned against judging books solely for what is seen on their covers.

"At a time when there is not a lot of sympathy for Iran and its only real ally is on the ropes, do we want a distraction in which suddenly Iran can portray itself as a victim?"

In other words they're looking for the excuse. When was the last time Iran started a war against someone? And yet they're concidering bombing it for having a peaceful nuclear program while other countries got sh!tload of nuclear bombs they're willing to use and noone gives a crap. Keeping that in mind gotta say - Iran IS the victim here...

Until their president starts talking about "wiping Israel off the map."

And him talking about that is a problem... why? They're constantly talking about bombing Iran. Dont even get me started on what they actually DO while in Iran's case its just empty treats. If we were to bomb countries every time the leaders said something threatening Israel wouldn't have made it into 50s. Neither would most other countries.

Originally posted by SamZED
"At a time when there is not a lot of sympathy for Iran and its only real ally is on the ropes, do we want a distraction in which suddenly Iran can portray itself as a victim?"

In other words they're looking for the excuse. When was the last time Iran started a war against someone? And yet they're concidering bombing it for having a peaceful nuclear program while other countries got sh!tload of nuclear bombs they're willing to use and noone gives a crap. Keeping that in mind gotta say - Iran IS the victim here...
exactly,Iran isnt a threat to us,Israel on the other hand is a threat to many nations including us.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Until their president starts talking about "wiping Israel off the map."

thats what our president needs to start talking.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
exactly,Iran isnt a threat to us,Israel on the other hand is a threat to many nations including us. You mean from economics point of view? Threat to US I mean.

WTF is wrong with Iran?!
No, not with Iran, but with rabid psychopathic government.

Their biggest enemy is NOT, I repeat is NOT Israel...it's Saudi Arabia. They better wake the hell up or there will be mushroom clouds left right and centre over there.

Originally posted by SamZED
"At a time when there is not a lot of sympathy for Iran and its only real ally is on the ropes, do we want a distraction in which suddenly Iran can portray itself as a victim?"

In other words they're looking for the excuse. When was the last time Iran started a war against someone? And yet they're concidering bombing it for having a peaceful nuclear program while other countries got sh!tload of nuclear bombs they're willing to use and noone gives a crap. Keeping that in mind gotta say - Iran IS the victim here...
If Iran is a victim, they're not doing anything to help it.

Iran is like Brucie.

Do people troll Brucie? Yeah. But does he bring a lot of it on himself? Lol you tell me.

To act like it's as simple as "Western nations bullying Iran" or "Evil Iranians must be stopped before they commit a second Holocaust" is just silly.

The whole Iranian situation is probably the greatest current example of multi-level foreign policy stupidity.

ecP9xzRWywA

Originally posted by Omega Vision
If Iran is a victim, they're not doing anything to help it.

Iran is like Brucie.

Do people troll Brucie? Yeah. But does he bring a lot of it on himself? Lol you tell me.

To act like it's as simple as "Western nations bullying Iran" or "Evil Iranians must be stopped before they commit a second Holocaust" is just silly.

The whole Iranian situation is probably the greatest current example of multi-level foreign policy stupidity. Agreed. It's not black'n'white of course. Never is when it comes to int relations.

Originally posted by SamZED
Agreed. It's not black'n'white of course. Never is when it comes to int relations.
Just remember...Iran is Brucie.

Don't you kind of hope someone bombs them now? biscuits

Lol kinda

I think the line about Iran's nuclear program being "purely" peaceful is a load of crap.

I do think that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon, but not for the purpose of "wiping Israel off the map". I agree with Ron Paul on this, Iran is definitely getting a nuke because they feel threatened.

I don't think Israel needs American help if it actually comes to a nuclear conflict. There's no way that Iran can match Israel's nuclear arsenal (estimated at being between 50-300 warheads IIRC) within the foreseeable future.

If Iran attacks Israel with a nuke Israel will be the one to wipe Iran off the map, figuratively of course.

LoL, like some people here need an excuse to hate on Israel.

If Israel attacks Iran first on the premise that Israel is destroying Iran's nuclear-weapon potential, then Israel is a bully and a terrorist.

If Israel waits idly and watches Iran develop a nuclear program and then a mushroom cloud erupts in down-town Tel Aviv, then too bad, Israel still deserved it.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think the line about Iran's nuclear program being "purely" peaceful is a load of crap.

I do think that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon, but not for the purpose of "wiping Israel off the map". I agree with Ron Paul on this, Iran is definitely getting a nuke because they feel threatened.

I don't think Israel needs American help if it actually comes to a nuclear conflict. There's no way that Iran can match Israel's nuclear arsenal (estimated at being between 50-300 warheads IIRC) within the foreseeable future.

If Iran attacks Israel with a nuke Israel will be the one to wipe Iran off the map, figuratively of course.

I agree to a point. The consequences of a nuclear exchange in the middle east is direr for the rest of the world. That is why it is important to do whatever is needed to make sure that never happens. Remember that nuclear fallout can encircle the Earth.

Originally posted by SamZED
You mean from economics point of view? Threat to US I mean.

No I mean from the view of they control our government now.the majority of congress is bought off and paid for.watch this video,clcik on at the bottom where it says OBAMAS BONDAGE TO BIBI.watch how obama lets the prime minister of israel rule the roost at the white house and how obama is clearly angry at it all and how at the end,everyone in congress stands up applauds israels prime minister.they are all bouth off and paid for by israel.we cannot be a free country again where the government serves us instead of us serving the government like we do now until we get rid of the zionest hold on congress.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
No I mean from the view of they control our government now.the majority of congress is bought off and paid for.watch this video,clcik on at the bottom where it says OBAMAS BONDAGE TO BIBI.watch how obama lets the prime minister of israel rule the roost at the white house and how obama is clearly angry at it all and how at the end,everyone in congress stands up applauds israels prime minister.they are all bouth off and paid for by israel.we cannot be a free country again where the government serves us instead of us serving the government like we do now until we get rid of the zionest hold on congress.

If American politicians are being "paid off" by Israel, then countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Indonesia and even Egypt could afford to pay them more to be anti-Israeli.

Originally posted by Robtard
If American politicians are being "paid off" by Israel, then countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Indonesia and even Egypt could afford to pay them more to be anti-Israeli.

Stop using logic, then it makes more sense.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Remember that nuclear fallout can encircle the Earth.
That was from a 50s B Sci Fi Movie, it has no basis in real science.

Edit: According to a neighbor Netanyahu is chilling on the beach thirty minutes from my home right now.

I should wipe his sandcastle off the face of the Emerald Coast.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
That was from a 50s B Sci Fi Movie, it has no basis in real science....

Not science fiction at all. Just look up chernobyl. A modern nuclear weapon is far deadlier.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Not science fiction at all. Just look up chernobyl. A modern nuclear weapon is far deadlier.
That circled around the Earth?

The fallout from one nuclear weapon IS NOT going to cause a global environmental catastrophe.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
That circled around the Earth?

The fallout from one nuclear weapon IS NOT going to cause a global environmental catastrophe.

Sorry, but you wrong. Even the fallout from chernobyl circled around the Earth.

Look it up, and prove me wrong.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sorry, but you wrong. Even the fallout from chernobyl circled around the Earth.

Look it up, and prove me wrong.
All I can find is that cesium was found in high quantities in Western European plants...that's hardly circling the Earth.

Why don't you provide some evidence for your claim instead of trying to shunt the burden of negative proof on me?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
All I can find is that cesium was found in high quantities in Western European plants...that's hardly circling the Earth.

Why don't you provide some evidence for your claim instead of trying to shunt the burden of negative proof on me?

I'm not the one hinting at "It's ok to drop a couple nukes here and there. It will not hurt the rest of us". I didn't think I needed to prove that nukes are bad and are a threat to all of us.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm not the one hinting at "It's ok to drop a couple nukes here and there. It will not hurt the rest of us". I didn't think I needed to prove that nukes are bad and are a threat to all of us.
I'm not saying that at all. Strawman much?

And I'm not asking you to substantiate that nukes are or aren't bad, I'm asking you to substantiate a specific claim that fallout from a single nuclear weapon can "circle the Earth"

Chernobyl is hardly a good approximation anyway, meltdowns and atomic weapons are vastly different processes.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Even the fallout from chernobyl circled around the Earth.

So? Even if that's true (and it wouldn't surprise me) Chernobyl didn't cause worldwide environmental damage.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So? Even if that's true (and it wouldn't surprise me) Chernobyl didn't cause worldwide environmental damage.
But...cesium in flowers and stuff!

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'm not saying that at all. Strawman much?

And I'm not asking you to substantiate that nukes are or aren't bad, I'm asking you to substantiate a specific claim that fallout from a single nuclear weapon can "circle the Earth"

Chernobyl is hardly a good approximation anyway, meltdowns and atomic weapons are vastly different processes.

I don't need too, also there is no data. There have only been two nukes dropped onto cities ever in history. Those two were firer crackers compared to modern nukes. I use the closest analogy I can. Was chernobyl safe for the world? No. The fallout from a modern nuke is far more then chernobyl.

We are now back to were we started. If chernobyl's radiation went around the world, then a nuke in the middle east puts us all in danger.

"The spread of radioactive contaminates into the atmosphere from the Chernobyl accident was eventually detected all over the world"

http://users.owt.com/smsrpm/Chernobyl/glbrad.html

Just google it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't need too, also there is no data. There have only been two nukes dropped onto cities ever in history. Those two were firer crackers compared to modern nukes. I use the closest analogy I can. Was chernobyl safe for the world? No. The fallout from a modern nuke is far more then chernobyl.

We are now back to were we started. If chernobyl's radiation went around the world, then a nuke in the middle east puts us all in danger.

"The spread of radioactive contaminates into the atmosphere from the Chernobyl accident was eventually detected all over the world"

http://users.owt.com/smsrpm/Chernobyl/glbrad.html

Just google it.
There have been many bomb tests though, many of them much larger than Hiroshima

And from what little I understand of nuclear weapons, larger bombs can actually have less fallout than smaller ones due to the high energy generating cleaner fusion reactions.

Detected over the world means what? Like...is that supposed to chill me? Does hearing a gunshot kill you?

Edit: From your article: "Within a few weeks the radioactive effluents had both diffused and decay to undetectable levels."

Originally posted by Omega Vision
There have been many bomb tests though, many of them much larger than Hiroshima and much larger than Chernobyl.

And from what little I understand of nuclear weapons, larger bombs can actually have less fallout than smaller ones due to the high energy generating cleaner fusion reactions.

Detected over the world means what? Like...is that supposed to chill me? Does hearing a gunshot kill you?

Edit: From your article: "Within a few weeks the radioactive effluents had both diffused and decay to undetectable levels."

Then we should just bomb Iran into the ground?

Nukes are safe!



Get real...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then we should just bomb Iran into the ground?

Nukes are safe!



Get real...
Point to any place where I said that or admit that you're strawmanning me. Or just continue what you're doing.

Edit: has it ever occurred to you that I might oppose bombing Iran even if I thought that the bombings wouldn't adversely effect me personally in any real way?

Like, are you opposed to nuking Iran only because you're concerned that the radiation might contaminate your drinking water or lower your sperm count?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The fallout from a modern nuke is far more then chernobyl.

They really can't be compared given that they create very different sets of isotopes. Just for example nuclear bombs, IIRC, produce contaminants with much shorter half lives.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
a nuke in the middle east puts us all in danger.

Because it would probably be the opening shot of a war.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
"The spread of radioactive contaminates into the atmosphere from the Chernobyl accident was eventually detected all over the world"

http://users.owt.com/smsrpm/Chernobyl/glbrad.html

Just google it.

Like a lot of people you vastly underestimate our ability to detect radiation. We can detect things like concentrations of uranium down to it naturally occurring levels in soil, only a few hundred parts per billion. The fact that scientists can detect something doesn't mean its present in a meaningful quantity.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Point to any place where I said that or admit that you're strawmanning me. Or just continue what you're doing.

Why?

I no longer understand your point. You seem to contradict yourself. You seem to be against nukes, but then say "And from what little I understand of nuclear weapons, larger bombs can actually have less fallout than smaller ones due to the high energy generating cleaner fusion reactions."

Make your self clear or I will end this conversation.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why?

I no longer understand your point. You seem to contradict yourself. You seem to be against nukes, but then say "And from what little I understand of nuclear weapons, larger bombs can actually have less fallout than smaller ones due to the high energy generating cleaner fusion reactions."

Make your self clear or I will end this conversation.
I agree nuclear weapons are dangerous. I'm highly skeptical of your understanding of how fallout works and don't agree that a nuke in the Middle East can pose a significant health risk to someone on the other side of the planet.

I'm not contradicting myself, you just can't seem to understand that being anti-Nuclear weapons doesn't require personal imperilment.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why?

I no longer understand your point. You seem to contradict yourself. You seem to be against nukes, but then say "And from what little I understand of nuclear weapons, larger bombs can actually have less fallout than smaller ones due to the high energy generating cleaner fusion reactions."

Make your self clear or I will end this conversation.

Do you think the only bad thing about nuclear bombs in radioactive fallout or something? Maybe he's thinking about the millions of people would be killed by the explosion if it went off in a major city. Seems like he's being a better Buddhist than you, what with caring about the lives of others.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Do you think the only bad thing about nuclear bombs in radioactive fallout or something? Maybe he's thinking about the millions of people would be killed by the explosion if it went off in a major city.
Bingo.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Do you think the only bad thing about nuclear bombs in radioactive fallout or something? Maybe he's thinking about the millions of people would be killed by the explosion if it went off in a major city. Seems like he's being a better Buddhist than you, what with caring about the lives of others.

wtf are you talking about?

I said:

"I agree to a point. The consequences of a nuclear exchange in the middle east is direr for the rest of the world. That is why it is important to do whatever is needed to make sure that never happens. Remember that nuclear fallout can encircle the Earth."

What in the world does that have to do with what you said?

Did you not read anything I posted?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I agree nuclear weapons are dangerous. I'm highly skeptical of your understanding of how fallout works and don't agree that a nuke in the Middle East can pose a significant health risk to someone on the other side of the planet.

I'm not contradicting myself, you just can't seem to understand that being anti-Nuclear weapons doesn't require personal imperilment.

I disagree, plan and simple. You haven't given anything but your opinion.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/05/netanyahu-obama-israel-white-house

^ 51%? Damn that's close. I've got to think that many of them, perhaps as much as a quarter of that number would be swayed if Iran pulls another stunt.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I disagree, plan and simple. You haven't given anything but your opinion.
And what have you offered to support your position that a nuclear exchange in the Middle East would have deep ecological effects on the entire world?

You're the one making a claim here, I'm occupying the position of the skeptic.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
And what have you offered to support your position that a nuclear exchange in the Middle East would have deep ecological effects on the entire world?

You're the one making a claim here, I'm occupying the position of the skeptic.

If I am wrong, then what is the issue?

If I am right, then what is the issue?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If I am wrong, then what is the issue?

If I am right, then what is the issue?
If you're wrong, then you need another argument against nuking Iran that isn't quite so Hobbesian since there's no direct danger to America.

If you're right, then you're still only against nuclear war for the apparent reason that you think it might effect you directly if a nuke goes off 5000 miles away.

(spoiler alert: you're wrong and you don't understand how fallout works and that detecting trace amounts of radiation and a public health risk are two different things)

Originally posted by Omega Vision
^ 51%? Damn that's close. I've got to think that many of them, perhaps as much as a quarter of that number would be swayed if Iran pulls another stunt.

I'm not so sure. The American public has a tendency to get tired of war. That number might stay fairly steady unless Iran does something outlandish.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
wtf are you talking about?

I said:

"I agree to a point. The consequences of a nuclear exchange in the middle east is direr for the rest of the world. That is why it is important to do whatever is needed to make sure that never happens. Remember that nuclear fallout can encircle the Earth."

What in the world does that have to do with what you said?

Did you not read anything I posted?

I think the reason a nuclear war in the Middle East is a bad thing is because millions of people will be killed, not because the radiation levels by my house will rise by a fraction of a percent. I realize that on the internet such anti-Libertarian thinking is frowned on but I'm always amazed when it fairs to even occur to people

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm not so sure. The American public has a tendency to get tired of war. That number might stay fairly steady unless Iran does something outlandish.


Firing Christian babies at Israel with giant mortars.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
If you're wrong, then you need another argument against nuking Iran that isn't quite so Hobbesian since there's no direct danger to America.

If you're right, then you're still only against nuclear war for the apparent reason that you think it might effect you directly if a nuke goes off 5000 miles away.

(spoiler alert: you're wrong and you don't understand how fallout works and that detecting trace amounts of radiation and a public health risk are two different things)

1. wtf

No wonder you are not making any sense. I never said anything about nuking Iran. I am also against nuclear war because, like all war, people die. I only added fallout to show it can effect all of us, just in case you are one of those people who don't give a damn. I made no point about the US and or its safety. I care about everyone who would be killed.

Sense the US will be safe, in your opinion, why don't we just nuke Iran?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think the reason a nuclear war in the Middle East is a bad thing is because millions of people will be killed, not because the radiation levels by my house will rise by a fraction of a percent. I realize that on the internet such anti-Libertarian thinking is frowned on but I'm always amazed when it fairs to even occur to people

What does that have to do with anything i have said? I never said "The only reason is..."

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
1. wtf

No wonder you are not making any sense. I never said anything about nuking Iran. I am also against nuclear war because, like all war, people die. I only added fallout to show it can effect all of us, just in case you are one of those people who don't give a damn. I made no point about the US and or its safety. I care about everyone who would be killed.

Sense the US will be safe, in your opinion, why don't we just nuke Iran?
Lol how do you still not get this point?

Because killing millions of people is bad, m'kay. You don't need to concoct some fiction about fallout encompassing the biosphere.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Lol how do you still not get this point?

Because killing millions of people is bad, m'kay.

What point? I think you are just being a troll.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What point? I think you are just being a troll.
The point that disagreeing with your notion of the effects of fallout and the real impact of a ME nuclear exchange doesn't mean I don't think there are compelling reasons against such a conflict.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The point that disagreeing with your notion of the effects of fallout and the real impact of a ME nuclear exchange doesn't mean I don't think there are compelling reasons against such a conflict.

But you have not proved me wrong.

A modern hydrogen bomb can spread fallout around the world.

Show me proof that is wrong, or shut up.

Fin!

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But you have not proved me wrong.

A modern hydrogen bomb can spread fallout around the world.

Show me proof that is wrong, or shut up.

Fin!
Negative proof fallacy.

Present evidence for your claim before asking for counter-evidence. That's just a basic issue of logic.

For instance, if you want me to disprove the existence of an invisible green man I must have reason, such as there being evidence FOR the existence of such a man.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Negative proof fallacy.

Present evidence for your claim before asking for counter-evidence. That's just a basic issue of logic.

For instance, if you want me to disprove the existence of an invisible green man I must have reason, such as there being evidence FOR the existence of such a man.

Do winds circle the Earth? Yes

Can atomic blasts shoot radiation into the upper atmosphere? Yes

Are the nukes today far more powerful then those tested in the past? Yes

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do winds circle the Earth? Yes

Can atomic blasts shoot radiation into the upper atmosphere? Yes

Are the nukes today far more powerful then those tested in the past? Yes


Is this supposed to be a scientific argument?

If so you may want to dig up some more data, I think you'd be surprised at how complicated this issue is, far more than you give it credit.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Is this supposed to be a scientific argument?

What? I think you are avoiding my argument.

Can a nuclear blast spread fallout around the Earth?

I say it can, what do you say?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What? I think you are avoiding my argument.

Can a nuclear blast spread fallout around the Earth?

I say it can, what do you say?
Again, negative proof fallacy.

Why should I go out of my way digging up real counter evidence to your claims if you're not going to take the initiative and dig up real evidence to support the initial claim this whole argument is based on?

You understand the principal of negative proof don't you? That it makes no sense to go collecting data against the existence of something that hasn't been substantiated in the first place?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Again, negative proof fallacy.

Why should I go out of my way digging up real counter evidence to your claims if you're not going to take the initiative and dig up real evidence to support the initial claim this whole argument is based on?

You understand the principal of negative proof don't you? That it makes no sense to go collecting data against the existence of something that hasn't been substantiated in the first place?

There is no negative proof here. I asked your personal opinion.

Why should you go out of your way at all? Why have you hounded me for the last few pages?

Again, there is no proof. Just answer the question.

Unless you have scientific proof that supports that claim, no one really cares about what you have to say.

Nobody should be nuking anybody. Especially not Iran.

I am almost 100% positive that Persians will raise again and shake off this terrible government once and for all and figure out they're not a savage cave people, but Persians. Once the most enlightened civilization on the planet now stands at a brink of a nuclear war.

It's just mind boggling how hundreds of years of indoctrination can put glorious Persia back to stone age.
Iranians better fix this mess before everyone suffers.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Unless you have scientific proof that supports that claim, no one really cares about what you have to say.

That is not true. Omega Vision obviously cares beyond belief.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is not true. Omega Vision obviously cares beyond belief.
come on now, let's not project

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Nobody should be nuking anybody. Especially not Iran.

I am almost 100% positive that Persians will raise again and shake off this terrible government once and for all and figure out they're not a savage cave people, but Persians. Once the most enlightened civilization on the planet now stands at a brink of a nuclear war.

It's just mind boggling how hundreds of years of indoctrination can put glorious Persia back to stone age.
Iranians better fix this mess before everyone suffers.
Everything I've read about Persian history suggests that it was a mixed bag as much as Ancient Greece or Rome. Yeah there were some great achievements and in certain areas they were probably more enlightened than modern day America, but let's not whitewash.

Edit: Also I've heard that Iranians have disliked being called Persians for centuries, since Persia only refers to a small part of Iran.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
come on now, let's not project

Answer my question, please.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Answer my question, please.
Which one?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Which one?

OK, go away troll.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
OK, go away troll.
No, I'm serious. Which question?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
No, I'm serious. Which question?

OK, I will give you one more chance.

Can a nuclear blast spread fallout around the Earth?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
come on now, let's not project


Everything I've read about Persian history suggests that it was a mixed bag as much as Ancient Greece or Rome. Yeah there were some great achievements and in certain areas they were probably more enlightened than modern day America, but let's not whitewash.

Edit: Also I've heard that Iranians have disliked being called Persians for centuries, since Persia only refers to a small part of Iran.

I wouldn't call them more enlightened than today's America. That cannot be compared for so many reasons.

Many Persians generally don't mind being called Persians as it associates them with Cyrus the Great. And I am yet to meet a Persian who dislikes being associate with Cyrus the Great. Besides, Land of the Aryans aka Iran is the correct usage, it is associated with today's psychopathic rabid government, so we shall use the other name for those very reasons.

Persia was one of the greatest civilizations on this planet, regardless. Besides, we owe the first human rights deceleration to the Persians...

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I wouldn't call them more enlightened than today's America. That cannot be compared for so many reasons.

Many Persians generally don't mind being called Persians as it associates them with Cyrus the Great. And I am yet to meet a Persian who dislikes being associate with Cyrus the Great. Besides, Land of the Aryans aka Iran is the correct usage, it is associated with today's psychopathic rabid government, so we shall use the other name for those very reasons.

Persia was one of the greatest civilizations on this planet, regardless. Besides, we owe the first human rights deceleration to the Persians...
It holds the record for percentage of the human population at any given time, at one point 45% of the world were Persians.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
It holds the record for percentage of the human population at any given time, at one point 45% of the world were Persians.


If I were good at maths, I'd totally try to work out what's the possibility of everyone having some Persian blood.

But I'm so poor at it.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
It holds the record for percentage of the human population at any given time, at one point 45% of the world were Persians.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/03_02/300DM2303_468x257.jpg

Originally posted by Robtard
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/03_02/300DM2303_468x257.jpg

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0a9uvd4Ck1r3vh3g.jpg

Originally posted by Robtard
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/03_02/300DM2303_468x257.jpg

The Persians are DADE! The great Greek King, Maximus Sparticus Leonidas, killed them with his 300 grenades.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness


I wasn't implying Leonidas was a Persian, just that the world being 45% Persians makes him not happy.

Originally posted by Robtard
I wasn't implying Leonidas was a Persian, just that the world being 45% Persians makes him not happy.

I thought you implied they all died and I was like OMFGNOWAILOLBBCCNNALJEZEERA!

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I thought you implied they all died and I was like OMFGNOWAILOLBBCCNNALJEZEERA!

One can only wish the Greeks were more successful.

Originally posted by Robtard
One can only wish the Greeks were more successful.

Meh, Greeks sucked a little at unity back then.

But seriously, I've no logical explanation as to why Iran hates Israel so much.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
No, I'm serious. Which question?

Just proof you were trolling me. You are now on my ignore list.

I think the question is obvious, myself (referring to the Argument between Shakya and OV):

"Can a nuclear blast spread fallout around the Earth?"


The answer is yes. I know this for a fact. Radioactive particles can spread all over earth (along the path, generally, of the jetstream around the area that the blast occurred) after a nuclear blast.


There, argument settled.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think the question is obvious, myself (referring to the Argument between Shakya and OV):

"Can a nuclear blast spread fallout around the Earth?"


The answer is yes. I know this for a fact. Radioactive particles can spread all over earth (along the path, generally, of the jetstream around the area that the blast occurred) after a nuclear blast.


There, argument settled.
I don't think that argument is relevant to what we were really discussing. Or what I was trying to discuss.

What I doubt is that fallout can be spread from a single weapon that has any consequence to people thousands of miles from the source.

His original point was that the consequences would be "dire"...so to say "aha! see! trace amounts can be spread that can be detected if you're looking for them!" validates his original point is moving the goal post.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I don't think that argument is relevant to what we were really discussing. Or what I was trying to discuss.

What I doubt is that fallout can be spread from a single weapon that has any consequence to people thousands of miles from the source.

His original point was that the consequences would be "dire"...so to say "aha! see! trace amounts can be spread that can be detected if you're looking for them!"

Oh, I would agree, there. But I figured I would answer the question at face-value since no satisfaction would ever be gained from either party (and I hate dangling participles...and arguments.)



Obviously...the REAL question is "would such a fallout significantly affect people"? The answer to that is emphatically, "no." You end up experiencing more radiation during a fun outdoor summer day than you will in a life-time from any of the Soviet or US detonated bombs (depending on where you live). That should answer the question in the way you wanted it answered....no?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh, I would agree, there. But I figured I would answer the question at face-value since no satisfaction would ever be gained from either party (and I hate dangling participles...and arguments.)



Obviously...the REAL question is "would such a fallout significantly affect people"? The answer to that is emphatically, "no." You end up experiencing more radiation during a fun outdoor summer day than you will in a life-time from any of the Soviet or US detonated bombs (depending on where you live). That should answer the question in the way you wanted it answered....no?
Flying in an airplane is also worse than most types of modern X-Ray scans, with or without lead aprons, IIRC anyway

Not to mention the scans people do to get on the damn plane to begin with.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
If I were good at maths, I'd totally try to work out what's the possibility of everyone having some Persian blood.

But I'm so poor at it.
I would say 0.

Uncontacted Amazonian tribes ftw awesome

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Flying in an airplane is also worse than most types of modern X-Ray scans, with or without lead aprons, IIRC anyway

Troof. Radiation ain't all that bad. Some suggest that we can thank it for causing evolution.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I would say 0.

Uncontacted Amazonian tribes ftw awesome

For me, percentage is a bit highter. flirt1

Originally posted by dadudemon
Troof. Radiation ain't all that bad. Some suggest that we can thank it for causing evolution. Like who? Magneto?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Troof. Radiation ain't all that bad. Some suggest that we can thank it for causing evolution.

Viruses, dude.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Like who? Magneto?

Pretty much any biologist that strongly subscribes to evolution: radiation causes mutations and it can be part of the evolution process.


I think we are off topic.

Originally posted by Mr Parker

No I mean from the view of they control our government now.the majority of congress is bought off and paid for.watch this video,click on at the bottom where it says OBAMAS BONDAGE TO BIBI.watch how obama lets the prime minister of israel rule the roost at the white house and how obama is clearly angry at it all and how at the end,everyone in congress stands up and applaudes israels prime minister.they are all bought off and paid for by israel.we cannot be a free country again where the government serves us instead of us serving the government like we do now until we get rid of the zionest hold on congress.

I just now noticed the link I thought I posted did not get posted.my bad.Here it is with all that stuff i was talking about above.

http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=693

Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon

http://www.theonion.com/articles/iran-worried-us-might-be-building-8500th-nuclear-w,27325/


Lol

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon

http://www.theonion.com/articles/iran-worried-us-might-be-building-8500th-nuclear-w,27325/


Lol

and they are trying to say Iran is the threat. Did you see that that video below it with the corporate owned media pushing Newt for president?
yeah that would be great,the buddie of slick willie clinton,a mass murderer who once ran our country,a buddie of his running our country.nice.

Did he quote the Onion as a serious news source?

I take it you didn't see or understand the "lol" at the bottom of my post


Its quite funny though how they're so worried about one little nuke. Despite the lack of evidence that their nuclear program is focused solely on obtaining one.

I don't think anyone running for President seriously thinks that Iran is ONLY after a weapon. What they say and what they think (especially for Romney and Gingrich) are two different things.

I think it's fairly clear that Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon, what I disagree with is the idea that (1) it's purpose would be to launch an offensive strike against Israel (if North Korea hasn't nuked South Korea by now then I doubt Iran would be crazier) and (2) that they're not also pursuing legitimate nuclear power.

Rick Santorum seems to think differently.


What do you mean what they say and what they think are two different things?

I mean the GOP is a party that encourages unequivocal statements and absolutist world views.

But people are a bit more complicated than that. Romney and Co can say that Iran is a bloodthirsty savage of a country pursuing nukes to wipe out our "greatest ally" (lulz) but I think even they know that it isn't as simple as that. But admitting that it's more complex than a black-and-white, kill-or-be-killed situation doesn't sound good to the Republican constituency.

I think Romney is the one politician who I think would actually do better than what he says he'll do if elected, since he talks a big game and acts like he's a hard-right neo-con but most analysts agree that he's a detached problem solver that would adopt a flexible approach to meet the needs of a situation. He's too smart to actually buy the BS the Bachmann camp is spinning about the Middle East situation, he's just a consummate politician so he'll nod and clap at it.

Edit: Of course this might be just wishful thinking. He may mean exactly what he says because he's tricked himself into believing it via double think.

You mean Flip Flopney? Who knows what that guy really stands for. If anything he is obama. Both backed by Goldman sachs.


Heres his view on Iran.

Gotta wait for the full interview later today.

http://www.fox19.com/story/17086452/mitt-romney-sits-down-for-a-one-on-one-interview-with-ben




K9njHHyRI7g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf5RSsvClQQ

Originally posted by Mairuzu
You mean Flip Flopney? Who knows what that guy really stands for. If anything he is obama. Both backed by Goldman sachs.


Heres his view on Iran.

Gotta wait for the full interview later today.

http://www.fox19.com/story/17086452/mitt-romney-sits-down-for-a-one-on-one-interview-with-ben




K9njHHyRI7g

Nothing will change if this fraud gets elected.He is a white Obama.Just Like Obummer,He speaks doublespeak.flip flops back and forth on issues.No wonder why he had such a tiny turn out in Michigan.He was caught red handed saying he does not care if Detroit went bankrupt which as you can see from these photos,is why citizens in Michigan have turned to paul and are not fans of Mitt obviously.

http://www.politicalforum.com/elections-campaigns/235136-ron-paul-gets-crowd-mitt-gets-empty-stadium-michigan.html

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon

http://www.theonion.com/articles/iran-worried-us-might-be-building-8500th-nuclear-w,27325/


Lol


Hahahahaa. Funny. Love The Onion.

Soon, it will be over 9000!

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Soon, it will be over 9000!

I thought it was 9000 back in the 50's.

It's a meme joke.