see you cross the loony partisan hack line when you went from failed policy to a willful desire to harm the country. there is really no other way to describe that... just a loony partisan hack.

8/13/2010 4:22:59 AM

Quote :

"^ Yeah, Carter's approach to Iran worked out just great, didn't it? BTW, how many Republicans did you vote for in the '08 election? I vote for some Democrats in every election."

8/13/2010 4:27:07 AM

hey remember that time you claimed that carter willfully wanted to harm the country?

ahaha you are such a hack

8/13/2010 4:30:26 AM

Quote :

"^ Yeah, Carter's approach to Iran worked out just great, didn't it? BTW, how many Republicans did you vote for in the '08 election? I vote for some Democrats in every election."

8/13/2010 4:38:56 AM

Quote :

"how many Republicans did you vote for in the '08 election? I vote for some Democrats in every election."

"I'm not a racist -- just look, this is my black friend!"


Disclaimer: I expect you to misinterpret this as me calling you a racist. I'm not calling you a racist. I'm saying that your argument denying your own partisanship and the "black friend" argument denying one's own racism bear similar faults.

8/13/2010 5:09:23 AM

Will all of you please shut the fuck up?

8/13/2010 8:45:04 AM

^ I hope you're not including me in that "all." I have been civil and I can't help it if others don't like my positions.

I have clearly made my point concerning Iran and I have supported it with multiple sources. If others want to bury their heads in the sand and/or have a bed-wetting hissy fit about it, that's their problem.

8/13/2010 5:52:32 PM

[Edited on August 13, 2010 at 6:00 PM. Reason : dbl pst]

8/13/2010 5:56:22 PM

Russia: Iran's nuclear plant to get fuel next week

Quote :

"MOSCOW — Russia announced Friday it will begin the startup next week of Iran's only atomic power plant, giving Tehran a boost as it struggles with international sanctions and highlighting differences between Moscow and Washington over pressuring the Islamic Republic to give up activities that could be used to make nuclear arms. Uranium fuel shipped by Russia will be loaded into the Bushehr reactor on Aug. 21, beginning a process that will last about a month and end with the reactor sending electricity to Iranian cities, Russian and Iranian officials said. ... Russia has walked a fine line on Iran for years. One of six world powers leading international efforts to ensure Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon, it has strongly criticized the U.S. and the European Union for following up with separate sanctions after the latest U.N. penalties — which Moscow supported — were passed. Iran's semiofficial ISNA news agency quoted Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi, who also heads the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, as saying that the country had invited IAEA experts to watch the transfer of fuel, which was shipped about two years ago, into the Bushehr reactor. ... "

http://tinyurl.com/26w2295

8/13/2010 6:00:09 PM

^^ Nice edit. The original read something like: "What positions? The ones you copy and paste?"

At least I have positions. Why don't you direct us to all of your quality threads?

As far as I can tell, you've made only one thread: it's about me.

message_topic.aspx?topic=599938

And it was locked. I'd really prefer not to be your full-time hobby--why don't you take up knitting or something?

8/13/2010 6:09:15 PM

3 Reasons Israel will attack Iran


A long article out this week in The Atlantic argues there's a good chance Israel will attack Iran over its nuclear program next summer. While there are strong grounds for doubt, here are some reasons author Jeffrey Goldberg could be right.

- Dan Murphy, Staff writer

Quote :

" 3. Holocaust denial and Holocaust fears Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. But Israel quite simply doesn't believe the Islamic Republic and fears what a nuclear weapon in the hands of a government with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the top of the heap could mean for them. Israel is a country whose national psyche was crafted by the Holocaust and has said time and again that it will take preemptive action if it thinks the nation is threatened. Fear of Iran has been a long-running theme for the country – in the wake of 9/11 Israeli officials mused that Iran might have had a hand in the attack (it didn't) and since, they've kept up a steady stream of warnings about what a nuclear-armed Iran would mean for the Jewish state's future. "Iran is developing nuclear weapons and poses the greatest threat to our existence since the war of independence. Iran’s terror wings surround us from the north and south," Benjamin Netanyahu said shortly after regaining the premiership last year. The "never again" credo of Israel drives alarm inside the country's security establishment. While most Iran watchers believe that an Iran with a few nuclear weapons wouldn't launch a first strike on Israel – something sure to bring withering retaliation – the presence of Mr. Ahmadinejad at the top of the government (thought he's still subordinate to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country's supreme leader) has some Israelis fearing irrational behavior. ... "

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/0813/3-Reasons-Israel-will-attack-Iran/Holocaust-denial-and-Holocaust-fears

8/13/2010 6:11:32 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg

8/13/2010 6:14:48 PM

interesting, in fact there was a nyt article about it that was republished in the tehran times

Crickets warn young before birth of dangers of wolf spider

Quote :

"If an expectant mother knew that dangerous creatures lurked around her, and knew also that she wouldn’t be around to take care of her young, she might be stressed. And if she had a way to warn her young before they were born, surely she would. Human mothers cannot do this, to the best of our knowledge. But pregnant crickets, it appears, do have the ability to forewarn. This is especially useful since crickets abandon their young after birth. Researchers from the University of South Carolina Upstate and Indiana State University placed pregnant crickets in an enclosure where they were stalked, but not eaten, by a wolf spider, whose fangs had been coated with wax to protect the crickets. The young of the spider-exposed mothers turned out to be more predator-savvy than those with mothers who were not exposed to the wolf spider; they stayed hidden longer, and were more likely to freeze when they encountered spider feces or spider silk. In a second experiment, the researchers placed the juvenile crickets in an arena with a starving wolf spider with fully functioning fangs. Eventually, the spider got all the crickets, but the young born from spider-exposed mothers lasted longer in the arena of death. The research was published last month in The American Naturalist. What remains unclear is exactly how the crickets are warning their unborn. “We don’t know a specific mechanism,” said Jonathan Storm, a professor at the University of South Carolina Upstate in Spartanburg and one of the authors of the paper. (Source: The NYT) "

http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=214645

8/13/2010 6:18:51 PM

Quote :

"^ Look, man, it's obvious what you're trying to do. You won't last around here if you keep it up."

8/13/2010 6:38:09 PM

from ^^^^

Quote :

"1. A nuclear Iran would shift the regional strategic balance One thing everyone who debates whether Iran is seeking a nuclear bomb, and what to do about stopping them if they are, agrees on is this: A nuclear-armed Iran would profoundly shift the strategic balance of the Middle East. Israel, with an arsenal of 100 or so nuclear bombs and the missiles to deliver them, is the region's only current nuclear power. While that sole status doesn't give it carte blanche to do as it pleases, the day Iran has a nuclear weapon is the day Israel's ability to directly attack Iran – or perhaps other regional countries – is taken off the table. Iran in turn would be able to act with greater freedom in what it sees as its own sphere of influence. This alarms many of Arab states in the region, who many predict would start considering nuclear weapons programs of their own in response. The last thing Israel wants is a nuclear arms race in a neighborhood where a number of regimes still don't recognize its right to exist. The more nuclear countries there are, the greater the chance, however unlikely, that someone will push the button first, or that a terrorist group could somehow get its hands on a bomb. Defense Minister Ehud Barak explained one of Israel's greatest fears this way last year: "It’s not just the end of any nonproliferation regime," he said of Iran obtaining a bomb. "I believe that it starts the countdown that... would lead, within another half a generation, to a crude nuclear device in the hands of some terrorist group.""

if israel acts unilaterally will we step in?

8/13/2010 6:44:05 PM

^ We'll likely support them indirectly.

8/13/2010 6:52:25 PM

Iran official announces building of new nuke site
(AP) – 1 day ago

Quote :

"TEHRAN, Iran — Iran said Monday it will begin building a new site to enrich uranium by March, moving ahead with a plan that defies international efforts to curb its nuclear development."

Quote :

"The U.S. and its allies accuse Iran of using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to develop a nuclear weapons capability. Iran has denied the accusation, saying its nuclear program is geared merely towards generating electricity. British Prime Minister David Cameron's spokesman Steve Field said Monday that Salehi's announcement was a cause for concern. 'The reports that we have seen this morning certainly do not give us any comfort that Iran is moving in the right direction,' Field told reporters."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iRqjZV1Meppj40hTs8IBOv4DdsQwD9HKI5G00

Let's just cut to the chase here. Please respond yes or no first. If you wish to elaborate on your reasoning, then fine.

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

1. hooksaw: No.

8/18/2010 1:19:26 AM

Sanctions impact Iran's economy
Tuesday, 17 August 2010

Quote :

"Tehran, Aug. 17 - The latest round of UN and international sanctions on Iran this summer over its controversial nuclear projects has significantly impacted on the Iranian domestic market, sources tell Iran Focus. A government advisor on economic policy requesting anonymity said the overall government policy had been to ensure that the basic consumption requirements of the population are met. "The government is making efforts to avert pressure on average citizens, but there is doubt over how successful it can really be in doing that". The price of meat has been fluctuating over the past month. The government is trying to maintain prices at the lower end, but has so far had relatively little success. Similarly the price of chicken, which was $2.50 to $2.80 per kilo, has increased to an average of $3.50 in the past month. The government had repeatedly announced that it would not allow the prices to surpass the $2.80 to $3.00 range. Sugar prices are now $1.20 per kilo, up from roughly $0.70 to $0.80 a month ago. Hard-line Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly vowed to continue uranium enrichment in defiance of UN Security Council resolutions, and he says sanctions would not have an impact on the country's economy. "That is not a true assessment at all. The people will truly be crippled financially if some other items like grain, dairy products or dried fruit are placed under sanctions. The state policy is to provide for the basic necessities of the population so they do not feel the pinch of sanctions", the economic advisor said. Sanctions have also effected industrial production and factories. "I have come across some top engineers who say that they have not been able to obtain the required material. In one province, they wanted to build several power plants or power stations. One of them was on the brink of completion but in the end they were not able to purchase some of the required material and key electrical circuits", the economic advisor said. "They were supposed to buy them off Germans, Swedes or Americans. But, in the past month because of sanctions the engineers told me that they had to go through middlemen and ended up being billed for hefty prices, sometimes triple the regular cost. So, the government did not have the ability to pay and was forced to buy substandard or low guarantee equipment from India, which they know will not be fulfilling our needs". The source said average citizens think that sanctions would lead to price hikes only for products that matter to them such as cheese, split peas and chickpeas. "It's much more than that. The sanctions have already impacted manufacturing. Our secondary industries are idle and cannot purchase their required raw materials". Other industry sources say that in terms of house appliances, if Chinese imports were halted, within a few weeks the inflation figure would rise sharply. But, cheaper appliances are imported into the country ever day and keep the prices at the lower end of the scale. Analysts in the capital say that at least 70 percent of electronic equipment and clothes are now imported from China due to international sanctions preventing sales from other countries. The economic advisor said: "If the US or the UN or any other state that has agreed to implement the sanctions somehow works to prevent imports from China, then it would be chaos in this country"."

http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=21448:sanctions-impact-irans-economy&catid=30:life-in-iran&Itemid=43

8/18/2010 1:23:07 AM

^ Answer the question or GTFO.

8/18/2010 1:26:25 AM

the effects of sanctions on the economy is an important

8/18/2010 1:31:40 AM

Quote :

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

8/18/2010 1:34:14 AM

Why Not to Bomb Iran
By ROBERT WRIGHT

Quote :

"Has the Atlantic magazine become a propaganda tool — “a de facto party to the neoconservative and Israeli campaign to initiate a global war with Iran”? That question was being discussed last week on The Atlantic’s own Web site, among other places, after the magazine unveiled a cover story saying that Israel is likely to bomb Iran within a year. The article wasn’t an argument for bombing, just a report on Israel’s state of mind. So why all the outrage — why, for example, did Glenn Greenwald of Salon title his slashing assessment of the Atlantic article “How Propaganda Works: Exhibit A”? In part because the author of the article is Jeffrey Goldberg, who has previously been accused of pushing a pro-war agenda via ostensibly reportorial journalism. His 2002 New Yorker piece claiming to have found evidence linking Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda is remembered on the left as a monument to consequential wrongness. And suspicions of Goldberg’s motivations only grow when he writes about Israel. He served in the Israeli army, and he has more than once been accused of channeling Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. There is certainly a bit of channeling in Goldberg’s Atlantic piece. For example: “Netanyahu’s belief is that Iran is not Israel’s problem alone; it is the world’s problem, and the world, led by the United States, is duty-bound to grapple with it.” Still, the piece is no simple propaganda exercise. Indeed, what’s striking is that, for all the space given to the views of hawkish Israeli officials, they don’t wind up looking very good, and neither does their case for bombing Iran. The overall impression is that, as Paul Pillar, a former C.I.A. official, put it after reading Goldberg’s piece, Israel’s inclination to attack Iran is “more a matter of the amygdala and emotion than of the cortex and thought.” For starters, Netanyahu comes off in Goldberg’s article as so psychologically enslaved by his uberhawk father as to be incapable of making autonomous policy decisions. (One Israeli politician told Goldberg that there can be no two-state solution until the 100-year-old father dies.) So the elder Netanyahu’s manifest enthusiasm for military action against Iran may be one of the most powerful forces behind it. This shouldn’t inspire American confidence in such a policy — and one thing the Atlantic article drives home is that Israel very much wants America to support air strikes or, better yet, actually conduct them. The debate becomes about who should bomb Iran, not about whether Iran should be bombed. When the subject turns from Netanyahu’s psychology to Israel’s psychology, the inclination to bomb Iran still looks none too cerebral. One of the prime movers behind it is that Israel’s regional nuclear monopoly has “near-sanctity, in the public’s mind” because it has “allowed the Jewish state to recover from the wounds of the Holocaust.” This is an understandable reaction to the trauma of the Shoah, and it helps explain the political pressure to bomb Iran, but it’s not a sound strategic reason to do so. Memory of the Holocaust also, of course, informs Israel’s Iran policy in another way. “The Jews had no power to stop Hitler from annihilating us,” an anonymous Israeli official tells Goldberg. “Today, 6 million Jews live in Israel, and someone is threatening them with annihilation. But now we have the power to stop them. Bibi knows that this is the choice.” Actually, my own sources tell me that, though many Israelis take seriously this prospect of Iran trying to annihilate them, Israel’s policy elites by and large don’t. They realize that Iranian leaders aren’t suicidal and so wouldn’t launch a nuclear strike against a country with at least 100 nukes. On close reading, as others have noted, the Atlantic piece suggests that this sober view indeed prevails in Israel’s higher echelons. Though Netanyahu warns us about a “messianic apocalyptic cult” possessing nuclear weapons, he doesn’t seem to be seriously imagining the “cult” launching a first strike. Goldberg writes: “The challenges posed by a nuclear Iran are more subtle than a direct attack, Netanyahu told me.” So what are those challenges? For one thing, “Iran’s militant proxies would be able to fire rockets and engage in other terror activities while enjoying a nuclear umbrella.” Whether heading off this prospect would justify bombing Iran is an interesting question, but we don’t need to ask it, because the prospect isn’t real. There’s no way Iran’s having a nuclear weapon would keep Israel from taking out Hezbollah missile sites in Lebanon as missiles from them rained down on Tel Aviv. If the Holocaust has left Israelis with an exaggerated fear of Iran’s intentions, it has also left them with an absolute refusal to be cowed. One “existential” threat that Israel’s policy elites do seem to take seriously is that a nuclear Iran might render Israel such a scary place to live as to induce a brain drain. “The real threat to Zionism is the dilution of quality,” defense minister Ehud Barak tells Goldberg. Here again, I think the threat is overstated. After a year or two, Iran’s possession of nukes would become background noise for the average Israeli, less salient than periodic flurries of missiles from Lebanon or Gaza — flurries that so far have failed to noticeably drain Israel of intellectual capital. The “brain drain” issue illustrates what weak “propaganda” much of Goldberg’s piece is: America is supposed to support — or even conduct — a military attack designed to keep talented people from immigrating to America? If I were Israel, I’d hire a new propagandist. So, if this piece, read closely, makes for such an ineffectual pro-bombing pamphlet, why is Goldberg being pilloried as a propagandist? For starters, there’s the claim that, though he spends a fair number of bullet points on the blowback from an attack on Iran, he still understates it. No mention, for example, of how an American-backed attack (and America would surely stand by Israel in the end) would feed the war-on-Islam narrative that is already starting to fuel home-grown terrorism in America. But the main charges against Goldberg aren’t about loading the cost-benefit analysis. They’re about framing the future debate in regards to cheese. His piece leaves you thinking that Israel will attack Iran very soon unless America does the honors. So the debate becomes about who should bomb Iran, not about whether Iran should be bombed. And this is the way Israel’s hawks want the debate framed. That way either they get their wish and America does the bombing, or, worst case, they inure Americans to the prospect of a bombing and thus mute the outrage that might otherwise ensue after a surprise Israeli attack draws America into war. No wonder dozens of Israeli officials were willing to share their assessments with Goldberg, and no wonder “a consensus emerged that there is a better than 50 percent chance that Israel will launch a strike by next July.” Yossi Alpher, an Israeli peace activist and a 12-year veteran of the Mossad, has opined that Goldberg was “naïve” in not realizing that these officials were using him as part of a public relations campaign. As accusations against Goldberg go, “naïve” is pretty flattering, and I do think it may be more apt than “cynical.” I’ve long felt that most ulterior motives are subconscious, and Goldberg seems to be a case in point. Back in 2002, when he was vociferously arguing for an invasion of Iraq, he just wanted to believe that his Kurdish sources were giving him solid evidence of Saddam Hussein’s links to Al Qaeda — notwithstanding the fact that they, as fellow invasion advocates, had an interest in fabricating evidence. Now Goldberg again seems eager to accept the testimony of people whose testimony is obviously suspect. In any event, his article shouldn’t distract Americans from the real question: Given that the United States would almost certainly be drawn into war with Iran in the wake of an Israeli strike, and given that America would be blamed for the strike whether or not it had green-lighted it, and given the many ways this would be bad for national security, how can American leaders keep it from happening? Here, at least, Goldberg has performed a service. His article, read closely, suggests that even from Israel’s point of view, there’s no sound rationale for bombing Iran, especially when you consider the long-term downside: an attack would radically dim what prospects there are for lasting peace in the Middle East; Israel’s downward spiral — in which regional hostility toward it leads to conflicts that only deepen the hostility — would be sustained big time. If appealing to America’s interests isn’t enough to keep Israel from attacking Iran, maybe appealing to Israel’s interests will help."

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/why-not-to-bomb-iran/

[Edited on August 18, 2010 at 1:37 AM. Reason : .]

8/18/2010 1:36:21 AM

Quote :

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

8/18/2010 1:38:17 AM

i did answer you question, see ^^

8/18/2010 1:38:56 AM

Quote :

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

8/18/2010 1:39:50 AM

^^

8/18/2010 1:44:13 AM

Quote :

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

8/18/2010 1:53:59 AM

Iran-Israel showdown looms
Jamshid Ghazi Askar
staff writer | Aug. 16, 2010 at 6:16 p.m.

Quote :

" This post is about the very real possibility that, within the next year, Israel launches a preemptive air strike to halt Iran's nuclear program. But before we go down that road, let's first lay some foundation. Over at The New Yorker, Jon Lee Anderson recounts his recent visit to Iran to interview Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. If you have any interest in Iranian politics, it's a must-read. Anderson spends more time painting a meticulous picture of life in Tehran than he does lending a soapbox to Ahmadinejad. My main takeaway from the Anderson article: members of the opposition movement that produced the Green Party are currently acquiescing to the strong-armed theocracy out of sheer fear for their safety. Now let's click over to The Atlantic, where Jeffrey Goldberg lays out, point by point, an airtight case for why Israel will attack Iran if the U.S. doesn't intercede to somehow halt Iranian nuclear ambitions by the end of 2010. My reaction to Mr. Goldberg's article: Wow — I had no idea that military action in the Middle East is that imminent. But after reading the Goldberg piece, I feel like I understand why Israel won't stand pat. The Jewish culture still stings from the horrors of the Holocaust that rendered European Jews helpless and defenseless; resultantly (and as Mr. Goldberg makes crystal clear in talking to dozens of Israeli sources both in and out of the military), Israel would much prefer to launch a preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear program and take its chances with the subsequent and significant political fallout than feel like the proverbial sitting duck waiting for the time when Iran's missiles carry nuclear warheads. As a companion piece for Mr. Goldberg's article in The Atlantic, Robert D. Kaplan examines Iran's nuclear ambitions through the lens of Henry Kissinger's theories. For myriad reasons, most people think the prospect of an Iran with nuclear capabilities is a very bad thing. But Mr. Kaplan takes a much different position, arguing that the best option for the U.S. is to allow Iran to "go nuclear" but then immediately move to contain Iranian nuclear influence within the Middle East — a POV which is intriguing if for no other reason than its inherently contrarian tone. Mr. Kaplan writes: Indeed, I would argue that because Sunni Arabs from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, and Egypt perpetrated the attacks of September 11, 2001, and because Sunni hostility to American and Israeli interests remains a conspicuous problem, the United States should theoretically welcome a strengthened Shiite role in the Middle East, were Iran to go through an even partial political transformation. And demographic, cultural, and other indicators all point to a positive ideological and philosophical shift in Iran in the medium to long term. Given this prognosis, and the high cost and poor chances for success of any military effort to eliminate Iran's nuclear program, I believe that containment of a nuclear Iran is the most sensible policy for the United States."

http://www.deseretnews.com/blog/73/10009769/The-big-lever-Iran-Israel-showdown-looms.html

8/18/2010 2:07:37 AM

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

1. hooksaw: No.

8/18/2010 8:54:14 AM

No.

8/18/2010 9:03:21 AM

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

1. hooksaw: No.

2. DeltaBeta: No.

8/18/2010 9:05:47 AM

No.

8/18/2010 9:44:23 AM

I think the talks of this weekend's "deadline" are premature. I think this fall is much more likely a strike time than right now.

What a shit storm that will be.

8/18/2010 9:45:43 AM

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

1. hooksaw: No.

2. DeltaBeta: No.

3. DaBird: No.

8/18/2010 9:47:39 AM

Russia defends Iran nuclear plant ahead of launch

Quote :

"SOCHI, Russia — Russia on Wednesday defended the nuclear power plant it is building for Iran in the southern city of Bushehr, days ahead of a ceremony to mark the formal launch of the controversial facility. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov described the plant as an "anchor" that would keep Iran firmly fixed to peaceful use of nuclear power. "It is a most important anchor which keeps Iran within the regime of non-proliferation," he told reporters on the sidelines of a regional summit in the Black Sea resort of Sochi. "It is fully protected from any proliferation risks whatsoever. This idea is shared by all the leaders of Western countries," he added. The charging of the first nuclear fuel at the plant Saturday is to be marked at a ceremony in Bushehr including the head of Russia's nuclear agency, Sergei Kiriyenko. Russia has been building the plant in since the mid-90s but the project has been marred by a series of delays and the issue is hugely delicate amid the standoff over Iran's nuclear programme. Russian officials have emphasised that it would still take some time for the 1,000 MW capacity power plant to start significant work, with the facility operating at minimal power of one percent after 3-4 months. Western countries accuse oil-rich Iran of seeking to acquire a nuclear weapon under the guise of its civilian nuclear programme. But Tehran insists the drive is entirely peaceful and it needs nuclear energy for a rapidly expanding population whose fossil fuels will eventually run out."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5im1zHzaKDxy-RfP7jDJPiYtL7cSw

8/18/2010 10:04:36 AM

Quote :

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

Ask a question that makes sense. Prepared to allow? Like do I have the right supplies for it?

You could ask would you use economic sanctions or military actions to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, those questions would actually be meaningful. Your question is essentially "do you like Iran getting nukes?", which is stupid.

8/18/2010 10:25:46 AM

I think you have to read between the lines with this issues. of course Iran is not going to come out and say "yes we are building a weapon." of course the US and Israel are not going to come out and say "yes it is fine for Iran to the capability to build a nuclear weapon." of course Russia loves to antagonize, make money and create influence. there is a lot of posturing from all sides. it is hard to tell the truth.

the fact that so many countries feel so threatened, including neighboring Arab states, along with the US and to a lesser extent, Israel, is the red flag. there is a lot of political capital being expended with this ongoing rabble and you know 100% that President Obama has no desire to engage militarily unless 100% necessary.

8/18/2010 10:37:13 AM

Quote :

"there is a lot of political capital being expended with this ongoing rabble and you know 100% that President Obama has no desire to engage militarily unless 100% necessary."

False unless your definition of 100% necessary includes afghanistan.


We could be 2 days away from ww3 if Israel is as crazy as some think they are.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/17/israel-weeks-end-strike-iran-nuclear-facility-bolton-says/

8/18/2010 10:54:23 AM

President Obama would love not to be in Afghanistan. President Obama would also love to not have to worry about military action against Iran. I promise you that.

The fact that he has retained such an aggressive posture towards Iran should be very telling. Shit is going down behind the scenes.

Further, why is it Israel's fault? Iran shares a huge chunk of this. If they need nuclear power for peaceful means there are plenty of ways to achieve that. There are also plenty of ways to be transparent about their actions. They have done neither. They are forcing the hand of Israel.

8/18/2010 11:11:35 AM

^^^^ So, I can put you down as a yes?

8/18/2010 12:15:47 PM

I thouight I explained it, your question is stupid, change it to one of the ones I suggested that are not stupid and I'll give you an answer.

8/18/2010 12:43:56 PM

is the question, "are you ok with Iran having nuclear weapon capabilities" a stupid question? that is essentially what he is asking.

8/18/2010 12:50:35 PM

^^ I'll do nothing of the sort. My question is typed in plain English and is perfectly clear.

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

1. hooksaw: No.

2. DeltaBeta: No.

3. DaBird: No.

4. Kris: Yes or hooksaw's question is a dummyhead.

8/18/2010 1:03:13 PM

Quote :

"the fact that so many countries feel so threatened, including neighboring Arab states, along with the US and to a lesser extent, Israel,"

I'm pretty sure Israel is the MOST concerned about Iranian nukes.

8/18/2010 1:16:39 PM

Quote :

"is the question, "are you ok with Iran having nuclear weapon capabilities" a stupid question?"

Yes, it is. I would rather no one have nukes, but that's not really possible. The not stupid question is what I would be willing to do to stop Iran from getting nukes.

8/18/2010 1:24:22 PM

^

Quote :

"I would rather no one have nukes, but that's not really possible."

Then that's irrelevant, right? Are you okay with Iran, specifically, getting a nuke or not?

NB: There are, I admit, a number of things left unstated in my question--this was intentional. I didn't want a question that was a paragraph long. Instead of just being sarcastic, how about you frame the question your way and then answer it?

[Edited on August 18, 2010 at 1:35 PM. Reason : ^^ Please answer the question.]

8/18/2010 1:33:56 PM

Quote :

"I'm pretty sure Israel is the MOST concerned about Iranian nukes."

judging by some of the things that my Air Force buddies have told me you may be surprised. Saudi Arabia, as it seems, is preparing to go to war.

8/18/2010 2:12:37 PM

Quote :

"a number of things left unstated in my question--this was intentional. I didn't want a question that was a paragraph long."

The thing left unstated in your question was the only thing that makes it meaningful. Niether one of my questions were a paragraph long.

Quote :

"Instead of just being sarcastic, how about you frame the question your way and then answer it?"

A reasonable request, I'll answer both of mine:

Would I support military actions to stop Iran from getting a nuke?
No, not even if they outright stated thier intention to use it against israel.

Would I support economic sanctions to stop Iran from getting a nuke?
Partially. Not any sort of medical or food supplies, but different types of building materials and such.

I'll even answer your stupid one
Do I want Iran to get a nuke?
Of course not.

8/18/2010 2:12:58 PM

Quote :

"Would I support military actions to stop Iran from getting a nuke? No, not even if they outright stated thier intention to use it against israel."

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

8/18/2010 2:15:59 PM

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

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

1. hooksaw: No.

2. DeltaBeta: No.

3. DaBird: No.

4. Kris: Yes.

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

8/18/2010 2:17:49 PM