Wiener Zietung (respected Austrian newspaper) has reported that North Korea may have tested nuclear weapons for the Iranians.

3/5/2012 9:31:14 PM

Same shit different country!

We won't get fooled again!

Endless war is fun isn't it?



As George Carlin once said: "It's bullshit and it's bad for you".

[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 2:33 PM. Reason : .]

3/6/2012 2:29:07 PM

I am pleasantly surprised with obama's reluctance to start another war

^^'report' and 'may have' do not belong in the same sentence.

[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 3:00 PM. Reason : .]

3/6/2012 2:58:16 PM

i for one can't wait for the arab/west cold war

3/6/2012 5:31:35 PM

There is one important fact here that I'm pretty sure Obama realizes: Israel wants no part of Iran on it's own. It's not like Israel has been shy in the past when it comes to preemptive strikes. If they had a high degree of confidence in their capability to take out Iran's nuclear facilities on their own, they would have already done it.

The problem is that unlike Syria and Iraq; Iran's reactors and enrichment sites are dug in, well defended, and numerous. They are also more than 1000 miles away from Israel's nearest air base, with mostly unfriendly airspace in-between. 10 planes and one overnight raid isn't going to get the job done. We're talking about an aerial invasion that's much closer to Desert Storm than anything Israel has attempted in the past. Hundreds of planes, midair refueling, and weeks of sustained bombing.

There is really only one military in the world with the air power and experience to pull off something like that "cleanly" with any degree of confidence. Not only would it be a long, expensive, and potentially bloody job for Israel to do alone, it would almost certainly fail in it's objective. Netanyahu and his party has it's own election coming up soon, and the last thing he needs is a spectacular military failure as a bookend for his term.

So basically, Obama knows that Israel is really the one bluffing when it comes to threatening military action against Iran. As long as he doesn't give an overt commitment to back them up if they strike first, Netanyahu will most likely restrain his military. Now, Israel might calculate that Iran will aggressively retaliate in a way that will force our hand to intervene, but that's a very dangerous game. It's more likely that Iran just plays the victim and lets Israel embarrass itself. In my opinion, war is a pretty unlikely outcome at this point.

3/6/2012 6:47:43 PM

Quote :

"This is not a game...If some of these folks think we should launch a war, let them say so, and explain to the American people. -Obama-"

Time will tell if Obama sticks to diplomacy, but I'm liking the backbone

3/6/2012 8:21:30 PM

Ah...it's official...Obama is campaigning again. He's brought the elusive them, they, those others, some people back.

3/6/2012 8:30:50 PM

exactly

This guy has 3 active theaters of war and potentials of a 4th. He sure gives great speeches though.

3/6/2012 8:41:04 PM

^^I think its pretty obvious who he is talking about - every republican thats calling him soft, but the only thing thats going to make him "tougher" is to start dropping bombs . . . . right now. If thats what the republicans want, then they should come out and say so and submit their justification for a pre-emptive strike.

instead all we hear is "He's soft, He's appeasing them, He's not leaving all options on the table, blah blah blah."

3/6/2012 9:44:59 PM

I heard a ridiculous statement by the anchor of some show yesterday who said that a lot of people in America fear that if Iran had a bomb, they would use it on the US.

Really made me want to slap someone.

3/7/2012 10:21:16 AM

either way it's probably fucking shit eating jews in jerusalem that will get the bomb anyways if it does happen

good fucking riddance to that harbinger of horror to this world. if ONLY hitler had gotten the job done the first time we wouldn't have to deal with this fucking shit of persia getting nuclear weapons.


but dude. let's be honest. iran would NEVER use a nuclear bomb let alone create one

3/7/2012 10:31:04 AM

Former Mossad Director: Romney ‘Is Making The Situation Worse’ With Iran

Quote :

"Mitt Romney’s oped in today’s Washington Post claimed — without offering any evidence — that Iran has a “nuclear-bomb program” and that the Islamic Republic is “racing to build a nuclear bomb.” Currently, U.S. intelligence and the IAEA do not believe either of these claims to be true. But Romney’s disregard for the facts was noticed not just in Washington. Former Israeli Mossad director Efraim Halevy said that Romney’s militaristic talk could induce the Iranians to rush to acquire nuclear weapons in order to deter an attack if the former Massachusetts governor were to assume the presidency in January 2013. Halevy warned that Romney is effectively “telling the Iranians, ‘You better be quick about it,’” in an interview with the Huffington Post. Halevy explained: "If I’m sitting here in the month of March 2012 reading this, and I’m an Iranian leader, what do I understand? I have nine more months to run as fast as I can because this is going to be terrible if the other guys get in." Halevy went on to observe, “In the effort to demolish the president [Romney] is making the situation worse.” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said an attack would only delay Iran’s nuclear program and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey warned that military action “could carry unforeseen risks.” The bellicose rhetoric of the campaign trail, which often incorporates accusations that Obama has been insufficiently protective of Israel’s security in the face of an Iranian nuclear threat, has stood in stark contrast to the messages coming out of Israel’s intelligence and security communities. Indeed, the IAEA has expressed concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program but neither U.N. nuclear inspectors nor U.S. intelligence officials have concluded that Iran has restarted its nuclear weapons program. In February, former Israeli intelligence chief Meir Dagan disagreed with the characerization of Iran as an “existential threat” to Israel and current Israeli intelligence chief Tamir Pardo reportedly told a gathering of Israeli ambassadors in December that Iran doesn’t pose an “existential threat” and “the term existential threat is used too freely.” Also in February, Israeli Lt. Gen. Amnon Lipkin-Shahak reported that the Israeli military’s leadership doesn’t support a strike on Iran and the AP disclosed that Israel’s incoming air force chief Maj. Gen. Amir Eshel is “less enthusiastic about a possible attack on Iran” than the current air force chief, according to defense officials. The White House also noticed Romney’s efforts to beat the war drums. Speaking today, Obama challenged Iran-hawks to “explain to the American people exactly why [we should launch a war] and what the consequences would be.” A growing number of defense and intelligence elites in Israel seem to think the costs of war with Iran far outweigh the consequences to the Jewish state."

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/03/06/439217/halevy-romney-is-making-it-worse-iran/?mobile=nc

[Edited on March 7, 2012 at 11:59 PM. Reason : ]

3/7/2012 11:58:55 PM

Quote :

"This guy has 3 active theaters of war and potentials of a 4th."

I count the middle east/CENTCOM, that's one, what are the other 2?

[Edited on March 8, 2012 at 9:33 AM. Reason : .]

3/8/2012 9:32:34 AM

Koprulu Sector

3/8/2012 9:42:21 AM

Report: US offers Israel advanced arms for not attacking Iran

Quote :

"The US has proposed that Israel withhold from waging an assault on Iran till the next presidential term in America in exchange for most advanced weaponry, reports Israeli Maariv newspaper. The proposal was made during the visit of Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu to Washington, the newspaper says, citing unnamed diplomats and intelligence sources. It adds the Americans have offered Israel the latest versions of bunker-busting bombs and aerial tankers to gain tactical advantage over Iran. This would imply Israel’s shelving of plans to attack Iran until 2013. The US diplomats allegedly believe such step would enlarge the “opportunity window” for Israel to try to solve the issue of controversial Iranian nuclear program diplomatically. An Israeli official speaking on condition of anonymity confirmed that the conversation about arms had taken place between Netanyahu and Obama, but said it was Israel that had asked for the weaponry. "Such a request was made" around the time of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to Washington this week, the official was quoted as saying by Reuters. He also said he doubts that Washington placed any conditions on supplying the hardware, such as Israel promising not to attack Iran this year. News of the US possibly supplying Israel with weapons systems suitable for long-range military operations and strikes against fortified underground targets emerged on Tuesday. At that time, however, no conditions connected to the deal were mentioned. Speaking to the Israeli prime minister in the Oval Office on Monday, President Obama once again reaffirmed his personal "unprecedented commitment" to Israel's security. On Wednesday Netanyahu told the Fox News Channel that he does not actually think a war with Iran is inevitable. "The paradox is that if they actually believe that they are going to face the military option, then you probably will not need the military option," Netanyahu said. The sides also discussed new steps to be taken to isolate the Islamic Republic internationally even further. At a media briefing in the White House Obama told journalists that America will apply more pressure on Iran despite the fact that “we provide a door for the Iranian regime to walk through," Obama said. Israel has been stressing for years that the real aim of the Iranian nuclear program is not peaceful energy, but the creation of an atomic bomb, and furthermore, the destruction of the Jewish state. Tehran has consistently denied such allegations, allowing the IAEA to inspect its nuclear facilities in an attempt to prove that its nuclear program is solely peaceful. "

http://rt.com/news/israel-us-advanced-weapons-127/




These weapons will probably be used to bomb the Gaza Strip while the US is busy occupying Iran...

3/8/2012 2:21:19 PM

survival of the fittest is a bitch for the genetically flawed

3/8/2012 2:24:16 PM

and by genetically flawed i mean:

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

3/9/2012 5:11:45 PM

Pretty crazy double standard. So let me get this straight. The world police are offering A the best weapons if they promise not to attack B thugs.

US to IRAN: Disarm and comply or we will fuck you up
US to Israel: Comply or we won't supply you with arms

[Edited on March 9, 2012 at 5:15 PM. Reason : ^survival of the fittest is more about traits and isn't really about particular individuals.]

3/9/2012 5:14:58 PM

The prophet Mohammed married his wife Aisha when she was age 6 and had sex with her when she was age 9.

http://youtu.be/gIIAnTyoVHA

3/9/2012 8:59:06 PM

at least he waited for her to to gain half her age before he banged that. would you wait 10 years if you married a woman who was 20? I don't think so

3/9/2012 9:25:17 PM

Rand Paul blocks Iran sanctions bill

Quote :

"The Senate was about to pass a bi-partisan bill imposing tough sanctions on Iran through "unanimous consent" - that means no floor debate or discussion. But Rand Paul, Kentucky's 'Tea Party' senator, objected, which immediately prevents the easy passage. According to a notice from his office, Paul wants insert an amendment, "that would ensure that nothing in the act shall be construed as a declaration of war or an authorization of the use of force against Iran or Syria, and that any such use of force must be authorized by Congress.""

http://www.businessinsider.com/rand-paul-is-single-handedly-trying-to-prevent-war-with-iran-2012-3#ixzz1qQAwkR4g

3/28/2012 10:19:26 AM

So he held up a sanction to insert an amendment saying, in so many words, "This sanction is a sanction, not a declaration of wars."

In other words, he's completely fine with the sanction, but saw an opportunity to hop on the soap box and masturbate into his own mouth in front of everyone.

[Edited on March 28, 2012 at 10:27 AM. Reason : .]

3/28/2012 10:26:46 AM

It says he's trying to ensure that nothing in the bill could somehow provide authorization for military action.

I wish I knew what part of the bill he's talking about. Can anyone link to the text?

It's too bad there isn't opposition to the sanctions themselves.

[Edited on March 28, 2012 at 10:39 AM. Reason : .]

3/28/2012 10:38:26 AM

Full text here: http://banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Newsroom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=3ecf9a86-fb47-f18a-ee14-1aa86d4a8b07

Nothing in the bill talks specifically about war. That hasn't kept the President from starting wars before.

[Edited on March 28, 2012 at 10:42 AM. Reason : ]

3/28/2012 10:41:28 AM

Up next: Vote to rename post office in Hawaii held up by Rand Paul, details forthcoming...

3/28/2012 10:47:52 AM

lol, just admit you'd have an issue with anything a repub does and get it over with.

3/28/2012 12:56:56 PM

Partisanship has nothing to do with it, a grandstander is a grandstander is a grandstander.

Another excellent example of grandstanding would be the entire Obama 2008 campaign, including all the talk of Gitmo and Single Payer Healthcare and the prompt ending of the wars, etc, etc.

And here's a Republican doing something I very much approve of:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrnRU3ocIH4

[Edited on March 28, 2012 at 1:13 PM. Reason : .]

3/28/2012 1:11:46 PM

Report: U.S. trained terror group

Quote :

" It was here that the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) conducted training, beginning in 2005, for members of the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, a dissident Iranian opposition group known in the West as the M.E.K. . . . The M.E.K.’s ties with Western intelligence deepened after the fall of the Iraqi regime in 2003, and JSOC began operating inside Iran in an effort to substantiate the Bush Administration’s fears that Iran was building the bomb at one or more secret underground locations. Funds were covertly passed to a number of dissident organizations, for intelligence collection and, ultimately, for anti-regime terrorist activities. Directly, or indirectly, the M.E.K. ended up with resources like arms and intelligence. Some American-supported covert operations continue in Iran today, according to past and present intelligence officials and military consultants. Despite the growing ties, and a much-intensified lobbying effort organized by its advocates, M.E.K. has remained on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations – which meant that secrecy was essential in the Nevada training. ”We did train them here, and washed them through the Energy Department because the D.O.E. owns all this land in southern Nevada,” a former senior American intelligence official told me. “We were deploying them over long distances in the desert and mountains, and building their capacity in communications — coördinating commo is a big deal.”"

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/06/report_us_trained_terror_group/singleton/

4/6/2012 4:31:12 PM

^ So that means the US is a rogue/terrorist nation, right?

What else would you call a country that knowingly funds and trains a group that the country ITSELF labels as a terrorist group?

4/6/2012 4:55:10 PM

Quote :

"We at war yet?"

4/6/2012 5:09:10 PM

USS Enterprise is headed to the gulf today. Shit just got real Madrid.

4/9/2012 8:03:18 PM

it was just slated for retirement, so maybe they sent it thinking its expendable?

nothing would get the shit flying into the fan like a damaged or sunk US aircraft carrier...

4/9/2012 8:25:58 PM

Stuff we already knew, but not officially:

Quote :

"The Washington Post has revealed the CIA has been operating stealth surveillance drones deep inside Iran for the last three years in an attempt to uncover evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. In addition, the National Security Agency has ramped up eavesdropping on Iran, and the United States has expanded its network of spies inside Iran’s borders"

https://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/9/headlines#1

4/9/2012 8:47:57 PM

Glad this shit finally came out.
http://rt.com/news/iran-no-nuclear-weapon-990/

Quote :

"Iran has not decided to build a nuclear bomb, says IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz. Nor does he think Tehran will go “the extra mile" to do so. The military chief’s words cut a sharp contrast with the bellicose rhetoric of PM Netanyahu. Israeli Defense Forces Lieutenant General Gantz told Ha'aretz daily that Iran was moving “step by step” to a point where the production of a nuclear weapon would be feasible. However, he says Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei hasn't yet decided “to go the extra mile" to build a nuclear bomb. “If the supreme religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wants, he will advance it to the acquisition of a nuclear bomb, but the decision must first be taken… I don't think he will want to go the extra mile.” Gantz said that Khamenei’s decision to build a nuclear weapon could only be based on the belief that Iran is invulnerable to a response, an unlikely scenario given that the country’s nuclear facilities “are not bomb proof,” making their operations “too vulnerable” to retaliation. And the Iranian leadership is “composed of very rational people,” Gantz said."

/thread

4/27/2012 1:18:50 PM

Iran would be foolish not to acquire a bomb at this point. If their neighbors (with the support of the US) are going to consider pre-emptively striking them....then it's only real chance of defense would be to get a bomb.

4/27/2012 1:45:19 PM

Another one...
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/28/world/meast/israel-iran-criticism/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

4/28/2012 4:57:53 PM

So, once again, Ron Paul was right. Iran is NOT seeking nuclear weapons

5/2/2012 8:15:05 PM

Rush Ron is Right

[Edited on May 2, 2012 at 9:50 PM. Reason : ]

5/2/2012 9:49:58 PM

Quote :

"Iran would be foolish not to acquire a bomb at this point. If their neighbors (with the support of the US) are going to consider pre-emptively striking them....then it's only real chance of defense would be to get a bomb."

This is garbage. By most accounts, the timeline for a preemptive strike would not allow time to develop a bomb, let alone several. This should be obvious. The whole rationale behind such a timeline would be denying the time to build the bomb.

There may be good and cogent reasons for Iran to consider pursuing development (domestic politics, international face-saving, long-term defense), but the immediate threat of intervention is not one of them.

Also, I'll ask -- not for the first time -- how long do we have to go without invading Iran before this thread is revealed for the parcel of horse shit that it is?

5/3/2012 1:14:51 AM

Quote :

"the timeline for a preemptive strike would not allow time to develop a bomb, let alone several. This should be obvious."

Yes, that it is obvious. Which is why -- from their perspective -- they should try to develop a bomb....you know, to help deter other countries from pre-emptively striking them. The "immediate threat of intervention" will continuously hang over their heads until they get one.

Whether or not they are actually close to obtaining one is an entirely separate argument.



And anyone who doesn't think that our current presidential election will feature a pro-war Republican vs a slightly less pro-war Obama hasn't been paying attention. Seriously, this election will likely determine the next decade of foreign policy.

[Edited on May 3, 2012 at 1:49 AM. Reason : ]

5/3/2012 1:31:04 AM

Quote :

"There may be good and cogent reasons for Iran to consider pursuing development (domestic politics, international face-saving, long-term defense), but the immediate threat of intervention is not one of them. Also, I'll ask -- not for the first time -- how long do we have to go without invading Iran before this thread is revealed for the parcel of horse shit that it is?"

5/3/2012 1:39:12 AM

Quote :

"Yes, that it is obvious. Which is why -- from their perspective -- they should try to develop a bomb....you know, to help deter other countries from pre-emptively striking them. The "immediate threat of intervention" will continuously hang over their heads until they get one."

From the end of the Iran-Iraq War until just recently, nobody wanted to attack Iran. Getting closer to nuclear weapons development increases the likelihood of an attack. Slowing development decreases the likelihood. Since they don't appear to be very good at keeping secrets, then, Iran cannot pursue the bomb without taking a serious risk before they get their reward.

If they could just summon a few nukes into existence tomorrow, I'd agree with you: they'd be stupid not to do so. But they can't. Instead they have to put giant glowing "Attack me!" signs all over the country for six months or a year, at the end of which they get one bomb. And I'd argue that after they get their first bomb the chances of war shoot up dramatically. Israel would be willing to risk getting hit with one first-generation, probably low-power and possibly defective bomb in order to prevent the creation of a large number of better bombs. As would we.

5/3/2012 11:51:00 AM

Quote :

"And I'd argue that after they get their first bomb the chances of war shoot up dramatically"

I just flat out disagree with that. Look no further than North Korea to understand how we react to "irrational" actors with a bomb. They just demonstrated to the world their nuclear dysfunction, and we still won't stop them.

And the rest of your sentiment seems to boil down to, "bend to the will of empire or suffer the consequences," which I find a fascinating stance, because it basically demonstrates that you have no interest in letting sovereign countries practice their own right to self determination. So I'm honestly interested in knowing why you think Iran should bow down to the demands of an imperial nation that literally has them surrounded and has recently toppled multiple governments within their neck of the woods.

5/3/2012 3:13:33 PM

Quote :

"Seriously, this election will likely determine the next decade of foreign policy."

How do you figure? The two candidates are in almost lock-step agreement on foreign policy: bomb damned near everyone and stick our nose in as many people's business as we can. Even you said that one candidate is pro-war and the other is a little less pro-war. The only difference is that maybe Obama would shoot some hoops before he drops more bombs. They're the same damned candidate on damned near every important issue.

Quote :

"So I'm honestly interested in knowing why you think Iran should bow down to the demands of an imperial nation that literally has them surrounded and has recently toppled multiple governments within their neck of the woods."

Not to mention the fact that we've previously toppled their own government

5/3/2012 9:33:27 PM

Quote :

"Look no further than North Korea to understand how we react to "irrational" actors with a bomb."

I'd argue that North Korea held some better trump cards than Iran does, including the possible backing of the Chinese and their immediate ability to shell the everloving shit out of Seoul. I also think that the overall position of Israel makes them more likely to strike at this point than South Korea was. For are part, we didn't want to fight NK then and we don't want to fight Iran now. They both have the potential to show the real meaning of the word "clusterfuck."

Quote :

"And the rest of your sentiment seems to boil down to, "bend to the will of empire or suffer the consequences," which I find a fascinating stance, because it basically demonstrates that you have no interest in letting sovereign countries practice their own right to self determination. "

Are you on drugs or are you this stupid without chemicals?

I'm not stating my interest here, because my interest is irrelevant. Iranian pursuit of an atomic bomb doesn't necessarily make me want to denigrate their sovereignty or self determination. I'm making a bald statement of fact that is supported by the evidence: it makes the governments of Israel and the United States want to do those things, particularly the former.

The world is the way it is, not the way we want it to be. So until the world changes, Iran has certain choices to make. If it wants to avoid being attacked, its best choice is to back off of its nuclear program. I thought our whole discussion arose out of this very question, whether or not pursuing a bomb made Iran safer? Where the fuck is all this about sovereignty and empire coming from?

Quote :

"So I'm honestly interested in knowing why you think Iran should bow down to the demands of an imperial nation that literally has them surrounded and has recently toppled multiple governments within their neck of the woods."

Assuming they don't want a fight, they should back down because that is the surest way of avoiding a fight. Abandoning the pursuit (or perceived pursuit) of nuclear weapons diminishes the incentive for Iran's enemies to attack. Stepping up the pursuit increases the incentive. Only if they succeed in their efforts is there a chance that continuing them makes them safer.

Because let's look at this -- what are the incentives to attack Iran? Israel doesn't stand the chance of gaining territory, nor is it threatened territorially by Iran. Their only immediate concern can be destructive long-range weapons. Remove the threat of these, and Israel's incentive goes away.

What about us? The public is resounding in its agreement that it does not want to fight Iran or anybody else. There's no significant strategic gain to be acquired in fighting Iran -- not even conspiracy-theory "oil interests," given that we wouldn't be able to sustain the political and military will to hold such a large and hostile territory.

Meanwhile, assuming Iran's government does want a fight but want to survive that fight, they should bow down and wait until they're not surrounded by a vastly superior force that can enforce its demands (either through outright victory or destruction on a scale that makes nuclear efforts impossible for some time).

---

Quote :

"The two candidates are in almost lock-step agreement on foreign policy: bomb damned near everyone and stick our nose in as many people's business as we can."

Witness our heavy-handed military response to the situation in Syria, say, or Egypt a year ago.

Obama says he'll consider attacking Iran so that he doesn't look weak on foreign policy. Romney says he will bomb Iran during the primaries to appeal to the lunatic fringe of the GOP. Neither of them actually have any intention to bomb Iran because the polls are resoundingly opposed to it and any politician involved in starting such a conflict can kiss his position goodbye.

[Edited on May 5, 2012 at 12:44 AM. Reason : ]

5/5/2012 12:40:04 AM

What is this shit?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-dennis-kucinich/ndaa-authorizes-war-again_b_1524474.html

5/19/2012 6:26:44 PM

Iran navy saves US freighter from pirates: report


Iran's navy said Thursday it saved an American-flagged cargo ship that was being attacked by pirates in the Gulf of Oman.

An Iranian warship responded to a distress signal from the US-flagged Maersk Texas, a cargo ship of 150 metres (500 feet) and 14,000 tonnes, which was besieged by "several pirate boats," the navy said in a statement reported by the official IRNA news agency.

The cargo vessel "was saved by the navy of the Islamic Republic of Iran" on Wednesday, IRNA added.

The pirates "fled the scene as soon as they spotted the presence" of the warship. Maersk Texas "thanked the Iranian navy and sailed towards its destination safely," it added.

http://news.yahoo.com/iran-navy-saves-us-freighter-pirates-report-110142224.html

5/24/2012 11:23:47 AM

those iranian are all right

5/24/2012 11:24:53 AM

Quote :

"I'll ask -- not for the first time -- how long do we have to go without invading Iran before this thread is revealed for the parcel of horse shit that it is?"

5/24/2012 1:18:29 PM

6 months later, still no war. Guess it's never gonna happen!

5/24/2012 1:41:28 PM