you might be right about most of that

we've definitely had a working alliance with Pakistan for a long time before 1998, though. They practically administrated our proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan for quite a while, doing the bidding of both countries (not always simultaneously) with American dollars.

11/7/2011 6:14:03 PM

Quote :

"They are surrounded by countries that are permitted to possess nuclear weapons."

Not quite. The border one country that has nukes. And "permitted" is a strong word, given that the Pakistanis developed their program in secret, and it's pretty damn hard to take away the Bomb from someone who already has it. Meanwhile, the big swinging dicks in the neighborhood (Russia and China) tend to have their back. It's hard to believe that they want nuclear weapons to counter any of these countries. Ironically, the only country they could reasonably intend to counter -- Israel -- wouldn't be itching to attack them if they hadn't started the program in the first place. The Iranian nuclear program counters a threat that it creates.

All that said, I don't really think Iran wants nukes for any plausible military reason. It's a prestige thing. A nuclear weapons program allows a country some degree of membership in the big boys club. Also, it says to the domestic audience, "See how great we are!" The hope, I'm sure, is that the population will be mollified by such a boon to nationalist pride. (And nationalist they are -- I recall a survey saying that the people self-identified as Iranian/Persian before they did as Muslims)

Quote :

"They have no hope of launching a nuke at the United States."

I don't think anybody is afraid of this. They're afraid of Iranian weapons ending up in the hands of smaller, terroristic organizations. Maybe this will be by design (Tehran has been merrily assisting insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, to say nothing of Hezbollah) or maybe by accident (it's an unstable region, and if things start to fall apart who knows where the bombs end up? We appear to have been lucky with the former USSR so far. How many times do we want to risk it?)

Quote :

"We've intervened with their political system in considerable ways, and we have placed sanctions on them for many years. "

I won't argue with you here. The effort to put the Shah in power was incredibly stupid and has done nothing but fuck us over ever since.

11/7/2011 11:07:38 PM

Quote :

"I don't think anybody is afraid of this."

The leaders of the GOP seem to think this. And they will in all likelihood, drum-up this fear during the upcoming elections. Hell, they've already started doing this.

11/7/2011 11:21:03 PM

fox news propaganda is already starting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TboxfjeT7mo

11/8/2011 12:08:23 AM

Most of what I've heard from Republicans (and others) is that the fear is Iranian nukes going to terrorists rather than Iran advancing its missile technology by ten years overnight and launching ICBMs at us.

11/8/2011 1:09:25 AM

Weren't we afraid of that in Iraq too?

11/8/2011 1:10:59 AM

You mean under a different administration with a personal axe to grind against a regime we knew we could defeat militarily in a short time and which also had the technology to launch missiles against our allies in the region and which had a history of invading its neighbors? Yes.

To say nothing of the fact that we've no longer got any international political capital (or any regular capital, ie, money) to spend. Or that we have a congress that won't agree with anything the administration suggests. Or a bunch of other things.

11/8/2011 1:19:23 AM

I don't trust the news anymore. Not with foreign policy or politics, at least.


The real story about bin laden came out this morning by a SEAL that was there...


totally nothing like the official story.


[Edited on November 8, 2011 at 1:28 AM. Reason : who knows?]

11/8/2011 1:27:44 AM

Quote :

"You mean under a different administration with a personal axe to grind against a regime we knew we could defeat militarily in a short time and which also had the technology to launch missiles against our allies in the region and which had a history of invading its neighbors? Yes. To say nothing of the fact that we've no longer got any international political capital (or any regular capital, ie, money) to spend. Or that we have a congress that won't agree with anything the administration suggests. Or a bunch of other things."

Do you really think it's even up to us, though? I don't. Honestly, I think this is entirely up to Israel (or, more precisely, Netenyahu) at this point. If they want war, we're gonna get dragged in, I'm afraid.

11/8/2011 1:55:55 AM

bahahaha

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/08/us-mideast-netanyahu-sarkozy-idUSTRE7A720120111108

Quote :

"(Reuters) - French President Nicolas Sarkozy branded Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "a liar" in a private conversation with U.S. President Barack Obama that was accidentally broadcast to journalists during last week's G20 summit in Cannes. "I cannot bear Netanyahu, he's a liar," Sarkozy told Obama, unaware that the microphones in their meeting room had been switched on, enabling reporters in a separate location to listen in to a simultaneous translation. "You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you," Obama replied, according to the French interpreter. The technical gaffe is likely to cause great embarrassment to all three leaders as they look to work together to intensify international pressure on Iran over its nuclear ambitions. "

[Edited on November 8, 2011 at 9:50 AM. Reason : also lol at one politician calling another a liar]

11/8/2011 9:49:27 AM

Nuclear agency says Iran worked on weapons

Quote :

"The UN nuclear watchdog has expressed concern about Iran's nuclear activities in a new report detailing what it calls "credible" information that Tehran may have worked on developing nuclear weapons. In the report, published on Tuesday, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said: "The agency has serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme. "After assessing carefully and critically the extensive information available to it, the agency finds the information to be, overall, credible. This information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device." The agency also said that its information revealed that "prior to the end of 2003, these activities took place under a structured programme, and that some activities may still be ongoing". The Vienna-based agency said it possessed information on Iran's work "on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing of components". The IAEA, whose board could decide to report Tehran to the UN Security Council next week, called on Iran "to engage substantively with the agency without delay for the purpose of providing clarifications." Iran, which says its nuclear programme is peaceful and which has been hit by four rounds of UN Security Council sanctions, dismissed the new IAEA report prior to its publication, saying it was based on falsified information. The report comes amid rising speculation that Israel might launch a pre-emptive military strike in an attempt to knock out Iranian nuclear facilities. Russian 'serious doubts' Russia criticised the report, saying it would reduce hopes for dialogue with Tehran and suggesting it was aimed to scuttle the chances for a diplomatic solution. "We have serious doubts about the justification for steps to reveal contents of the report to a broad public, primarily because it is precisely now that certain chances for the renewal of dialogue between the 'sextet' of international mediators and Tehran have begun to appear," the Russian foreign ministry said in a statement. Russia and China had jointly pressured the IAEA not to even publish the report, diplomats in Vienna said. Al Jazeera's Patty Culhane, reporting from Washington DC, said: "This is a report the US wanted the IAEA to come out with. We expect the Obama administration to use this report on the international stage to impose stricter sanctions... but to get that, they need China and Russia to get on board." A senior US administration official told Al Jazeera: "The IAEA report does not assert that Iran has resumed a full-scale nuclear weapons programme, nor does it have a conclusion about how advanced those activities are, but clearly indicates there are activities of concern." "I think going forward… this report will further underscore that Iran is the only [Non-Proliferation Treaty] signatory that is unable to convince the IAEA of the peaceful intent of its programme. "That, in and of itself, further isolates Iran within the international community. I think it's incumbent on Iran to answer the very serious questions raised by this report.""

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2011/11/201111818926810103.html

Video included in link

tensions building, just in time for the US election! yippeee

[Edited on November 8, 2011 at 7:21 PM. Reason : ]

11/8/2011 7:19:14 PM

How will Israel try to stop Iran's nuclear progress?

Quote :

""The stable door has been left open and it's too late to close it." This sobering view of Iran's nuclear programme comes not from an extremist anti-Iranian campaigner, but from an experienced, rational chemistry professor who knows a thing or two about nuclear technology. Uzi Even worked at Israel's top-secret (nuclear) research facility at Dimona in the Negev Desert for several years. He is not allowed to say exactly in which capacity he was there, but the man who now earns a living as an academic at Tel Aviv University is regarded as an expert on Iran's nuclear capabilities. "It is clear [from the latest IAEA report] that Iran possesses all that is required to make a viable nuclear device," Professor Even said. "There is without doubt an intent and political determination in Iran to develop a device, you cannot come to any other conclusion," he said. Israeli government officials have largely kept their counsel after the release of the report from the IAEA headquarters in Vienna but, for many here, it confirmed what they had already suspected - that Tehran has progressively been carrying out work and testing with the sole intention of developing a nuclear bomb. Iran denies it is trying to build a nuclear bomb, but for many years Iran's suspected nuclear weapons programme has been Israel's number-one foreign policy and defence priority. Successive Israeli governments have made it clear they will not "allow" Tehran to develop and possess a nuclear weapon. In anticipation of the latest report from the IAEA, the Israeli media was full of rhetoric and opinion about whether or not Israel, and its allies, should bomb the Iranian sites. Israel, of course, is widely believed to have its own nuclear arsenal but says that a nuclear device in the hands of the Tehran regime would destabilise the entire region and cannot be tolerated. But how to act and when? Professor Even says that Tehran already has the material to conduct a proper nuclear test. "They could explode a device [underground] tomorrow in my opinion. Realistically, arming a missile with a nuclear warhead could take between two and three years," he told me. Israel's most experienced politician in dealing with regional "threats" is Ehud Barak, the defence minister in the coalition government and former prime minister. He will have, many times, weighed up the pros and cons of sending Israeli planes across hostile territory to carry out bombing raids against Iranian nuclear facilities. On at least two previous occasions - in Iraq and Syria - Israel is believed to have successfully bombed and destroyed nuclear sites on enemy soil. Suspected nuclear facility site in Syria before and after a suspected Israeli air strike on 6 September 2007 An Israeli air strike is believed to have destroyed a Syrian nuclear site in September 2007. 'Not pleasant' But Ehud Barak knows that attacking Iran would be an entirely different proposition. Firstly the Iranians are thought to have several nuclear research facilities, some of them buried deep underground. Secondly, a pre-emptive Israeli strike against Iran would, almost certainly, provoke a military response from Tehran (and its militant allies in southern Lebanon and Gaza.) The prospect of Iranian missiles falling on Tel Aviv and other cities in Israel's central coastal belt is a sobering one, but Mr Barak dismisses speculation that a short conflict with Iran would pose an existential threat to Israel. In a radio interview about the military "option", Mr Barak acknowledged there would be Israeli casualties. "There is no way to prevent some damage. It will not be pleasant," said the defence minister. But, he added: "There is no scenario for 50,000 dead, or 5,000 killed and if everyone stays in their homes, maybe not even 500 dead." Israel says it supports the idea of an even tougher regime of economic and political sanctions against Iran but suspects that would not stop Tehran's by now advanced nuclear programme. Any military response would, ideally, be a united attack by the United States and other Western countries against Iran. Failing that, Israeli leaders say they are prepared to go it alone if they have to. It is a stance that opinion polls suggest is supported by a large number of Israelis, even though it could be constituted as an "act of war". Recent sabre-rattling statements by Israeli officials could just be rhetoric, but they are alarming - the idea of a new conflict in the Middle East between two regional powers, even more so."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15662122

11/10/2011 4:42:26 AM

Israel to attack Iran by Christmas – report

Quote :

"The British media say Israel may launch an aerial strike on Iranian nuclear facilities in a matter of months. The offensive will receive support from the US, the speculation goes. The attack is meant to decapitate Iran’s nuclear program, which a recent report by the UN atomic watchdog said may have a military component. The Daily Mail cites British government sources as saying that the cabinet expects Israel to attack Iran “sooner rather than later.” “We’re expecting something as early as Christmas, or very early in the New Year,” a Foreign Office source is cited as saying. The operation will receive logistical support from the United States, the newspaper reports. US President Barack Obama will allegedly have to back Israel to secure Jewish-Americans’ votes for the upcoming presidential election. Earlier, the Guardian newspaper reported that the Ministry of Defense is drawing up contingency plans for Britain’s participation in a joint military operation against Iran. The report said such an attack would be carried out by Israel and probably the US after the presidential election in America. The Daily Mail cites its sources as saying that Whitehall currently rules out Britain’s direct involvement in an attack on Iran. The International Atomic Energy Agency released a report on Wednesday which included allegations that Iran had been developing technology related to nuclear weapons before 2003 and may still be doing so. Tehran called the accusations politically motivated and based on lies. It refused to step back from its nuclear program, which it insists is purely civilian in nature. A number of international players called for further sanctions against Iran following the report – both through the UN Security Council and at national level. Speculation that Israel is preparing to attack Iranian nuclear sites surged in the media shortly before the IAEA report was released, as the allegations contained in it had been leaked in advance. Officially, Israel has neither confirmed nor denied such plans, but said military action against Iran is on the table and is more likely in the wake of the report. Iran said it would retaliate if attacked and named Israeli nuclear facilities among the possible targets."

http://rt.com/news/israel-attack-iran-report-981/

11/10/2011 4:45:54 AM

Panetta sounds warning on Iran attack

Quote :

"Leon Panetta, the US defence secretary, has said that military action against Iran could lead to "unintended consequences" for the region. His comments came only hours after Iran itself said that any attack on its nuclear sites would be met with "iron fists." "You've got to be careful of unintended consequences here," Panetta said at the Pentagon on Thursday. Panetta, who in July succeeded Robert Gates in the Pentagon's top post, said his assessment was in line with his predecessor's. He maintained that a raid on Iran might fail to deter Iran "from what they want to do" and would only delay its controversial nuclear programme. "But more importantly, it could have a serious impact in the region, and it could have a serious impact on US forces in the region," he said. "And I think all of those things, you know, need to be carefully considered." 'Toughest sanctions' Panetta put emphasis instead on US efforts to win tougher sanctions against Tehran. "It is important for us to make sure we apply the toughest sanctions -- economic, diplomatic pressures -- on Iran to change their behaviour," he said. "And we are in discussions with our allies with regards to additional sanctions that ought to be placed on Iran." The European Union may approve fresh sanctions against Iran within weeks, after a UN agency said Iran had worked to design nuclear bombs, EU diplomats said on Thursday. EU sanctions would be a significant part of Western efforts to ratchet up pressure on Iran. Western governments would prefer UN Security Council measures against Iran, but Russia and China, both permanent UN Security Council members with veto power, are opposed. Tensions over Iran's nuclear programme were reignited on Tuesday when a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said Iran had worked on designing a bomb and that research to that end may be ongoing. Israel exacerbated speculation of a raid against Iran after last week's testing of a ballistic missilecapable of travelling the 6,437km to Iran. Israel's first test-fire of a missile in three years came after Israeli media speculation alleging Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, and Ehud Barak, the defence minister, of planning a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran has said that it will respond to any attacks by hitting Israel and US interests in the Gulf. "Our enemies, particularly the Zionist regime [Israel], America and its allies, should know that any kind of threat and attack or even thinking about any [military] action will be firmly responded to," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, said on state television."

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2011/11/2011111101431765845.html



God damnit. If Israel does something stupid, we're gonna get dragged in to war.



In related news, the US and Israel are still the biggest obstacle of Palestinian statehood, claiming that statehood would delay peace talks, i.e. stop Israel from taking more Palestinian land.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15700554

[Edited on November 11, 2011 at 2:42 PM. Reason : ]

11/11/2011 2:30:48 PM

God dammit why can't we all just get along, get rid of religion, and everyone just chill the fuck out.

It severely pisses me off that these rich entitled fucks (read: politicians) can send other people to war, to die, for some political, greedy and/or religious based bullshit.

[Edited on November 11, 2011 at 2:35 PM. Reason : ;]

11/11/2011 2:35:08 PM

^ The world would be a much, much better place.

Romney says ‘prepare for war’ against Iran

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/10/romney-says-prepare-for-war-against-iran/

Another reason why this guy scares the crap out of me...

11/12/2011 9:07:38 AM

Iran explosion at Revolutionary Guards military base

Quote :

"Seventeen soldiers have been killed in an explosion at a military base near Iran's capital Tehran, officials say. The blast occurred when weapons were being moved inside a Revolutionary Guards depot, a spokesman for the elite unit told state TV. Windows in nearby buildings were shattered and the blast was heard in central Tehran, 40 km (25 miles) away. Two hours after the explosion a fire still raged and there were traffic jams on nearby roads, a local reporter said. The death toll was revised down from an earlier figure released by the Revolutionary Guards of 27. Local MP Hossein Garousi said "a large part of an ammunition depot exploded," parliament's website reported. Revolutionary Guards spokesman Ramezan Sharif did not say what had caused the "accident" in the village of Bidganeh, near the city of Karaj. "Some of the casualties are reported to be in a critical condition," he said. An emergency worker said that 12 people had been taken to hospital. Karaj resident Kaveer told the BBC's Newshour programme that the sound was "deafening". "We were kind of shocked. I just ran out of the house and looked around," he said. Economic force An elite military force, the Revolutionary Guard was set up shortly after the 1979 Iranian revolution to defend the country's Islamic system. It has since become a major military, political and economic force in Iran. The Revolutionary Guard has been targeted by UN sanctions aimed at pressuring Iran to halt uranium enrichment. There have been occasional unexplained explosions in Iran before. Eighteen people were killed in a blast at a Revolutionary Guards base in the north-western Lorestan province in October 2010. The latest blast comes at a time of heightened tensions over Iran's nuclear ambitions. The UN's nuclear watchdog the IAEA released a report on Tuesday which, correspondents say, prompted new fears that Iran's nuclear programme has a military objective. There has also been speculation in Israel's media that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is considering ordering strikes against Iran's nuclear sites, in the hope of stalling or ending its programme. Iran says its nuclear programme has purely civilian aims."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15705948


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mp23oX_7thU

11/12/2011 8:06:37 PM

santorum hopes we've been murdering russian and iranian scientists

11/12/2011 8:39:33 PM

11/12/2011 8:55:43 PM

oh god. the lunatic fringe left is out imagining wars and that the GOP can't WAIT to start one....

ugh. wow this is retarded.

iran will strike first. isreal will go unilateral against them. and we'd RATHER it be this way. this is coming from a conservative whom most of you consider 'righter' than rush limbaugh. we don't want war.

oh well. you'll forever think what you want. have fun using "RT" and "aljazeera" as your main news sources while you're 'LEARNING'

lol

11/12/2011 11:06:33 PM

well thats not what the candidates said in tonight's debate. besides paul and huntsman, who have no chance, all of them have clearly stated they would take military action to prevent iran from building a nuke and they have also said they would engage in economic war against the chinese.

11/12/2011 11:17:37 PM

Quote :

"iran will strike first"

Are you retarded?


I mean, I really don't think that allowing Iran to go nuclear is an option that should even be on the table, but what in the blue fuck makes you think that Iran would even entertain the idea of striking Israel right now in a preemptive move?

11/13/2011 12:22:15 AM

He's not retarded. He just gets his jollies by goading anyone he considers "liberal" into baseless arguments. He's got a pretty high rate of success, honestly. Now, why he gets off to that is another topic altogether


Anyway, here's another article (ZOMG-- CNN!) about the US being concerned that Israel might attack.

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/04/u-s-concerned-israel-could-strike-iran/?hpt=wo_bn1




[Edited on November 13, 2011 at 1:09 AM. Reason : actually, he might be retarded. but that's alright]

11/13/2011 1:02:52 AM

Here's a thought, regardless of what side of the debate you're on - we have no money.

11/14/2011 2:14:32 AM

To reiterate -- there will be no war with Iran. The only way that would happen is if they started it, which they won't, because they're not brain dead.

Dollars to donuts, nobody's talking about this shit a year from now.

11/14/2011 3:36:49 AM

I wonder how war is being defined here. A strike against Iran's nuclear facilities would likely lead to no more than another skirmish on Israel's northern border.

11/14/2011 9:06:14 AM

Lmao wouldn't that be the ultimate irony; Israel, a country we know to possess WMD's, makes very strong intimations of attacking Iran. Iran responds to this by launching a pre-emptive attack, and is condemned universally by US neoconservatives.

11/14/2011 10:28:42 AM

Quote :

" The operation will receive logistical support from the United States, the newspaper reports. US President Barack Obama will allegedly have to back Israel to secure Jewish-Americans’ votes for the upcoming presidential election."

Statements like these make me laugh.

IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY FOR THE JEW VOTE, MAN.

11/14/2011 10:32:14 AM

all you people cracking on santorum are retarded. if you think obama isnt involved in taking out some iranian scientists on the down-low you are delusional. he's just being smart and quiet about it

he understands that if you let iran get a nuke. ...

you get this:

11/14/2011 2:14:17 PM

Quote :

"I mean, I really don't think that allowing Iran to go nuclear is an option that should even be on the table, but what in the blue fuck makes you think that Iran would even entertain the idea of striking Israel right now in a preemptive move?"

THATS the genius of it. it won't be outright and direct. of course they cant put on their uniforms and start invading. it begins with them smuggling a nuke to their favorite group.... hamas, or whoever is doing business that day.

11/14/2011 2:20:13 PM

There's no reason Iran would bother to actually nuke Israel. They'd likely be nuked themselves, summarily invaded and their leaders deposed. It'd be suicidal for the leaders and the nation itself. Of course, if you believe the world is a fairy tale and Iran is simply villainous and evil for the sake of evil (even when it completely defies rationality) then I guess I can see why you'd think they'd use it.

But seriously, simply HAVING a nuke means they wont be as easily pushed around by the Israel and the US/European sphere (which has been what they've struggled against for generations). Not to mention with nuclear power they can put even more of their oil into profitable exports, and when the oil runs dry they wont be energy-less.

11/14/2011 3:14:19 PM

Quote :

"The only way that would happen is if they Israel started it, which they won't might, because they're not brain dead paranoid."

[Edited on November 14, 2011 at 3:30 PM. Reason : ]

11/14/2011 3:26:45 PM

Considering how small Israel is to begin with, any chemical, biological or nuclear attack is going to impact all of its neighbors including the Palestinians. Tel Aviv for example is what, less than twenty miles from the West Bank? Forty miles from the Gaza Strip? Sixty miles from Amman, Jordan and the Lebanese border? Arabs and Persians may not giving a flying flip about killing Israelis, but if they vaporize or gas tens of thousands of Palestinians in the process, I don't think it's going to help their cause.

The main reason i don't think that Israel is going to war is that powerful factions internally are against this move. The leaks are supposedly by the heads of the Mossad and Shin Bet (domestic security), two extremely powerful groups within the Israeli security apparatus, in an effort to undermine Netanyahu's supposed march to war. He can probably still go forward despite these protests, but it'll make it much, much harder.

11/14/2011 5:06:22 PM

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a Twelver or Imami Shia Muslim. Twelvers believe that the Mahdi has been hidden by God and will later emerge to change the world into a from a place where anarchy and chaos are brought about into a perfect and just Islamic society alongside Jesus before the Yam al-Qiyamah (literally "Day of the Resurrection" or "Day of the Standing").

Ahmadinejad believes that God has appointed him to be the bringer of that chaos.

Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

If you believed in an Almighty God, and that God put you into a position of power to bring about a chaos that would trigger the salvation of God upon the world, wouldn't you do your utmost to bring about that chaos?

Iran is about 90% Shi'a Islam.

Of all Shi'a, 85% are Twelvers.

Do you really think it's just Ahmadinejad who wants a nuclear weapon?

11/14/2011 9:17:54 PM

Quote :

"But seriously, simply HAVING a nuke means they wont be as easily pushed around by the Israel and the US/European sphere (which has been what they've struggled against for generations). Not to mention with nuclear power they can put even more of their oil into profitable exports, and when the oil runs dry they wont be energy-less."

Right, this is the reason why people don't want Iran to have a nuke. It's not because they'll use it. Everyone knows they're too smart to use it.

The belief of the people running the U.S. government (and those that support the government) is that we own the Iranian people. We have the right to deny them the ability to defend themselves and provide energy for themselves. This has been our policy for a long time. This is not about national defense, never has been.

When the Iranians tried to use their natural resources to benefit their own people, we overthrew their government. The sad thing is that many U.S. citizens support this policy. They are fine with bombing countries, intervening in the political process, and preventing a society's progress if it means that gas is a dollar cheaper. While I'm sure these people have plenty of half-baked justifications for this belief, we would rightfully feel hostile if the shoe were on the other foot. Many of the "hawks" here would likely be known as "terrorists" on the other side.

[Edited on November 14, 2011 at 9:35 PM. Reason : ]

11/14/2011 9:35:03 PM

Quote :

"Right, this is the reason why people don't want Iran to have a nuke. It's not because they'll use it. "

I will be the first to say that's the biggest part of why I don't think we can allow it. They aren't DPRK, but they're not really a good global citizen by any stretch. Everyone would have to honor the threat, and that would be all they'd need. They become a problem that's really, really tough to solve if they get out of hand and have nukes.

11/14/2011 9:56:31 PM

damn you guys support iran more than its own citizens

you guys should go there and try to bully the uprising rebels and people who are actually against this regime and nuke construction. seriously. since the "US/Euro sphere" bullies them around so much.

holy shit. i'm pretty damn glad you guys have literally 0 say as to what ACTUALLY happens in this country and the world and only have about as much influence as your posts and tweets about OWS. that's the only clown platform you'll ever have. the rest of the world has too much common sense then to let the worst dictator on the planet to pursue a nuclear weapons program willy nilly while it OPENLY STATES THAT ITS #1 RELIGIOUS GOAL IS THE ERADICATION OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE AND THEN CHRISTIANITY NEXT.

i mean. seriously. get the fuck downtown to OWS. not later. now. fucking go.

you have no credibility at all saying we 'push them around'. holy shit. go back a few 1000 years and read some history, god damn. these fucks have pushed peoples around for millenia and they would DO IT AGAIN!!! are you numb to history and deny it much like their leader is already denying the holocaust.

its a blatent and open book on the fact that this ancient religions stated goals are total and complete domination and indoctrination to islam


[Edited on November 14, 2011 at 10:30 PM. Reason : ,]

11/14/2011 10:23:09 PM

Quote :

" it OPENLY STATES THAT ITS #1 RELIGIOUS GOAL IS THE ERADICATION OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE AND THEN CHRISTIANITY NEXT."

11/14/2011 10:44:40 PM

please. systematically debunk my horseshit rolleyed statement then. please. do it. i'm fucking begging you to do it.

11/14/2011 11:19:02 PM

here try reading this first.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_relations

OH GOD HE POSTED THE WESTERN CENSORED CORPORATE SPONSORED WIKIPEDIA LINK THAT HAS NO FACT AT ALL

lol

this place is probably the most attractive place to live in the world to half the posters in this forum after reading that.

[Edited on November 14, 2011 at 11:36 PM. Reason : quotes below]

11/14/2011 11:21:01 PM

damn you guys support the united states more than its own citizens

you guys should go there and try to bully the uprising rebels and people who are actually against this regime and nuke construction. seriously. since the "iran" bullies them around so much.

holy shit. i'm pretty damn glad you guys have literally 0 say as to what ACTUALLY happens in this country and the world and only have about as much influence as your posts and tweets about 9/11. that's the only clown platform you'll ever have. the rest of the world has too much common sense then to let the worst war machine on the planet to pursue a preemptive strike program willy nilly while it OPENLY STATES THAT ITS #1 MILITARY/RELIGIOUS GOAL IS THE ERADICATION OF THE HOLY LAND SO THAT THE TEMPLE CAN BE BUILT.

i mean. seriously. get the fuck downtown to first baptist. not later. now. fucking go.

you have no credibility at all saying they 'want to nuke us'. holy shit. go back a few 10s of years and read some history, god damn. these fucks have nuked/attacked peoples around for decades and they would DO IT AGAIN!!! are you numb to history and deny it much like our leader is already denying the made-up intel for going to war in iraq.

its a blatent and open book on the fact that this new religions stated goals are total and complete domination and indoctrination to $.

11/14/2011 11:24:54 PM

i see your simple debate stragety E MAN

for clarity and truth:

Quote :

"Ahmadinejad : "Israel must be wiped off the map of the world, and god willing (…) we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionists. " Supreme Leader Khamenei:"It is incorrect, irrational, pointless and nonsense to say that we are friends of Israeli people... we are on a collision course with the occupiers of Palestine and the occupiers are the Zionist regime. This is the position of our regime, our revolution and our people." Soltanieh: “I think I’ve already answered to you. If Israel is a synonym and will give the indication of Zionism mentalityt"

doesnt it suck to realize that all the candidates and even your own currently sitting in office disagrees 100% totally with your retarded assbackwards beliefs and the same with the majority of the populace??? lol

yeh i'd be constantly venting here and on reddit too if that was my only outlet to share my horseshit that will never be respected by a majority of homo sapiens. your radical beliefs will always fail in the face of truth


[Edited on November 14, 2011 at 11:35 PM. Reason : ,]

11/14/2011 11:28:58 PM

I challenge you to read section 2-4 of the Wikipedia article you posted, rather than starting at "Current", which is apparently what you did.

And honestly, try to read it as if you were truly objective observer. Don't think about the fact that you like the United States because you're from the United States. Look at it rationally. Look at the consequences of the things our government did.

Disconnect your ego from your nationality. You have nothing to do with the actions of the United States government before you were born. It doesn't reflect poorly on you to admit that the U.S. government did very bad things.

The best thing we could do in this situation is to actually have a leader of the United States admit that U.S. policy has been wrong, and that it will be right going forward. That won't happen because people are still wrapped up in tribalistic tendencies. They see a change of policy as "losing the game", not understanding that it's really "winning the game," since we then move towards peaceful cooperation which benefits all parties.

The U.S. has been bullying Iran. We should make the moral and courageous decision to stop.

11/14/2011 11:36:13 PM

Rational? seriously?

exactly. i challenge you to do the same. look at the world as first a homosapien
an actual living creature.

now what on earth presents the greatest threat to massive potential to loss of life? hmmm maybe its islamic extremists with a nuke??? nah. couldn't be. that's the most responsible society we've seen in the last 12000 years.


ITS NOT IRAN i care about. it's religious zealots quite literally getting a nuclear capability that would use it on innocent creatures and life on this planet. its simply about the spread of life in the universe at this point

it has NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING to do with "USA americah fuck yar football team go wolpfack"

nothing at all. wow.


i'm glad obama and even santorum have the ability to recognize this and attack them in different ways with electronic warfare and even recently with carbombs. them getting a nuke is a grave threat to the health and prosperity of life on this planet and all species.

[Edited on November 14, 2011 at 11:42 PM. Reason : ,]

11/14/2011 11:38:20 PM

Quote :

"I will be the first to say that's the biggest part of why I don't think we can allow it. They aren't DPRK, but they're not really a good global citizen by any stretch. Everyone would have to honor the threat, and that would be all they'd need. They become a problem that's really, really tough to solve if they get out of hand and have nukes."

How many Americans have been killed by Israel? How many countries has Iran invaded? All this "Iran is an irrational player" talk is worthless in my opinion because we hold our allies to a much lower standard than our supposed enemies. Iran is in no way a threat to the US. None. So....what would be the point of invading them? Iran getting a nuke might be a threat to you at the gas pump. That's about it, though.

11/14/2011 11:54:22 PM

^ another OWS'er for an islamic run world state that threatens random countries with nukes. big surprise there buddy!!!

Quote :

" How many countries has Iran invaded?"

how many years do we get to play? in the last 50 years?
a couple.

in the last 1000 years?
several actually

in the last 10000 years?
more than anybody in written history



/thread. no nukes in iran please. thanks obama for enforcing better than these lunatics in this thread

[Edited on November 15, 2011 at 12:02 AM. Reason : ,]

11/15/2011 12:00:11 AM

[Edited on November 15, 2011 at 12:57 AM. Reason : derp]

11/15/2011 12:46:19 AM

i see your simple debate stragety E MAN

for clarity and truth:

Quote :

"Ahmadinejad : "Israel must be wiped off the map of the world, and god willing (…) we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionists. " Supreme Leader Khamenei:"It is incorrect, irrational, pointless and nonsense to say that we are friends of Israeli people... we are on a collision course with the occupiers of Palestine and the occupiers are the Zionist regime. This is the position of our regime, our revolution and our people." Soltanieh: “I think I’ve already answered to you. If Israel is a synonym and will give the indication of Zionism mentalityt"

*******************************************************************

i see your simple debate stragety pack_bryan

for clarity and truth:

David Ben Gurion
Prime Minister of Israel
1949 - 1954,
1955 - 1963

Quote :

""We must expel Arabs and take their places.""

Quote :

""There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?""

Quote :

""Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.""

Quote :

""Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country.""

Quote :

""If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel.""

Golda Meir
Prime Minister of Israel
1969 - 1974

Quote :

""There is no such thing as a Palestinian people... It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist.""

Quote :

""How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to.""

Quote :

""This country exists as the fulfillment of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy.""

Yitzhak Rabin
Prime Minister of Israel
1974 - 1977,
1992 - 1995

Quote :

""We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!""

Quote :

""[Israel will] create in the course of the next 10 or 20 years conditions which would attract natural and voluntary migration of the refugees from the Gaza Strip and the west Bank to Jordan. To achieve this we have to come to agreement with King Hussein and not with Yasser Arafat.""

Yizhak Shamir
Prime Minister of Israel
1983 - 1984,
1986 - 1992

Quote :

""The settlement of the Land of Israel is the essence of Zionism. Without settlement, we will not fulfill Zionism. It's that simple.""

Quote :

""(The Palestinians) would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls." -- Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) Yitzhak Shamir in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988"

Benjamin Netanyahu
Prime Minister of Israel
1996 - 1999

Quote :

""Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories." -- Benyamin Netanyahu, then Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, former Prime Minister of Israel, speaking to students at Bar Ilan University, from the Israeli journal Hotam, November 24, 1989."

Ehud Barak
Prime Minister of Israel
1999 - 2001

Quote :

""I would have joined a terrorist organization." -- Ehud Barak's response to Gideon Levy, a columnist for the Ha'aretz newspaper, when Barak was asked what he would have done if he had been born a Palestinian."

Ariel Sharon
Prime Minister of Israel
2001 - 2006

Quote :

""It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands." -- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998."

Quote :

""Everybody has to move, run and grab as many (Palestinian) hilltops as they can to enlarge the (Jewish) settlements because everything we take now will stay ours...Everything we don't grab will go to them." -- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998."

Quote :

""Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial.""

And such disgusting humans should be allowed to have nukes, right?

If we are judging rulers by their words, then the Israeli rulers should be slaughtered first, figuratively and/or literally.

11/15/2011 2:37:44 AM

Quote :

"now what on earth presents the greatest threat to massive potential to loss of life?"

The destruction of the environment due to industry.

11/15/2011 11:05:13 AM

Quote :

"Ahmadinejad : "Israel must be wiped off the map of the world, and god willing (…) we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionists. "

The best part is he never even said that. His exact quote was,

http://tinyurl.com/cj38coz

[Edited on November 15, 2011 at 11:22 AM. Reason : :]

11/15/2011 11:20:16 AM