Sit down, John.

The Hava Nagila?

I want him to take off his stache and use it like a razor boomerang and decapitate our enemies.

It's like all the members of Bush's administration are "heroes" in choose-your-own-adventure books where you only get to continue if you choose the worst most destructive solution to the problem at hand.

Launch an air campaign that destroys a few buildings and cements the populace behind the most hardline motherfarker they can find?

Are you suggesting that we send them a kugel? Why you sly fox, it's just brash and refreshing enough to work!

He's the Hulk of idiots. The louder John gets, the wronger John gets. His incalculable idiocy can only be contained in a Right Wing think tank.

Siphon money from the US?
Expand their "settlements"?

Shutup John, you cock.

Bored Horde: Launch an air campaign that destroys a few buildings and cements the populace behind the most hardline motherfarker they can find?

Seriously, where did this idea come from that people will like when a foreign country attacks them?

John Bolton is actually Benjamin Netanyahu in a clever disguise.

RainWhenIDie:

where did this idea come from that people will like when a foreign country attacks them?

I think that thought there is think tank thinking.

And now, let me introduce my new pretend girlfriend, Toni Trucks



I met her while watching the SciFi channel original movie Star Runners and we just hit it off.

I was wondering how long it would take after the Iran protests died down (though, I hope, are not completely dead) that conservatives would go back to "WE NEED TO ATTACK IRAN THEY ARE EVIL AND WILL KILL US GRRR" mode.

What a goddamned asshole. This guy did all he possibly could to ensure that the NKoreans acquired a nuclear device short of handing it to them*. I'm really starting to think that he is actually a nihilist or anarchist in conservative disguise. At least Wolfowitz had some weird neo-con utopian motivations from time to time.

Citation: Mike Chinoy's "Meltdown: The inside story of the North Korean Nuclear Crisis"

Saber-rattle. Lots and lots of saber-rattling. And 24 hour news coverage.

isn't this guy just a nobody now? who cares what he says...if you ignore him he'll go back to giving mustache rides to preteen boys.

Bolton = stupid cocksucker

Bloody William: I was wondering how long it would take after the Iran protests died down (though, I hope, are not completely dead) that conservatives would go back to "WE NEED TO ATTACK IRAN THEY ARE EVIL AND WILL KILL US GRRR" mode.

I actually thought it was going to take another month or so, but I'm a raging optimist.

"With Iran's hard-line mullahs and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps unmistakably back in control..."

Really? Fark threads with updates, military style badges and green bands around a "k" didn't cause the revolution to succeed? I'm so shocked.

Guy is awesome. Farkers hate him, means he is awesomer.

Israel should kick the fark out of Iran, now.

Iran has secretly developed a Neutron Bomb that will kill all the fleas in Bolton's mustache while leaving it completely intact.

Bolton: "F*ck it, the protesters lost. Israel, Bomb them until they are happy!"
Israel: "With pleasure. Hey Obama, I can haz loan?"
Obama: "Eat a bowl of dicks, Israel."
Iran: "SEE?!?! The US is behind all of this!!!!"

Wow. He is one scary guy.

He is a warmonger.

I hope that white rat that lives under his nose wakes up and bites his lips off.

Seriously, how do we stop our government from allowing Israel to do this? Not anti-Israel, just anti-war.

Thunderpipes: Guy is awesome. Farkers hate him, means he is awesomer.

Israel should kick the fark out of Iran, now.

No thanks, I like gas prices below 5 dollars a gallon.

rastjr: Seriously, how do we stop our government from allowing Israel to do this? Not anti-Israel, just anti-war.

Oh my god, you f*cking Anti-semite!!!
/obligatory
//have no clue how we'd stop them

rastjr: Seriously, how do we stop our government from allowing Israel to do this? Not anti-Israel, just anti-war.

is stopping from allowing the same as forcing to not-allow?

Bolton's a classic Republican closet case cock muncher who's wrong about everything and thinks he's a genius because of it. Asswipe.

Keeping attention on Iran is just what Bolton and his Irish overlords want.



Wait. What?

Control their Movie Industry?

I need someone to explain to me how Israel starting WW3 is a favorable alternative to Iran having the potential to start WW3.

Clue me in.

rastjr: Seriously, how do we stop our government from allowing Israel to do this? Not anti-Israel, just anti-war.

My hope is that the fear of having to go it alone will be sufficient. An unprovoked attack by Israel would cause most of their support to evaporate.

rastjr: Seriously, how do we stop our government from allowing Israel to do this? Not anti-Israel, just anti-war.

We don't. It's not our job. Israel has to solve its own problems. We SHOULD stop cutting them deals on weaponz. Also, we should start selling all that advanced hardware to Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Saudi Arabia-- spread the love around and make some ka-ching.

rastjr: Seriously, how do we stop our government from allowing Israel to do this? Not anti-Israel, just anti-war.

I don't know, how was Iraq or Germany or Japan stopped from attacking neighbors?

Bolt-on: facepalm directly to the forehead.

He wrote basically the same op ed in the WSJ on the day of the election. The guy has a serious bloodlust.

fenrael23: //have no clue how we'd stop them

The same as with any spoiled brat: cut off their allowance and not let them have any new toys until they promise not to beat up other kids in the neighborhood with them.

Karma Curmudgeon: fenrael23: //have no clue how we'd stop them

The same as with any spoiled brat: cut off their allowance and not let them have any new toys until they promise not to beat up other kids in the neighborhood with them.

Yeah, but could you imagine the high-pitched whining that would take over our airwaves? Christ, it'd be unbearable.

H31N0US: I need someone to explain to me how Israel starting WW3 is a favorable alternative to Iran having the potential to start WW3.

Clue me in.

Because Iran is not capable of WW3, asshat. Israel would kick the snot out of them, problem solved. They are not pussies like you Farkers. France tried to build Saddam a nuclear reactor, Israel said no, not yours, leveled it in one strike. That is what Israel does. They have to, because Jew haters like Farkers won't leave them alone.

I thought his main directive was to bring about the end times? A couple well placed air strikes in this climate just might help Jesus come back.

Sygerrik: rastjr: Seriously, how do we stop our government from allowing Israel to do this? Not anti-Israel, just anti-war.

We don't. It's not our job. Israel has to solve its own problems. We SHOULD stop cutting them deals on weaponz. Also, we should start selling all that advanced hardware to Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Saudi Arabia-- spread the love around and make some ka-ching.

That's right, selling weapons to people that hate us is the right thing to do.

/Sarcasm off.

H31N0US: I need someone to explain to me how Israel starting WW3 is a favorable alternative to Iran having the potential to start WW3.

Clue me in.

How about the Rapture?

Iranians hearing things like this can only lead to more acceptance, if not outright support, for "President" Ahmaneedajihad. Which is what our right wing wants, of course...

Diogenes: Iran has secretly developed a Neutron Bomb that will kill all the fleas in Bolton's mustache while leaving it completely intact.

Nearly choked on a raisin, thanks for the lol

The reckless, belligerent and ignorant love this guy.

The Revolution in 1979 took a year. To give up now and beat the war drums... seriously, go FARK YOURSELF you warmongering neocon biatch.

What a farking embarrassment that this knuckle-dragging monster was our ambassador to the UN.

crimsin23: Sygerrik: rastjr: Seriously, how do we stop our government from allowing Israel to do this? Not anti-Israel, just anti-war.

We don't. It's not our job. Israel has to solve its own problems. We SHOULD stop cutting them deals on weaponz. Also, we should start selling all that advanced hardware to Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Saudi Arabia-- spread the love around and make some ka-ching.

That's right, selling weapons to people that hate us is the right thing to do.

/Sarcasm off.

I agree. We should give them weapons gratis. Then they won't hate us any more.

Thunderpipes: H31N0US: I need someone to explain to me how Israel starting WW3 is a favorable alternative to Iran having the potential to start WW3.

Clue me in.

Because Iran is not capable of WW3, asshat. Israel would kick the snot out of them, problem solved. They are not pussies like you Farkers. France tried to build Saddam a nuclear reactor, Israel said no, not yours, leveled it in one strike. That is what Israel does. They have to, because Jew haters like Farkers won't leave them alone.

ahh Israel, the issue where backwoods troglodyte hicks all pretend like they don't make derogatory jew references on an hourly basis.

Another brave guy: "You guys go get 'em."

The low odds of success for a military strike have not improved over the months and years.

Wanting to do it and pulling it off are very different.

shower_in_my_socks: The Revolution in 1979 took a year. To give up now and beat the war drums... seriously, go FARK YOURSELF you warmongering neocon biatch.

What a farking embarrassment that this knuckle-dragging monster was our ambassador to the UN.

THIS

Karma Curmudgeon: fenrael23: //have no clue how we'd stop them

The same as with any spoiled brat: cut off their allowance and not let them have any new toys until they promise not to beat up other kids in the neighborhood with them.

Do you see anything politically that would make that possible ? The Administration hasn't been gun-ho -- but they haven't been hostile either.

Speaking out against Israel is the third rail -- however I, personally, don't know anyone who's hard up for the country the way our politicians are -- and I do know more than a few people of several political persuasions that think they're more trouble than they're worth.

I'd like to think people wouldn't put up with this nonsense anymore if Israel started another war -- but then, we may rally around the 51st state. I just don't know.

Karma Curmudgeon: fenrael23: //have no clue how we'd stop them

The same as with any spoiled brat: cut off their allowance and not let them have any new toys until they promise not to beat up other kids in the neighborhood with them.

Yup, the 3 billion they get annualy from us is sooo much money. Any more bright ideas?

As John Bolton only understands one course of action, I'm afraid we have no option but to call an airstrike on John Bolton. If it is the taste of blood he longs for, let him taste his own.

/Dibs on "shotgun" in the Strike Eagle dispatched to take out this farking cocksucker

Mentat: He wrote basically the same op ed in the WSJ on the day of the election. The guy has a serious bloodlust.


And he PREDICTED back in 2008 that Israel would bomb Iran before Bush's term was over. It must have been heartbreaking for him when Israel didn't bomb the #!@$ out of the brown people. He had the lube all ready and the channel set to CNN for the night-video explosions...

Headso:

derogatory jew references

I'm working on an epically offensive one which I will debut when only when it's done. Tat's will hate me for days before he forgives me due to it's brilliance.

Thunderpipes: H31N0US: I need someone to explain to me how Israel starting WW3 is a favorable alternative to Iran having the potential to start WW3.

Clue me in.

Because Iran is not capable of WW3, asshat. Israel would kick the snot out of them, problem solved. They are not pussies like you Farkers. France tried to build Saddam a nuclear reactor, Israel said no, not yours, leveled it in one strike. That is what Israel does. They have to, because Jew haters like Farkers won't leave them alone.

I doubt WW3 is going to be started by something as in-your-face as this Israel/Iran bullshiat. It will be something insignificant. Like a North Korean general assassinating a Kim Jong whatsit. Something small that snowballs into something unstoppable.

crimsin23: Sygerrik: rastjr: Seriously, how do we stop our government from allowing Israel to do this? Not anti-Israel, just anti-war.

We don't. It's not our job. Israel has to solve its own problems. We SHOULD stop cutting them deals on weaponz. Also, we should start selling all that advanced hardware to Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Saudi Arabia-- spread the love around and make some ka-ching.

That's right, selling weapons to people that hate us is the right thing to do.

/Sarcasm off.

We already do it all the damn time. Reagan sold weapons to Iran. We sell weapons to Israel, whose leaders have a very thinly disguised contempt for us. And Saudi Arabia LOVES us; we prop up their entire economy. Selling weapons to the Arabs would level the playing field over there, which would possibly end some of the resentment directed towards us for being state sponsors of apartheid. It would also make us a great deal of money. And finally, it would be satisfying to see the biggest bullies in the world get some of their own back.

Speaking as a straight white Christian male radical right wing conservative... I don't mind cutting off money to Israel. Nothing against Israel, we just don't have the money -- period. We don't have it to give.

That said, if Israel, in their own best interests, wants to attack Iran's nucular facilities more power to them. Saves us the costs of doing so.

Cody

Thunderpipes: H31N0US: I need someone to explain to me how Israel starting WW3 is a favorable alternative to Iran having the potential to start WW3.

Clue me in.

Because Iran is not capable of WW3, asshat. Israel would kick the snot out of them, problem solved. They are not pussies like you Farkers. France tried to build Saddam a nuclear reactor, Israel said no, not yours, leveled it in one strike. That is what Israel does. They have to, because Jew haters like Farkers won't leave them alone.

You DO realize that there is a slight difference in how each of those facilities were/are protected, right? Right?

take more US money and divert arab anger toward us?

Thunderpipes: Israel would kick the snot out of them, problem solved.

Iran has strong allies in Russia and China. Either or both of them are quite capable of WW3. It won't take much, in the current economic situation, for nations to choose sides for an all out conflict. Google Franz Ferdinand...and skip past the entries for the sucky hipster band.

Evidently, the ability to perform a forward looking scenario analysis escapes you, asshat.

Personally, I celebrate the man's entire catalog.

fenrael23: Karma Curmudgeon: fenrael23: //have no clue how we'd stop them

The same as with any spoiled brat: cut off their allowance and not let them have any new toys until they promise not to beat up other kids in the neighborhood with them.

Yeah, but could you imagine the high-pitched whining that would take over our airwaves? Christ, it'd be unbearable.

Israel gets 3 billion a year from the US. So please tell me: What the hell are you talking about?

/And I will just ignore the 'high-pitched' comment in hopes that that wasn't an anti-semmitic statement.

... which will not include an extra when and an incorrect "its".

Codyl: Speaking as a straight white Christian male radical right wing conservative... I don't mind cutting off money to Israel. Nothing against Israel, we just don't have the money -- period. We don't have it to give.

That said, if Israel, in their own best interests, wants to attack Iran's nucular facilities more power to them. Saves us the costs of doing so.

Cody



/wait. 'Nucular'? OUT, OUT, damned troll.

You have to admit, the man has a helluva 'stache.

that_other_internet: H31N0US: I need someone to explain to me how Israel starting WW3 is a favorable alternative to Iran having the potential to start WW3.

Clue me in.

How about the Rapture?

You should have gone with this version.

/Fab Five Freddie told me everybody's high

crimsin23: fenrael23: Karma Curmudgeon: fenrael23: //have no clue how we'd stop them

The same as with any spoiled brat: cut off their allowance and not let them have any new toys until they promise not to beat up other kids in the neighborhood with them.

Yeah, but could you imagine the high-pitched whining that would take over our airwaves? Christ, it'd be unbearable.

Israel gets 3 billion a year from the US. So please tell me: What the hell are you talking about?

/And I will just ignore the 'high-pitched' comment in hopes that that wasn't an anti-semmitic statement.

First: that's a lot of money. Second: the true value of the aid we give to Israel isn't the money, it's the fact that we sell them proprietary military technology that we don't make available to anyone else, and when we sell them weapons we do it cheaper than for any of our allies. Third, that ridiculous strawman that anyone who opposes Israel's blatant asshattery is an anti-Semite is idiotic and tired. Shut up. Shut up and go away, you mewling wretch.

Not to mention-- many Israeli Jews are of European extraction, while the Palestinians are a Semitic people. So who's the anti-Semite now?

an act by Israel would turn the whole region into a "everyone vs. Israel" type conflict. The U.S. is probably the only country with the military might and detterent to pull it off. It would be counter to everything Obama has promised though which makes a strike unlikely.

My guess is Obama will try to stall and buy time in order to punt to the next administration.

crimsin23: fenrael23: Karma Curmudgeon: fenrael23: //have no clue how we'd stop them

The same as with any spoiled brat: cut off their allowance and not let them have any new toys until they promise not to beat up other kids in the neighborhood with them.

Yeah, but could you imagine the high-pitched whining that would take over our airwaves? Christ, it'd be unbearable.

Israel gets 3 billion a year from the US. So please tell me: What the hell are you talking about?

/And I will just ignore the 'high-pitched' comment in hopes that that wasn't an anti-semmitic statement.

I am talking about how the mere mention of funds being cut off (regardless of how much money is actually is) from Israel would cause a shiatstorm of whining. Whining tends to be high-pitched and annoying.

And I could care less about that weak "anti-semite" garbage. It is overplayed here on Fark. It's like Godwinning a thread at this point.
/Good day, sir.

Sygerrik: crimsin23: Sygerrik: rastjr: Seriously, how do we stop our government from allowing Israel to do this? Not anti-Israel, just anti-war.

We don't. It's not our job. Israel has to solve its own problems. We SHOULD stop cutting them deals on weaponz. Also, we should start selling all that advanced hardware to Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Saudi Arabia-- spread the love around and make some ka-ching.

That's right, selling weapons to people that hate us is the right thing to do.

/Sarcasm off.

We already do it all the damn time. Reagan sold weapons to Iran. We sell weapons to Israel, whose leaders have a very thinly disguised contempt for us. And Saudi Arabia LOVES us; we prop up their entire economy. Selling weapons to the Arabs would level the playing field over there, which would possibly end some of the resentment directed towards us for being state sponsors of apartheid. It would also make us a great deal of money. And finally, it would be satisfying to see the biggest bullies in the world get some of their own back.

Since when is Israel the 'biggest bullies in the world'? And you think that the US selling weapons to Arab countries will make them stop hating US? Wow are you ignorant.

crimsin23: Yup, the 3 billion they get annualy from us is sooo much money. Any more bright ideas?

So, if it's such an inconsequential amount, then they can easily do without it, right? And what of the indirect aid that comes to roughly the same amount, also inconsequential?

I made the suggestion as a point to a question about what to do with Israel threatening to shiat where we eat. Not to save some money.

Screw 'im. I've hated that S.O.B. ever since he butchered "When a Man Loves a Woman".

dryknife: Personally, I celebrate the man's entire catalog.

♩♫♩ When Iraaaaan loves John Bolton.... ♩♫♩

Is the Washington Post owned by warmongering Zionists now? They should be embarassed and ashamed for having printed this idiocy from Bolton.

Which is what, flim flam the Iranian populace with their media outlets?

Scream about being the victim while slaughtering civilians walled up in a ghetto?

fenrael23: crimsin23: fenrael23: Karma Curmudgeon: fenrael23: //have no clue how we'd stop them

The same as with any spoiled brat: cut off their allowance and not let them have any new toys until they promise not to beat up other kids in the neighborhood with them.

Yeah, but could you imagine the high-pitched whining that would take over our airwaves? Christ, it'd be unbearable.

Israel gets 3 billion a year from the US. So please tell me: What the hell are you talking about?

/And I will just ignore the 'high-pitched' comment in hopes that that wasn't an anti-semmitic statement.

I am talking about how the mere mention of funds being cut off (regardless of how much money is actually is) from Israel would cause a shiatstorm of whining. Whining tends to be high-pitched and annoying.

And I could care less about that weak "anti-semite" garbage. It is overplayed here on Fark. It's like Godwinning a thread at this point.
/Good day, sir.

So now you are inventing your own Godwin? Hell if that's the case let everyone do that.

People don't care about how much money the US gives Israel, they care that the strongest country in the world has Israel's back.

Isreal will strike when the time is right, they have the best intellegence service in the world. Right about the time when Iran has a kilo of Ur-235, BOOM goes the dynamite; no more power plant.

crimsin23: Sygerrik: crimsin23: Sygerrik: rastjr: Seriously, how do we stop our government from allowing Israel to do this? Not anti-Israel, just anti-war.

We don't. It's not our job. Israel has to solve its own problems. We SHOULD stop cutting them deals on weaponz. Also, we should start selling all that advanced hardware to Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Saudi Arabia-- spread the love around and make some ka-ching.

That's right, selling weapons to people that hate us is the right thing to do.

/Sarcasm off.

We already do it all the damn time. Reagan sold weapons to Iran. We sell weapons to Israel, whose leaders have a very thinly disguised contempt for us. And Saudi Arabia LOVES us; we prop up their entire economy. Selling weapons to the Arabs would level the playing field over there, which would possibly end some of the resentment directed towards us for being state sponsors of apartheid. It would also make us a great deal of money. And finally, it would be satisfying to see the biggest bullies in the world get some of their own back.

Since when is Israel the 'biggest bullies in the world'? And you think that the US selling weapons to Arab countries will make them stop hating US? Wow are you ignorant.

Since they are one of the few countries left in the world that threatens even their allies when they don't knuckle under their every demand; they spy on their allies (Freedom for Jonathan Pollard!); they keep a significant portion of their populace in abject poverty and apartheid for having the misfortune to be born Arab.

And the Arab countries don't "hate us." You're probably one of those idiots who thinks "they hate us for our freedoms." A great many people hate us for our unilateral support of Israel's 14th century policies, and many more idolize us as the symbol of freedom to the world. Showing that we respect their right to defend themselves against a hostile nation with no respect for international law would be an important first step to winning the hearts and minds of our opponents. No, I don't think it's an immediate panacea, but I don't believe in simple solutions to complex problems. I'm not a Republican.

Apik0r0s: Which is what, flim flam the Iranian populace with their media outlets?

Scream about being the victim while slaughtering civilians walled up in a ghetto?

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Even though I think that "The 'Stache" is a power mad and clearly idiotic neocon warmonger, I hope that if Ahmadinejad gets into power (against all popular opinion in Iran (new window)), snubs EU advances (as he's done already (new window)) and continues Iran on the path to hell it's currently hurtling down that Israel takes a pair of bunker busters and wipes out all of Iran's nuclear ambitions in a giant explosion. A North Korean like state somewhere in the Middle East is the last thing that region needs.

fenrael23: Yeah, but could you imagine the high-pitched whining that would take over our airwaves? Christ, it'd be unbearable

That it would.

DarnoKonrad: Do you see anything politically that would make that possible ?

No, not at the moment. Dragging us into a hot conflict that would crash what remains of the global economy would change that though.

crimsin23: fenrael23: crimsin23: fenrael23: Karma Curmudgeon: fenrael23: //have no clue how we'd stop them

The same as with any spoiled brat: cut off their allowance and not let them have any new toys until they promise not to beat up other kids in the neighborhood with them.

Yeah, but could you imagine the high-pitched whining that would take over our airwaves? Christ, it'd be unbearable.

Israel gets 3 billion a year from the US. So please tell me: What the hell are you talking about?

/And I will just ignore the 'high-pitched' comment in hopes that that wasn't an anti-semmitic statement.

I am talking about how the mere mention of funds being cut off (regardless of how much money is actually is) from Israel would cause a shiatstorm of whining. Whining tends to be high-pitched and annoying.

And I could care less about that weak "anti-semite" garbage. It is overplayed here on Fark. It's like Godwinning a thread at this point.
/Good day, sir.

So now you are inventing your own Godwin? Hell if that's the case let everyone do that.

People don't care about how much money the US gives Israel, they care that the strongest country in the world has Israel's back.

They would whine if that support was removed. Crying that the US wants Israel to fail, labeling us all Anti-Semites. You know, like how quickly you dragged that tired shiat out.

And I said it's LIKE Godwinning a thread. I am not inventing anything, you illiterate moron.

Karma Curmudgeon: crimsin23: Yup, the 3 billion they get annualy from us is sooo much money. Any more bright ideas?

So, if it's such an inconsequential amount, then they can easily do without it, right? And what of the indirect aid that comes to roughly the same amount, also inconsequential?

I made the suggestion as a point to a question about what to do with Israel threatening to shiat where we eat. Not to save some money.

Israel does not shiat where the US eats. Yes, the money is inconsequential. What is important though is the US backing Israel.

memphomaniac: Is the Washington Post owned by warmongering Zionists now? They should be embarassed and ashamed for having printed this idiocy from Bolton.

Damn straight. Non-approved views need to be suppressed.

The Thought Council shall here of this.

Of course we don't have carte blanche power to stop the attack but Israel would not exist if it weren't for us. Surely we have some influence to stop them.

chasd00: an act by Israel would turn the whole region into a "everyone vs. Israel" type conflict. The U.S. is probably the only country with the military might and detterent to pull it off. It would be counter to everything Obama has promised though which makes a strike unlikely.

My guess is Obama will try to stall and buy time in order to punt to the next administration.

I do recall that Israel has a good track record with "everyone vs Israel" conflicts.

no worries friends!

FTFA: "Significantly, the uprising in Iran also makes it more likely that an effective public diplomacy campaign could be waged in the country to explain to Iranians that such an attack is directed against the regime, not against the Iranian people. This was always true, but it has become even more important to make this case emphatically, when the gulf between the Islamic revolution of 1979 and the citizens of Iran has never been clearer or wider."


I'm not sure anyone checked his math, but I'm sure he's right. We always could of done this and just explained it to the Iranian people, they'd be cool, he swears it.

Sygerrik: Not to mention-- many Israeli Jews are of European extraction, while the Palestinians are a Semitic people. So who's the anti-Semite now?

1) About half the Jewish population of Israel are descendants from Arab Jews- forced out by their neighbors after 1948 and 1967.

2) The term anti-Semetism was coined by Wilhelm Marr to describe anti-Jewish animus. It takes a special kind of ignorance to think that BS arguement is clever.



FWIW, while I would normally say that an attack would galvanize the population, right now Dinnerjacket's popularity is lower than Bush 2's in 2006. He can't go out to public events etc. All he has is sabre rattling and his thugs. A kick in the nuclear nads will make him look weak. That could be what topples him.

Remember, Farouk got his fat ass booted after the 1948 fiasco and Nasser barely survived 67.

John Bolton: yet another militaristic farkwit who never served in the military himself.

Why are chickenhawks so psychotically violent?

And I think Jews are cool, I just can't stand Israel, much like I get along with most Muslims but hate terrorists and fundamentalists.

You who conflate disapproval of hyper-macho Israeli militaristic brutality with anti-Semitism are only hiding behind race.

rastjr: Surely we have some influence to stop them.

Maybe we could threaten to build pig farms in the Catskills?

/lame
//is all I got

Like so many neocons, Bolton is a warmonger who has never been to war.

In fact, he explains that he decided to avoid service in Vietnam because although he supported the war, he didn't want to die in a losing battle.

He's a man of true conviction. He waits to see if his side is winning before he dips his toe in.

memphomaniac: Is the Washington Post owned by warmongering Zionists now? They should be embarassed and ashamed for having printed this idiocy from Bolton.

They promoted recently a conservative of note name Fred Hiatt to be Editorial Page Editor. Since then, he's taken to firing several more liberal opinion columnists, and running more Krauthammer et al. Also editorial pieces from former Bush Admin. officials is SOP now. THere's literally several of them a week.

crimsin23: Israel does not shiat where the US eats.

Really? You think that oil is going to keep flowing out of the ME if Israel attacks Iran? Not without a heavy US involvement it's not.

Take near-billions in foreign aid from them and then get caught spying on them?

/yes Tats, that was a troll.

fenrael23: crimsin23: fenrael23: crimsin23: fenrael23: Karma Curmudgeon: fenrael23: //have no clue how we'd stop them

The same as with any spoiled brat: cut off their allowance and not let them have any new toys until they promise not to beat up other kids in the neighborhood with them.

Yeah, but could you imagine the high-pitched whining that would take over our airwaves? Christ, it'd be unbearable.

Israel gets 3 billion a year from the US. So please tell me: What the hell are you talking about?

/And I will just ignore the 'high-pitched' comment in hopes that that wasn't an anti-semmitic statement.

I am talking about how the mere mention of funds being cut off (regardless of how much money is actually is) from Israel would cause a shiatstorm of whining. Whining tends to be high-pitched and annoying.

And I could care less about that weak "anti-semite" garbage. It is overplayed here on Fark. It's like Godwinning a thread at this point.
/Good day, sir.

So now you are inventing your own Godwin? Hell if that's the case let everyone do that.

People don't care about how much money the US gives Israel, they care that the strongest country in the world has Israel's back.

They would whine if that support was removed. Crying that the US wants Israel to fail, labeling us all Anti-Semites. You know, like how quickly you dragged that tired shiat out.

And I said it's LIKE Godwinning a thread. I am not inventing anything, you illiterate moron.

Saying that Israel is to blame for everything wrong in the mideast is also played out and is also like Godwinning a thread. See how that works, you moron?

Wolfmanjames:
FWIW, while I would normally say that an attack would galvanize the population, right now Dinnerjacket's popularity is lower than Bush 2's in 2006. He can't go out to public events etc. All he has is sabre rattling and his thugs. A kick in the nuclear nads will make him look weak. That could be what topples him.

Remember, Farouk got his fat ass booted after the 1948 fiasco and Nasser barely survived 67.

If only their President controlled the military...

Apik0r0s: Which is what, flim flam the Iranian populace with their media outlets?

Scream about being the victim while slaughtering civilians walled up in a ghetto?

Not a very good effort, Boris. Usually you are a far more effective troll in an Israel thread. Heart not in it today?

He just wants his bukket and some fresh sardines...

crimsin23: Karma Curmudgeon: crimsin23: Yup, the 3 billion they get annualy from us is sooo much money. Any more bright ideas?

So, if it's such an inconsequential amount, then they can easily do without it, right? And what of the indirect aid that comes to roughly the same amount, also inconsequential?

I made the suggestion as a point to a question about what to do with Israel threatening to shiat where we eat. Not to save some money.

Israel does not shiat where the US eats. Yes, the money is inconsequential. What is important though is the US backing Israel.

Important to you maybe. Not to me. The U.S. isn't supposed to have client-states. Our founding fathers tried hard to Constitution-proof us against it, but they failed to take into account that Americans would someday become stupid enough to elect people who think the Constitution is "just a Goddamn piece of paper". I don't have tax money to dole out to modern, developed, wealthy nations that are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves.
You may not agree with that, but I'm an American citizen too, buddy - and my opinion counts for just as much as yours does.

Wolfmanjames: That could be what topples him.

Or unite the populace behind him. These are tribal rifts that go back to the Old Testament. Persians attacked by Jews? Not gonna fly with the opposition in Iran.

crimsin23: Saying that Israel is to blame for everything wrong in the mideast

Who said that?

The Homer Tax: crimsin23: Saying that Israel is to blame for everything wrong in the mideast

Who said that?

He just did.

H31N0US: rastjr: Surely we have some influence to stop them.

Maybe we could threaten to build pig farms in the Catskills?

/lame
//is all I got

True. Lame. But I chuckled.

Israel isn't doing shiat to Iran.

Bolton is trying to sink the united front our government has adopted regarding Israeli bullshiat

Karma Curmudgeon: crimsin23: Israel does not shiat where the US eats.

Really? You think that oil is going to keep flowing out of the ME if Israel attacks Iran? Not without a heavy US involvement it's not.

Then that's a US problem. Israel can't worry about everyone, nor should they.

The Homer Tax: Who said that?

Nobody, but some people are only capable of hearing either "I love Israel" or "Israel is to blame for everything wrong in the mideast". Rational discussion need not be attempted. Move on.

crimsin23: fenrael23: crimsin23: fenrael23: crimsin23: fenrael23: Karma Curmudgeon: fenrael23: //have no clue how we'd stop them

The same as with any spoiled brat: cut off their allowance and not let them have any new toys until they promise not to beat up other kids in the neighborhood with them.

Yeah, but could you imagine the high-pitched whining that would take over our airwaves? Christ, it'd be unbearable.

Israel gets 3 billion a year from the US. So please tell me: What the hell are you talking about?

/And I will just ignore the 'high-pitched' comment in hopes that that wasn't an anti-semmitic statement.

I am talking about how the mere mention of funds being cut off (regardless of how much money is actually is) from Israel would cause a shiatstorm of whining. Whining tends to be high-pitched and annoying.

And I could care less about that weak "anti-semite" garbage. It is overplayed here on Fark. It's like Godwinning a thread at this point.
/Good day, sir.

So now you are inventing your own Godwin? Hell if that's the case let everyone do that.

People don't care about how much money the US gives Israel, they care that the strongest country in the world has Israel's back.

They would whine if that support was removed. Crying that the US wants Israel to fail, labeling us all Anti-Semites. You know, like how quickly you dragged that tired shiat out.

And I said it's LIKE Godwinning a thread. I am not inventing anything, you illiterate moron.

Saying that Israel is to blame for everything wrong in the mideast is also played out and is also like Godwinning a thread. See how that works, you moron?

No, I don't see how that works, ass. Especially when I NEVER SAID ANYTHING REMOTELY CLOSE TO THAT.

crimsin23: Then that's a US problem. Israel can't worry about everyone, nor should they.

Exactly, it is a US problem. That's why it's in our interest to make sure it doesn't happen. And it won't if we tell them their on their own if they open up this pandora's box by attacking Iran.

/Funny that Israel's problems are our problems, but not vice-versa. Strange friendship, that.

The Homer Tax: crimsin23: Saying that Israel is to blame for everything wrong in the mideast

Who said that?



Who the fark said that? Who's the slimy little communist shiat, twinkle-toed cocksucker down here who just signed his own death warrant? Nobody, huh? The fairy farking godmother said it. Out-farking-standing! I will PT you all until you farking die! I'll PT you until your assholes are sucking buttermilk!

crimsin23: Karma Curmudgeon: crimsin23: Israel does not shiat where the US eats.

Really? You think that oil is going to keep flowing out of the ME if Israel attacks Iran? Not without a heavy US involvement it's not.

Then that's a US problem. Israel can't worry about everyone, nor should they.

No, that's a global problem. I can't see how instigating a global energy crisis is helpful to Israel.

jso2897: crimsin23: Karma Curmudgeon: crimsin23: Yup, the 3 billion they get annualy from us is sooo much money. Any more bright ideas?

So, if it's such an inconsequential amount, then they can easily do without it, right? And what of the indirect aid that comes to roughly the same amount, also inconsequential?

I made the suggestion as a point to a question about what to do with Israel threatening to shiat where we eat. Not to save some money.

Israel does not shiat where the US eats. Yes, the money is inconsequential. What is important though is the US backing Israel.

Important to you maybe. Not to me. The U.S. isn't supposed to have client-states. Our founding fathers tried hard to Constitution-proof us against it, but they failed to take into account that Americans would someday become stupid enough to elect people who think the Constitution is "just a Goddamn piece of paper". I don't have tax money to dole out to modern, developed, wealthy nations that are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves.
You may not agree with that, but I'm an American citizen too, buddy - and my opinion counts for just as much as yours does.

I absolutely respect your opinion. But you have to realize that now we live in a much smaller world than did out forefathers. This makes it important to have friends around the world. Although the Us might be high and mighty, we can't survive on our own.

Skinkadink: If we were a nation of laws and justice, that asshole would be swinging from a rope by now.

/As would Wolfowitz

What laws did he break that warrant the death penalty?

Karma Curmudgeon: crimsin23: Then that's a US problem. Israel can't worry about everyone, nor should they.

Exactly, it is a US problem. That's why it's in our interest to make sure it doesn't happen. And it won't if we tell them their on their own if they open up this pandora's box by attacking Iran.

/Funny that Israel's problems are our problems, but not vice-versa. Strange friendship, that.

This. America shouldn't have client-states at all, let alone client-states that tell us to go fark ourselves when we make policy suggestions. That's not how the client-sponsor relationship works.

I don't understand why people hate on the jews, because of where the UN put them.

I don't see any UN buildings being hit with rockets.

Israel can STFU.

HotWingConspiracy: crimsin23: Karma Curmudgeon: crimsin23: Israel does not shiat where the US eats.

Really? You think that oil is going to keep flowing out of the ME if Israel attacks Iran? Not without a heavy US involvement it's not.

Then that's a US problem. Israel can't worry about everyone, nor should they.

No, that's a global problem. I can't see how instigating a global energy crisis is helpful to Israel.

Global? Let's not get ahead of ourselves here.

Diogenes: dryknife: Personally, I celebrate the man's entire catalog.

♩♫♩ When Iraaaaan loves John Bolton.... ♩♫♩

Goddamn it. That was an especially bad time for me to be guffawing like a jackass in my office. Very, very bad timing.

/now in boss-alert mode

The palindrome of Bolton is Notlob.

/Ipswich

Thunderpipes: Israel should kick the fark out of Iran, now.

Good luck with that. Look at a map.

H31N0US: Persians attacked by Jews?

Fun fact: There are over 25,000 Jews in Iran, the largest number in the middle east besides Israel.

vernonFL: H31N0US: Persians attacked by Jews?

Fun fact: There are over 25,000 Jews in Iran, the largest number in the middle east besides Israel.

Cool when they finish we can call it Israel 2.

Karma Curmudgeon: crimsin23: Then that's a US problem. Israel can't worry about everyone, nor should they.

Exactly, it is a US problem. That's why it's in our interest to make sure it doesn't happen. And it won't if we tell them their on their own if they open up this pandora's box by attacking Iran.

/Funny that Israel's problems are our problems, but not vice-versa. Strange friendship, that.

You think that the US isn't using Israel? They both use each other. And when it comes to problems, the US will always get the lions share because it is the srongest and wealthiest country in the world.

SherKhan: His incalculable idiocy can only be contained in a Right Wing think tank.

Nice!

edmo:
The low odds of success for a military strike have not improved over the months and years.

Wanting to do it and pulling it off are very different.

So true. We had Mark Helprin give a lecture about the imminent threat that Iran posed to the rest of the world, and how the US and Israel should tag-team Iran with tactical nukes before AhmadiNejad beat us to the punch. His qualifications? He served in the IDF at some point in the last 20 years. A professor of mine and I tore him apart during the Q and A. He didn't even know that Iran's president doesn't control Iran's military. He ended the lecture with a subtle ad hominem attack against everyone who disagreed with him.

/Not a pacifist, just don't like unnecessary killing.

Thunderpipes: H31N0US: I need someone to explain to me how Israel starting WW3 is a favorable alternative to Iran having the potential to start WW3.

Clue me in.

Because Iran is not capable of WW3, asshat. Israel would kick the snot out of them, problem solved. They are not pussies like you Farkers. France tried to build Saddam a nuclear reactor, Israel said no, not yours, leveled it in one strike. That is what Israel does. They have to, because Jew haters like Farkers won't leave them alone.

Oh shiat that's rich! Are you an algorithm? I swear to god you're a random "Dumbest Thing You Could Say At This Moment" generator.

Thunderpants, it's you who is the pussy. You have no courage and you are frightened. Just like your boy, Bolton.

crimsin23: jso2897: crimsin23: Karma Curmudgeon: crimsin23: Yup, the 3 billion they get annualy from us is sooo much money. Any more bright ideas?

So, if it's such an inconsequential amount, then they can easily do without it, right? And what of the indirect aid that comes to roughly the same amount, also inconsequential?

I made the suggestion as a point to a question about what to do with Israel threatening to shiat where we eat. Not to save some money.

Israel does not shiat where the US eats. Yes, the money is inconsequential. What is important though is the US backing Israel.

Important to you maybe. Not to me. The U.S. isn't supposed to have client-states. Our founding fathers tried hard to Constitution-proof us against it, but they failed to take into account that Americans would someday become stupid enough to elect people who think the Constitution is "just a Goddamn piece of paper". I don't have tax money to dole out to modern, developed, wealthy nations that are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves.
You may not agree with that, but I'm an American citizen too, buddy - and my opinion counts for just as much as yours does.

I absolutely respect your opinion. But you have to realize that now we live in a much smaller world than did out forefathers. This makes it important to have friends around the world. Although the Us might be high and mighty, we can't survive on our own.

Friends, we need. Client states, we don't. And endlessly repeated cold-war vagaries do not constitute arguments in favor thereof. I have no beef with Israel as such. they have as much right to exist and prosper as any other nation. But their goals are not America's , and their interests are not America's. We can have a friendly, mutually respectful relationship with another nation without putting them on our international welfare tab. And someone whose "friendship" is conditional upon our unqualified military and economic support is no friend, in my opinion. I've had a couple of "friends" like that in my life, and now I know better.
We have no direct or immediate interests in that part of the world, other than those we have brought upon ourselves by needless meddling in the affairs of savages - and while many try to convince me that we do, it's always in vague and lofty generalities - never actual, nuts & bolts specifics - and I have come to suspect that that's because there aren't any.

crimsin23: HotWingConspiracy: crimsin23: Karma Curmudgeon: crimsin23: Israel does not shiat where the US eats.

Really? You think that oil is going to keep flowing out of the ME if Israel attacks Iran? Not without a heavy US involvement it's not.

Then that's a US problem. Israel can't worry about everyone, nor should they.

No, that's a global problem. I can't see how instigating a global energy crisis is helpful to Israel.

Global? Let's not get ahead of ourselves here.

If the "oil stops flowing from the ME", it most certainly will be a global crisis.

Israel isn't doing shiat to Iran.

crimsin23: You think that the US isn't using Israel?

Using Israel for what?

jso2897:
We have no direct or immediate interests in that part of the world, other than those we have brought upon ourselves by needless meddling in the affairs of savages

Wait, I got lost. Did you mean Republicans or Democrats???

John Bolton left the fancy Georgetown restaurant. As he rounded the corner into the parking lot, three men wearing ski masks grabbed him, threw him roughly into the back of a delivery van, and slammed the door shut.

The tallest of the masked men drew a small leather case from inside his jacket, while the other two assailants duct-taped Boltion's hands and feet to a plastic chair. Bolton furiously growled, "You bastards won't get away with this! You'll spend the rest of your lives in a Federal prison! I'll have my Air Force friends conduct an air strike against your houses! I'll..." But then he went silent and his eyes grew big and round and full of fear as the tall man opened the case and drew out a gleaming straight razor. He said, "Mr. Bolton, I really think you should stop talking and moving around. This razor is as sharp as a surgeon's scalpel."

As the other two kidnappers held Bolton's head in a tight grip, the tall kidnapper moved the straight razor closer and closer to his face. Suddenly, with a swift motion, he shaved off Bolton's "mustache." Bolton's eyes rolled back in his head and he fainted. But instead of just falling to the floor and lying there, the "mustache" let out a high-pitched shriek and attempted to wriggle away. One of the other agents let go of Bolton's head, grabbed a chloroform-soaked rag, seized the "mustache," and sealed it in a glass jar full of formaldehyde.

Bolton began to shake his head and talk. At first his voice was so low and quiet he could barely be heard. "Thank God," said Bolton, "oh, thank God you fellows freed me from that, that horrible thing."

The tall man asked, "What in Hell was it?"

Bolton said, "It was a parasitical space alien from a cold, hostile outer planet! It controlled my mind with some kind of telepathic link. It made me do terrible things! I couldn't help myself!"

"What did it want?"

"It, they, wanted a warm planet, where their race could thrive. But they knew that we humans would not allow them to reshape our planet to their needs. We'd fight them off. So they resorted to trickery. By attaching themselves to certain humans and forcing them to foment irrational, self-destructive intra-species violence, they hoped we humans would wipe ourselves out, and then they could move in and take over our planet."

"Diabolical! Are you the only human whom these aliens possessed?"

"Far from it! They particularly sought to attach themselves to policemen, who can walk around openly carrying weapons. They also control the ruling council of Iran, and the leadership of Al Qaida. But the supreme commander of their international expeditionary force calls himself 'Geraldo'."

rastjr: Seriously, how do we stop our government from allowing Israel to do this? Not anti-Israel, just anti-war.

Well, seeing as how they buy about half of their advanced weapons from us, especially airplanes, we could just threaten to cut off that gravy train. They need our weapons pretty badly, after all. The IAF wouldn't get far without its F-16s and F-15s carrying Lockheed Martin's fine munitions.

Spanky_McFarksalot: "With Iran's hard-line mullahs and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps unmistakably back in control..."

Really? Fark threads with updates, military style badges and green bands around a "k" didn't cause the revolution to succeed? I'm so shocked.

Things would have been different if only people had followed the posting rules instead of just posting all willy-nilly all over the place.

NCg8r: jso2897:
We have no direct or immediate interests in that part of the world, other than those we have brought upon ourselves by needless meddling in the affairs of savages

Wait, I got lost. Did you mean Republicans or Democrats???

Lol. :D

last line from tfa:

Otherwise, be prepared for an Iran with nuclear weapons, which some, including Obama advisers, believe could be contained and deterred. That is not a hypothesis we should seek to test in the real world. The cost of error could be fatal.

let 'em have their nuclear bombs. they'll probably only bomb israel. and iraq. probably pakistan and india.

maybe they won't bomb us.

wkiernan: Shades of Heinlein

Hell yeah.

HMS_Blinkin: rastjr: Seriously, how do we stop our government from allowing Israel to do this? Not anti-Israel, just anti-war.

Well, seeing as how they buy about half of their advanced weapons from us, especially airplanes, we could just threaten to cut off that gravy train. They need our weapons pretty badly, after all. The IAF wouldn't get far without its F-16s and F-15s carrying Lockheed Martin's fine munitions.

That'd negatively affect our economy, as it would effect their air force. Don't let the democrats fool you, they want that cash too.

HMS_Blinkin: rastjr: Seriously, how do we stop our government from allowing Israel to do this? Not anti-Israel, just anti-war.

Well, seeing as how they buy about half of their advanced weapons from us, especially airplanes, we could just threaten to cut off that gravy train. They need our weapons pretty badly, after all. The IAF wouldn't get far without its F-16s and F-15s carrying Lockheed Martin's fine munitions.

That's a good idea. I suppose after all these years they should be able to defend themselves by know.

I support democracy but the training wheels have to come off sometime.

colon_pow: last line from tfa:

Otherwise, be prepared for an Iran with nuclear weapons, which some, including Obama advisers, believe could be contained and deterred. That is not a hypothesis we should seek to test in the real world. The cost of error could be fatal.

let 'em have their nuclear bombs. they'll probably only bomb israel. and iraq. probably pakistan and india.

maybe they won't bomb us.

After the Israelis dump the contents of those two subs onto their heads, they won't be bombing anybody else again. Ever.

Open diamond stores? Make Humus?

SherKhan: He's the Hulk of idiots. The louder John gets, the wronger John gets. His incalculable idiocy can only be contained in a Right Wing think tank.

I'm stealing that one...i cannot wait to use it at a party.

You are gonna get me laid because some chick is gonna think I'm clever.

Thanks!

/not really...once i use that line it will be all downhill from there

crimsin23: Karma Curmudgeon: crimsin23: Israel does not shiat where the US eats.

Really? You think that oil is going to keep flowing out of the ME if Israel attacks Iran? Not without a heavy US involvement it's not.

Then that's a US problem. Israel can't worry about everyone, nor should they.

A US problem? Then clearly the solution would be for the US to launch a massive preemptive strike against Israel BEFORE it has the chance to strike Iran and threaten our oil supply.

You're a genius.

To Subby:

John Bolton is nuttier than a squirrel's scrotum.

crimsin23: Karma Curmudgeon: crimsin23: Israel does not shiat where the US eats.

Really? You think that oil is going to keep flowing out of the ME if Israel attacks Iran? Not without a heavy US involvement it's not.

Then that's a US problem. Israel can't worry about everyone, nor should they.

Well, the US can't worry about everybody, either. Something to keep in mind next time Israel wants a blank check, regardless of the consequences for us.

sn0r: Even though I think that "The 'Stache" is a power mad and clearly idiotic neocon warmonger, I hope that if Ahmadinejad gets into power (against all popular opinion in Iran (new window)), snubs EU advances (as he's done already (new window)) and continues Iran on the path to hell it's currently hurtling down that Israel takes a pair of bunker busters and wipes out all of Iran's nuclear ambitions in a giant explosion. A North Korean like state somewhere in the Middle East is the last thing that region needs.

There's no faster way to unite all of Iran behind Achmadi and the Ayatollahs than a actual military strike against what is seen as the country's best shot at an international bargaining chip.

Starve the beast, don't feed it!

crimsin23: Then that's a US problem. Israel can't worry about everyone, nor should they.

Wait a minute, didn't you say

"Israel does not shiat where the US eats"

Fool.

wkiernan: John Bolton left the fancy Georgetown restaurant. As he rounded the corner into the parking lot, three men wearing ski masks grabbed him, threw him roughly into the back of a delivery van, and slammed the door shut.

The tallest of the masked men drew a small leather case from inside his jacket, while the other two assailants duct-taped Boltion's hands and feet to a plastic chair. Bolton furiously growled, "You bastards won't get away with this! You'll spend the rest of your lives in a Federal prison! I'll have my Air Force friends conduct an air strike against your houses! I'll..." But then he went silent and his eyes grew big and round and full of fear as the tall man opened the case and drew out a gleaming straight razor. He said, "Mr. Bolton, I really think you should stop talking and moving around. This razor is as sharp as a surgeon's scalpel."

As the other two kidnappers held Bolton's head in a tight grip, the tall kidnapper moved the straight razor closer and closer to his face. Suddenly, with a swift motion, he shaved off Bolton's "mustache." Bolton's eyes rolled back in his head and he fainted. But instead of just falling to the floor and lying there, the "mustache" let out a high-pitched shriek and attempted to wriggle away. One of the other agents let go of Bolton's head, grabbed a chloroform-soaked rag, seized the "mustache," and sealed it in a glass jar full of formaldehyde.

Bolton began to shake his head and talk. At first his voice was so low and quiet he could barely be heard. "Thank God," said Bolton, "oh, thank God you fellows freed me from that, that horrible thing."

The tall man asked, "What in Hell was it?"

Bolton said, "It was a parasitical space alien from a cold, hostile outer planet! It controlled my mind with some kind of telepathic link. It made me do terrible things! I couldn't help myself!"

"What did it want?"

"It, they, wanted a warm planet, where their race could thrive. But they knew that we humans would not allow them to reshape our planet to their needs. We'd fight them off. So they resorted to trickery. By attaching themselves to certain humans and forcing them to foment irrational, self-destructive intra-species violence, they hoped we humans would wipe ourselves out, and then they could move in and take over our planet."

"Diabolical! Are you the only human whom these aliens possessed?"

"Far from it! They particularly sought to attach themselves to policemen, who can walk around openly carrying weapons. They also control the ruling council of Iran, and the leadership of Al Qaida. But the supreme commander of their international expeditionary force calls himself 'Geraldo'."

ROFL! Thank you for that.

Clan Xpy: I don't understand why people hate on the jews, because of where the UN put them.

I don't see any UN buildings being hit with rockets.

The UN didn't create Israel as we now understand it. After WWII a concerted campaign of terrorism by the Zionists forced the British to say "Bloody hell, this is all a bit much!" and leave, opening up a massive power vacuum. The newly-created UN stepped in and tried to prevent further violence by proposing two separate states - one Arab, one Jewish.

The Jewish council agreed but the Arabs, understandably, rejected and a Civil War began. The Jewish palestinians seemingly won and declared the entire area of Palestine to be henceforth known as Israel. A year later the state of Israel was ratified as a UN member.

I thought Bolton was enough of a reason for a facepalm but I had to come in here and read Thunderpipes' comments.

When all you've got is a hammer, everything looks just like fine china, old CRTs, freshly-sheetrocked interior walls, and Matchbox cars you don't like any more, right?

dillengest: Clan Xpy: I don't understand why people hate on the jews, because of where the UN put them.

I don't see any UN buildings being hit with rockets.

The UN didn't create Israel as we now understand it. After WWII a concerted campaign of terrorism by the Zionists forced the British to say "Bloody hell, this is all a bit much!" and leave, opening up a massive power vacuum. The newly-created UN stepped in and tried to prevent further violence by proposing two separate states - one Arab, one Jewish.

The Jewish council agreed but the Arabs, understandably, rejected and a Civil War began. The Jewish palestinians seemingly won and declared the entire area of Palestine to be henceforth known as Israel. A year later the state of Israel was ratified as a UN member.

To the victor belong the spoils...

wkiernan: Awesomeness snipped here for the sake of brevity


Best explanation I've ever read.

+1

I dunno. I certainly don't think that now is the time for a military strike, by any nation; but since the beginning of the protests, I've wondered if maybe military action wouldn't ultimately be necessary, if the protests were somehow squashed.

And if we're not at that point yet, then we're certainly close.

Please don't flame-destroy me. This is an honest issue I've spent a lot of time thinking about.

Israelis:Iranians::Tribbles:Klingons

This would push their populace into Khamenei's arms.

NCg8r: dillengest: Clan Xpy: I don't understand why people hate on the jews, because of where the UN put them.

I don't see any UN buildings being hit with rockets.

The UN didn't create Israel as we now understand it. After WWII a concerted campaign of terrorism by the Zionists forced the British to say "Bloody hell, this is all a bit much!" and leave, opening up a massive power vacuum. The newly-created UN stepped in and tried to prevent further violence by proposing two separate states - one Arab, one Jewish.

The Jewish council agreed but the Arabs, understandably, rejected and a Civil War began. The Jewish palestinians seemingly won and declared the entire area of Palestine to be henceforth known as Israel. A year later the state of Israel was ratified as a UN member.

To the victor belong the spoils...

Heh, true. But to the spoils belong a whole heap of shiat.

CalvinMorallis: I dunno. I certainly don't think that now is the time for a military strike, by any nation; but since the beginning of the protests, I've wondered if maybe military action wouldn't ultimately be necessary, if the protests were somehow squashed.

What, pray tell, exactly would you hit?

dillengest: Clan Xpy: I don't understand why people hate on the jews, because of where the UN put them.

I don't see any UN buildings being hit with rockets.

The UN didn't create Israel as we now understand it. After WWII a concerted campaign of terrorism by the Zionists forced the British to say "Bloody hell, this is all a bit much!" and leave, opening up a massive power vacuum. The newly-created UN stepped in and tried to prevent further violence by proposing two separate states - one Arab, one Jewish.

The Jewish council agreed but the Arabs, understandably, rejected and a Civil War began. The Jewish palestinians seemingly won and declared the entire area of Palestine to be henceforth known as Israel. A year later the state of Israel was ratified as a UN member.

Ah okay thanks. My high school level understanding of this situation has been elevated. They should have just given them Canada.

dillengest: The Jewish council agreed but the Arabs, understandably, rejected and a Civil War began.

It's not much of a "Civil War" when you have the Israeli Jews on one side, and the Arab Palestinians... and the Egyptians... and the Jordanians... and the Iraqis... and the Saudis... and the Lebanese... and the Yemenis... and the Syrians... all on the other.

There's a reason why they call it an "Arab-Israeli War," not a "Civil War."

Witchydiva: CalvinMorallis: I dunno. I certainly don't think that now is the time for a military strike, by any nation; but since the beginning of the protests, I've wondered if maybe military action wouldn't ultimately be necessary, if the protests were somehow squashed.

What, pray tell, exactly would you hit?


First of, I wouldn't hit anything myself. I'm far too stupid to run a military operation.

But broadly: if we, in the United States, (theoretically) respect freedom and the will of the people; and if the will of the people in Iran is to have a legitmate government; and if the illegitimate government denies the people that right; then does our supposed respect of freedom and democracy not demand we assist the people?

Again, I'm not even saying I think this is a good idea; and certainly not until the protests going on are completey stamped out.

I'm just, ya know...wondering.

crimsin23: Karma Curmudgeon: crimsin23: Israel does not shiat where the US eats.

Really? You think that oil is going to keep flowing out of the ME if Israel attacks Iran? Not without a heavy US involvement it's not.

Then that's a US problem. Israel can't worry about everyone, nor should they.

Maybe the US shouldn't worry about Israel, and take down it's jets when they cross Iraqi airspace. How bout it?

If Iran was attacked the oil market would go to hell and the world's economies would collapse. If Israel was attacked pretty much the rest of the world wouldn't be seriously affected. Therefore I think it will be clear where the US's foreign policy interests lie here, AIPAC notwithstanding.

CalvinMorallis: I dunno. I certainly don't think that now is the time for a military strike, by any nation; but since the beginning of the protests, I've wondered if maybe military action wouldn't ultimately be necessary, if the protests were somehow squashed.

And if we're not at that point yet, then we're certainly close.

Please don't flame-destroy me. This is an honest issue I've spent a lot of time thinking about.

Military action right now would completely un-do any of the good that came from the protests. Military action by any outside force right now would unite Iran behind it's fundamentalist dictatorship. There's a lot of history with outside forces farking with Iran(see 1952), even the young people in Iran know of this.

Like theorellior said...when all you got is a hammer everything looks like a nail. Well, we got a lot more tools than a hammer. And just like Iraq, if we break it, we buy it.

Wolfmanjames: Sygerrik: Not to mention-- many Israeli Jews are of European extraction, while the Palestinians are a Semitic people. So who's the anti-Semite now?

1) About half the Jewish population of Israel are descendants from Arab Jews- forced out by their neighbors after 1948 and 1967.

2) The term anti-Semetism was coined by Wilhelm Marr to describe anti-Jewish animus. It takes a special kind of ignorance to think that BS arguement is clever.



FWIW, while I would normally say that an attack would galvanize the population, right now Dinnerjacket's popularity is lower than Bush 2's in 2006. He can't go out to public events etc. All he has is sabre rattling and his thugs. A kick in the nuclear nads will make him look weak. That could be what topples him.

Remember, Farouk got his fat ass booted after the 1948 fiasco and Nasser barely survived 67.

Couldn't leave this one alone. The thing is...
While I am well aware of the connotations and etymology of the term "Anti-Semitism" the fact remains that regardless of what it has come to mean, the words do mean something on their own, and the fact that Anti-Semitism is a barb thrown out by a group intent on oppressing a large number of Semitic people.

Furthermore, I am not attempting to redefine the word, merely stating that someone accusing me of racial bias in my argument is doing so in the service of a state where racial bias is ingrained into the culture, yet does not see the irony of it. Just like how the term "Anti-Semitic," when used to describe non-Jew-hating opponents of Israel, carries with it a special brand of irony.

Regardless, your arguments stating that a strike against Iran, nuclear or otherwise, would lead the population to topple Ahmadinejad is patently dishonest. They would rally behind the Persian state, not any particular leader. It would also either shut up moderate Ayatollahs like Montazeri and Rafsanjani or force them to toe the line with the Supreme Leader, setting back the cause of liberalism in Iran decades.

In conclusion, your post is bad and you should feel bad.

CalvinMorallis:
But broadly: if we, in the United States, (theoretically) respect freedom and the will of the people; and if the will of the people in Iran is to have a legitmate government; and if the illegitimate government denies the people that right; then does our supposed respect of freedom and democracy not demand we assist the people?

Again, I'm not even saying I think this is a good idea; and certainly not until the protests going on are completey stamped out.

I'm just, ya know...wondering.

So, basically, you want to reward the Iranian people for the failure of their protests by bombing the shiat out of them?

CalvinMorallis: Witchydiva: CalvinMorallis: I dunno. I certainly don't think that now is the time for a military strike, by any nation; but since the beginning of the protests, I've wondered if maybe military action wouldn't ultimately be necessary, if the protests were somehow squashed.

What, pray tell, exactly would you hit?


First of, I wouldn't hit anything myself. I'm far too stupid to run a military operation.

But broadly: if we, in the United States, (theoretically) respect freedom and the will of the people; and if the will of the people in Iran is to have a legitmate government; and if the illegitimate government denies the people that right; then does our supposed respect of freedom and democracy not demand we assist the people?

Again, I'm not even saying I think this is a good idea; and certainly not until the protests going on are completey stamped out.

I'm just, ya know...wondering.

I'm sorry, that is a horrible idea. First, we are already bogged down on two fronts. And once we enter Iran it's people would most likely come together to fight us.

rastjr: Seriously, how do we stop our government from allowing Israel to do this? Not anti-Israel, just anti-war.

Oh I know, we could make guns illegal... or better yet, make war illegal, you know a war crime to start war...

/oh wait, they still do it even though it's illegal huh?

elchip: Israelis:Iranians::Tribbles:Klingons

We should beam all the Israelies into the Iranian engine room?

BTW, has this story (FBI says Saddam's weapons bluff aimed at Iran) been submitted/greenlighted yet?

A much much MUCH better article here (new window) from Roger Cohen. Bolton is a psychopath.

elchip: dillengest: The Jewish council agreed but the Arabs, understandably, rejected and a Civil War began.

It's not much of a "Civil War" when you have the Israeli Jews on one side, and the Arab Palestinians... and the Egyptians... and the Jordanians... and the Iraqis... and the Saudis... and the Lebanese... and the Yemenis... and the Syrians... all on the other.

There's a reason why they call it an "Arab-Israeli War," not a "Civil War."

The Arab-Israeli War technically came after Israel declared independence. Before that it was a civil war, though there was probably outside interference. To be honest the timescales are so short on this period of history it all flows into a one big mess of war so you're kind of right.

elchip: dillengest: The Jewish council agreed but the Arabs, understandably, rejected and a Civil War began.

It's not much of a "Civil War" when you have the Israeli Jews on one side, and the Arab Palestinians... and the Egyptians... and the Jordanians... and the Iraqis... and the Saudis... and the Lebanese... and the Yemenis... and the Syrians... all on the other.

There's a reason why they call it an "Arab-Israeli War," not a "Civil War."

It always seemed to me that the Palestinians took general dislike for the Jews (whether it be racial, religious, or historical) and used the whole land struggle forum as a way to continue it without criticism. It never seemed rational that they'd commit so many lives when they still had their own territory. It's not like their the French under German occupation in WW2. They have their own area with their own unique values still. Also they could disperse to surrounding nations that had much the same going on. Always seemed like it was being taken way beyond national pride. Like a race war in disguise.

GypsyJoker: CalvinMorallis:
But broadly: if we, in the United States, (theoretically) respect freedom and the will of the people; and if the will of the people in Iran is to have a legitmate government; and if the illegitimate government denies the people that right; then does our supposed respect of freedom and democracy not demand we assist the people?

Again, I'm not even saying I think this is a good idea; and certainly not until the protests going on are completey stamped out.

I'm just, ya know...wondering.

So, basically, you want to reward the Iranian people for the failure of their protests by bombing the shiat out of them?

No...I don't want to do that. Or, rather, I don't want my country to do that.

Guess the basic question is this: what happens if the protests ultimately fail? What happens then? Now, yes, the world reaction is the correct one: wait and see, and don't appear to be meddling.

But if this revolt, or revolution, or whatever we want to call it, fails? Is there ever a time when action, of some sort, by someone, will be justified?

elchip: It's not much of a "Civil War" when you have the Israeli Jews on one side, and the Arab Palestinians... and the Egyptians... and the Jordanians... and the Iraqis... and the Saudis... and the Lebanese... and the Yemenis... and the Syrians... all on the other.

There's a reason why they call it an "Arab-Israeli War," not a "Civil War."

Yes. And that's the same reason that in the U.S. we call it the "Civil War" and not the "War Between the States".

To wit: the victor of the war gets to control the narrative in many ways. In the 1860s, the contested narrative was whether the U.S. was one nation, part of which rebelled, or a confederation of states, some of which wanted to go their separate ways. The "one nation" narrative came out on top because its proponents won the war.

In the Levant, the competing narratives were "righteous Jewish Homeland" vs. "interloping Zionists on our land". According to the "righteous Jewish Homeland" narrative, no Arabs had any claim on the land which the Jews had come back to reclaim, so therefore all of them must actually belong to the various nations which surrounded said homeland.

CalvinMorallis: Witchydiva: CalvinMorallis: I dunno. I certainly don't think that now is the time for a military strike, by any nation; but since the beginning of the protests, I've wondered if maybe military action wouldn't ultimately be necessary, if the protests were somehow squashed.

What, pray tell, exactly would you hit?


First of, I wouldn't hit anything myself. I'm far too stupid to run a military operation.

But broadly: if we, in the United States, (theoretically) respect freedom and the will of the people; and if the will of the people in Iran is to have a legitmate government; and if the illegitimate government denies the people that right; then does our supposed respect of freedom and democracy not demand we assist the people?
Again, I'm not even saying I think this is a good idea; and certainly not until the protests going on are completey stamped out.

I'm just, ya know...wondering.

Holy shiat NO. Are you serious? Think about what you're saying. This is a sovereign nation you're talking about. Just because we support their people and disapprove of their government doesn't give us any right or mandate to start bombing the fark out of them. Goddamitsomuch. This is what 8 years of dick-wagging saword waving does to the american mentality? fark me.

So in the 2000 election between Gore and Bush...would it have been OK for Canada to bomb the White House because many people here saw the election as fraudulent? It's not much different(minus the brutality and murder provided by the state police of course, *cough*).

Israel, it's time for you to do what you do best against Iran

They're going to build on its land?

Non of this would have happened if Donald Rumsfeld were still alive.

When did he slither back from under the rock he was hiding under?

Fart_Machine:



Quadrotriticale

Marcus Aurelius: John Bolton is actually Benjamin Netanyahu in a clever disguise.

...would explain everything!

CalvinMorallis: GypsyJoker: CalvinMorallis:
But broadly: if we, in the United States, (theoretically) respect freedom and the will of the people; and if the will of the people in Iran is to have a legitmate government; and if the illegitimate government denies the people that right; then does our supposed respect of freedom and democracy not demand we assist the people?

Again, I'm not even saying I think this is a good idea; and certainly not until the protests going on are completey stamped out.

I'm just, ya know...wondering.

So, basically, you want to reward the Iranian people for the failure of their protests by bombing the shiat out of them?

No...I don't want to do that. Or, rather, I don't want my country to do that.

Guess the basic question is this: what happens if the protests ultimately fail? What happens then? Now, yes, the world reaction is the correct one: wait and see, and don't appear to be meddling.

But if this revolt, or revolution, or whatever we want to call it, fails? Is there ever a time when action, of some sort, by someone, will be justified?

Dude, you can't GIVE people democracy and freedom. The people have to TAKE it. They have to die for it and bleed for it themselves. Themselves. An outside force doing it for them is an invasion and an occupation, no matter how much the right-wing think -tanks spin it as "liberation". fark that.

'kay, first this:

joonyer: This is what 8 years of dick-wagging saword waving does to the american mentality? fark me.

I asked a question; I didn't wave a flag or hang a banner.

Now this:


joonyer: because we support their people and disapprove of their government doesn't give us any right or mandate to start bombing the fark out of them. Goddamitsomuch.

Didn't advocate bombing the fark out of anybody. Asking questions...trying to discuss things...ya know, kind of the opposite of the so-called post-Bush mentality you mentioned.

joonyer: CalvinMorallis: GypsyJoker: CalvinMorallis:
But broadly: if we, in the United States, (theoretically) respect freedom and the will of the people; and if the will of the people in Iran is to have a legitmate government; and if the illegitimate government denies the people that right; then does our supposed respect of freedom and democracy not demand we assist the people?

Again, I'm not even saying I think this is a good idea; and certainly not until the protests going on are completey stamped out.

I'm just, ya know...wondering.

So, basically, you want to reward the Iranian people for the failure of their protests by bombing the shiat out of them?

No...I don't want to do that. Or, rather, I don't want my country to do that.

Guess the basic question is this: what happens if the protests ultimately fail? What happens then? Now, yes, the world reaction is the correct one: wait and see, and don't appear to be meddling.

But if this revolt, or revolution, or whatever we want to call it, fails? Is there ever a time when action, of some sort, by someone, will be justified?

Dude, you can't GIVE people democracy and freedom. The people have to TAKE it. They have to die for it and bleed for it themselves. Themselves. An outside force doing it for them is an invasion and an occupation, no matter how much the right-wing think -tanks spin it as "liberation". fark that.

I've been out of the news loop lately. Are people actually proposing that America militarily aids the Iranian protesters, or is that just what liberals think they mean by endorsing them?

006andahalf: I'm really starting to think that he is actually a nihilist or anarchist in conservative disguise.

This eschaton isn't going to immanentize itself, you know.

/look it up

i don't think john or anyone will tell what israel to do. they can do what they want. it would make for some great fireworks

Bolton got his marching orders regarding Iran from none other than Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu. Below is the text of a Haaretz article (pops) published February 18, 2003, just prior to the commencement of major military operations against Iraq.

Watch for "hints" that might tell you whose interests are being served, not only in attacking Iran, but Iraq.



Last update - 00:00 18/02/2003
Sharon says U.S. should also disarm Iran, Libya and Syria
By Aluf Benn

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said yesterday that Iran, Libya and Syria should be stripped of weapons of mass destruction after Iraq. "These are irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons mass destruction, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve," Sharon said to a visiting delegation of American congressmen.

Sharon told the congressmen that Israel was not involved in the war with Iraq "but the American action is of vital importance."

In a meeting with U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton yesterday, Sharon said that Israel was concerned about the security threat posed by Iran, and stressed that it was important to deal with Iran even while American attention was focused on Iraq.

Bolton said in meetings with Israeli officials that he had no doubt America would attack Iraq, and that it would be necessary thereafter to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea.

Bolton, who is undersecretary for arms control and international security, is in Israel for meetings on preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Bolton said Syria would get a chance to prove it was behaving in a way worthy of the international community and that dealing with North Korea had not been pushed aside, but postponed.

Bolton said the United States was striving to get a new UN Security Council resolution regarding Iraq and that the result of the vote would affect the U.S.'s relations with Western Europe and Russia, after the war in Iraq.

Bolton also met with Foreign Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Housing and Construction Minister Natan Sharansky.

Sharansky warned Bolton that the Quartet's (U.S., UN, European Union and Russia) plan for the Israelis and Palestinians deviated from President Bush's vision

END OF ARTICLE

There you have it, kids. Bolton the walrus got his marching orders from Sharon the Killer Whale and Bennie Netanyahu.

How do you stop this? It won't be easy. The ONLY way to stop this kind of Israeli manipulation of our foreign policy from continuing is to STAND UP AND CALL A SPADE A FARKING SPADE.

Grow some balls.

So the assumption is that weapons of mass destruction are more dangerous in military form as opposed to financial form?

CalvinMorallis: But if this revolt, or revolution, or whatever we want to call it, fails? Is there ever a time when action, of some sort, by someone, will be justified?

never. according the the fark community.
maybe after iran begins lobbing nukes, selling them to groups that smuggle them over here, the fark community might admit that they may have erred.

False flag?

In 1953, the U.S. and British-orchestrated Operation Ajax used "false-flag" and propaganda operations against the democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohammed Mosaddeq. Information regarding the CIA-sponsored coup d'etat has been largely declassified and is available in the CIA archives.[6]

In 1954, Israel sponsored bombings against US and UK interests in Cairo aiming to cause trouble between Egypt and the West.[7] This operation, later dubbed the Lavon Affair, cost Israeli defense minister Pinhas Lavon his job. The state of Israel (where it is known as "The Unfortunate Affair") finally admitted responsibility in 2005.[8]

DFWPhotoGuy: I want him to take off his stache and use it like a razor boomerang and decapitate our enemies.

Him and Geraldo could make up the new Flying Mustache Brigade.

Clan Xpy: I've been out of the news loop lately. Are people actually proposing that America militarily aids the Iranian protesters, or is that just what liberals think they mean by endorsing them?

Sadly, all of the well-intended Farkers who were following the protests, shocked by the entirely predictable reactions of the regime were simply being manipulated by Zionist interests who are looking for an "excuse" and to drum up popular support for something that they have wanted to do for years: BOMB THE SHEITES out of Iran.

Does Israel REALLY want to bomb Iran?

No.

Not of they can con US into doing it for them.

Clan Xpy: I've been out of the news loop lately. Are people actually proposing that America militarily aids the Iranian protesters, or is that just what liberals think they mean by endorsing them?

Actually it's the opposite, the neo-cons want to hit Iran to stop their nuke capability. But along the same lines is the "liberation" mentality. So yes, people are proposing that. It's not the liberals, though.

What the headline reminds me of, I expect at least one Farker to get it:

"And Groo does what Groo does best!"

CalvinMorallis: 'kay, first this:

joonyer: This is what 8 years of dick-wagging saword waving does to the american mentality? fark me.

I asked a question; I didn't wave a flag or hang a banner.

Now this:


joonyer: because we support their people and disapprove of their government doesn't give us any right or mandate to start bombing the fark out of them. Goddamitsomuch.

Didn't advocate bombing the fark out of anybody. Asking questions...trying to discuss things...ya know, kind of the opposite of the so-called post-Bush mentality you mentioned.

I hear you. Apologies for getting a bit agitated. No offense intended to you.

colon_pow: CalvinMorallis: But if this revolt, or revolution, or whatever we want to call it, fails? Is there ever a time when action, of some sort, by someone, will be justified?

never. according the the fark community.
maybe after iran begins lobbing nukes, selling them to groups that smuggle them over here, the fark community might admit that they may have erred.

In the meantime we'll bomb the fark out of anyone who even looks threatening. Brilliant.

DeathByGeekSquad: DFWPhotoGuy: I want him to take off his stache and use it like a razor boomerang and decapitate our enemies.

Him and Geraldo could make up the new Flying Mustache Brigade.

or The Mustachioed Chickenhawk Squadron.

Sliding Carp: 006andahalf: I'm really starting to think that he is actually a nihilist or anarchist in conservative disguise.

This eschaton isn't going to immanentize itself, you know.

/look it up

Or he is just your average ultra-conservative right wing christian nutjob with a "patience problem" who wants to speed up the coming of THE RAPTURE.

Wombatzu:Bolton = stupid cocksucker

I take great offense. Stupid cocksuckers still provide a useful service to society.

SupremeLeader: colon_pow: CalvinMorallis: But if this revolt, or revolution, or whatever we want to call it, fails? Is there ever a time when action, of some sort, by someone, will be justified?

never. according the the fark community.
maybe after iran begins lobbing nukes, selling them to groups that smuggle them over here, the fark community might admit that they may have erred.

Yes, Iran is truly an aggressive nation, invading other countries without any reason.

Bark!=Bite

you are correct. their nuclear ambitions are purely peaceful.

colon_pow: SupremeLeader: colon_pow: CalvinMorallis: But if this revolt, or revolution, or whatever we want to call it, fails? Is there ever a time when action, of some sort, by someone, will be justified?

never. according the the fark community.
maybe after iran begins lobbing nukes, selling them to groups that smuggle them over here, the fark community might admit that they may have erred.

Yes, Iran is truly an aggressive nation, invading other countries without any reason.

Bark!=Bite

you are correct. their nuclear ambitions are purely peaceful.

No, but they are purely unlikely. The reason people don't think Iran is a threat is that it's not. We may revise our opinion if it looks like they're close to actually building a nuclear bomb.

No. Stop. Do not link me a WND article about how Iran's ordering aluminum tubes or something, or trying to buy uranium. Show me an article written by a UN weapons monitor that states that Iran has all the elements it needs to build a nuclear bomb within less than a year and the facilities and technical know-how to use them, and I will reconsider whether it's useful.

One of the Ayatollahs even declared that nuclear weapons are incompatible with Islam. You're feeding the baseless culture of fear that caused the Cold War and still permeates our society. Our government's hands won't be clean until the last of the Cold Warriors is dead.

changeit: False flag?

In 1953, the U.S. and British-orchestrated Operation Ajax used "false-flag" and propaganda operations against the democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohammed Mosaddeq. Information regarding the CIA-sponsored coup d'etat has been largely declassified and is available in the CIA archives.[6]

In 1954, Israel sponsored bombings against US and UK interests in Cairo aiming to cause trouble between Egypt and the West.[7] This operation, later dubbed the Lavon Affair, cost Israeli defense minister Pinhas Lavon his job. The state of Israel (where it is known as "The Unfortunate Affair") finally admitted responsibility in 2005.[8]

Watch for upcoming fireworks as Mossad Iranian agents strike out at the "Great Satan".

There is NO moral compunction. The only thing they're concerned with is whether they may get caught AND publicly exposed.

Nevar forget Fernando Poo!

SupremeLeader:
And to be honest, if you were in charge of a country in the Middle East, you'd want nukes, especially if you wanted to stop any direct "reform attempts" from the US.

This. It's pretty obvious from the way we treat nuclear vs. non-nuclear states that a nuke can have serious advantages for some countries. Unfortunately, saying to them "stop trying to develop deterrence or we'll bomb you" just isn't working, for some reason.

joonyer: I hear you. Apologies for getting a bit agitated. No offense intended to you.

n/p.

This is kind of representative, though, of a larger problem (which itself, I think, is mainly the fault of the Bush administration, and the collective mentality present during it): it's been nearly impossible for people to discuss hot issues without one side or the other--or both sides--feeling their "attack!" button being pressed.

It's a shame, really...

...but we can solve it by bombing brown people.

/kidding, on the last part, of course.

Bolton un-self-consciously using the phrase "credibility gap"? I LOL'd.

colon_pow: SupremeLeader: colon_pow: CalvinMorallis: But if this revolt, or revolution, or whatever we want to call it, fails? Is there ever a time when action, of some sort, by someone, will be justified?

never. according the the fark community.
maybe after iran begins lobbing nukes, selling them to groups that smuggle them over here, the fark community might admit that they may have erred.

Yes, Iran is truly an aggressive nation, invading other countries without any reason.

Bark!=Bite

you are correct. their nuclear ambitions are purely peaceful.

Their nuclear ambitions (such as they are) are almost purely defensive.

Post revolution, Iran refused to develop nuclear arms, Khomeni called them an affront to God. Only after the US backed invasion by Iraq did the Iranians decide that they needed a nuclear deterrent.

So, yeah, you don't want countries developing nuclear weapons then stop getting your proxy states to attack them.

/Or you could just continue whining on Fark.

Argh2: SupremeLeader:
And to be honest, if you were in charge of a country in the Middle East, you'd want nukes, especially if you wanted to stop any direct "reform attempts" from the US.

This. It's pretty obvious from the way we treat nuclear vs. non-nuclear states that a nuke can have serious advantages for some countries. Unfortunately, saying to them "stop trying to develop deterrence or we'll bomb you" just isn't working, for some reason.

because we haven't bombed them yet.

SherKhan: Quadrotriticale

Wheat. So what?

What Israel does best? You mean sit back and let the US do the hard work while they use our money to buy top of the line equipment to fight people lucky to get their hands on Soviet weapons?

/Sorry, couldn't resist.

That would do wonders to push the idea in Iran that they need nuclear weapons.

Argh2: It's pretty obvious from the way we treat nuclear vs. non-nuclear states that a nuke can have serious advantages for some countries.

Iran should just ask Pakistan or India how having a nuke opens them up to all sorts of pressure from the US on non-proliferation issues and theatre security. Not to mention sanctions and reprisals. Forget foreign aid and military assistance.

Oh, wait, never mind.

Wow, Khatami just called the Iranian elections a "Coup" and Bolton is screaming for Israel to start bombing? What an idiot. Israel is going to do what it needs to do for their own protection, but to have Bolton actively calling for it is disgraceful. Bombing Iran is the last thing we should want to see; sure it won't alienate us as much as many would like to think but it sure as hell won't buy us any new friends either.

Sit down Bolton and let the Iranians have a crack at this, they're not defeated yet numbskull.

RemyDuron: What Israel does best? You mean sit back and let the US do the hard work while they use our money to buy top of the line equipment to fight people lucky to get their hands on Soviet weapons?

/Sorry, couldn't resist.

Hear, hear!

How about:
Instigate a DDoS attack? A propagandic twitter campaign?

No, no, absolutely not, doing that would be a catastrophe, it would kill the current revolution, would push back any possible other revolution by 20, would create a national resolve to get nukes and would cool down any positive attitude toward the West and especially Israel that currently exists within young iranians.

So no, definitely not.

kramers_hair: So, yeah, you don't want countries developing nuclear weapons then stop getting your proxy states to attack them.

it doesn't work that way.

i'm just glad that you're not in charge of anything. except maybe mom's basement.

Tatsuma: No, no, absolutely not, doing that would be a catastrophe, it would kill the current revolution, would push back any possible other revolution by 20, would create a national resolve to get nukes and would cool down any positive attitude toward the West and especially Israel that currently exists within young iranians.

So no, definitely not.

bolton's position is that the revolution has either failed, or it won't be successful in the time period that iran needs to finish its nuclear weapons program.

Bolton forgets the third possibility, that the current turmoil slows down the nuclear program, giving enough time to the supporters of mousavi to take power.

Right now, that's Israel's best bet for peace

FTFA: Those who oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons are left in the near term with only the option of targeted military force against its weapons facilities. Significantly, the uprising in Iran also makes it more likely that an effective public diplomacy campaign could be waged in the country to explain to Iranians that such an attack is directed against the regime, not against the Iranian people. This was always true, but it has become even more important to make this case emphatically, when the gulf between the Islamic revolution of 1979 and the citizens of Iran has never been clearer or wider. Military action against Iran's nuclear program and the ultimate goal of regime change can be worked together consistently.

Otherwise, be prepared for an Iran with nuclear weapons, which some, including Obama advisers, believe could be contained and deterred. That is not a hypothesis we should seek to test in the real world. The cost of error could be fatal.

Deja Vu.

Thunderpipes: They have to, because Jew haters like Farkers won't leave them alone.

Israel has to bomb Iran because of FARKERS????

Dude, it's way too early to be that drunk already.

CanisNoir: Wow, Khatami just called the Iranian elections a "Coup" and Bolton is screaming for Israel to start bombing? What an idiot. Israel is going to do what it needs to do for their own protection, but to have Bolton actively calling for it is disgraceful. Bombing Iran is the last thing we should want to see; sure it won't alienate us as much as many would like to think but it sure as hell won't buy us any new friends either.

Sit down Bolton and let the Iranians have a crack at this, they're not defeated yet numbskull.

What is it with you lately? You keep saying rational things. While I still often disagree with you, more and more lately it is evident that you have actually put a lot of thought into what you say.

Well, good. I don't care whether people are liberal or conservative, as long as they can defend their beliefs with facts and informed commentary, and are open to changing their views as their knowledge and experience expands.

Tatsuma: Bolton forgets the third possibility, that the current turmoil slows down the nuclear program, giving enough time to the supporters of mousavi to take power.

Right now, that's Israel's best bet for peace

But that's not Israel's position, is it Tats? In fact, things have pretty much turned out has you they have hoped since BEFORE the election:

1. Ahmadinejad won, just as you Israel wanted

2. Massive protests arose disputing the outcome, much to your Israel's delight

3. Predictably, the Iranian government cracked down on the protesters (though probably not as heavily as you the Israelis would have liked

4. Decent people everywhere stood shocked, and Western hatred for the Iranian regime grew by bounds, just as you Israel had hoped

5. The protests died down (though probably too soon and with too little blood being shed for your Israel's liking)

6. Both the public and politicos in the West have become increasingly warm to the idea of bombing the Sheites out of Iran, just as YOU AND the Israelis have wanted for years.

You know damn well that the Israeli position is that if Mousavi or another moderate were to take power, it would hinder their interests, as it would weaken Western resolve to attack Iran.

Yet here you are saying "no no no no".

C'mon, Tats. What are you going to tell us next? That you've converted to "xianity"?

Tatsuma: Bolton forgets the third possibility, that the current turmoil slows down the nuclear program, giving enough time to the supporters of mousavi to take power.

Right now, that's Israel's best bet for peace

Mousavi supports the atomic program.

If it's truly a "existential threat" even a perfectly successful revolution wouldn't matter.

Show some respect for Bolton or his moustache will eat your beard.

/Obscure? Probably not.

HotWingConspiracy: Tatsuma: Bolton forgets the third possibility, that the current turmoil slows down the nuclear program, giving enough time to the supporters of mousavi to take power.

Right now, that's Israel's best bet for peace

Mousavi supports the atomic program.

If it's truly a "existential threat" even a perfectly successful revolution wouldn't matter.

I'd be much more comfortable with a democratic Iran having nuclear weapons than one controlled by the Supreme Leader. Sure, I think, either way, the idea of them nuking Israel in some sort of country to country suicide bombing is highly unlikely. But it's way, way more unlikely if the guy in charge won a popular election, people don't usually like electing people who are likely to get everyone killed.

A bit late to the thread (is there any popcorn left?) but here goes...

Ponder this: What would cause the smallest regional war? Israel taking out Iran or the US doing it? Israel has no incentive to not level Iran. We at least take care to try to only kill the guys with guns.

Tatsuma: Bolton forgets the third possibility, that the current turmoil slows down the nuclear program, giving enough time to the supporters of mousavi to take power.

Right now, that's Israel's best bet for peace

doesn't he still support a nuke program as a defense against an Israeli attack on his homeland?

3 words
Lend Lease Program



You can get some things with a kind word.

...but you can get more with a kind word and a B-2

Sygerrik: Reagan sold weapons to Iran.

More to wit, Reagan sold weapons to both Iran and Iraq at that time, hoping that years of conflict between them would keep the oil-rich region from being unified (under Shia leadership of some sort presumably).

Smeggy Smurf: What would cause the smallest regional war? Israel taking out Iran or the US doing it? Israel has no incentive to not level Iran. We at least take care to try to only kill the guys with guns.

Cool. And what's the acceptable level of carnage to inflict on the Iranians? 300,000 dead? 600,000 limbs blown off? How about 25,000 children pounded into bloody chunks by missiles?

How about 50,000 dead Nedas? 100,000? 150,000 bleeding to death in the streets, blinking up at cameras?

How many Iranians do you have to murder (or have the Israelis do it) because those uppity Iranians simmer the fark down and elect a pro-US government anyway?

Oh and the incentive to not take out Iran is called basic human morality. Look it up.

Lawnchair: Sygerrik: Reagan sold weapons to Iran.

More to wit, Reagan sold weapons to both Iran and Iraq at that time, hoping that years of conflict between them would keep the oil-rich region from being unified (under Shia leadership of some sort presumably).

Yeah, but that's a little tangent to my point, to wit: my suggestion that we arm all the Arab states to match Israel is by no means unprecedented. If AIPAC gets mad about it, I encourage them to take up arms to defend Israel. It's fair to be able to defend what you think is yours, and I think we should level the playing field to allow both sides to do that. Our only mistake is taking sides.

How much carnage and suffering and misery do you have to inflict on a population until they realize you are massacring them because you want them to be more friendly and compliant and elect someone who will favour YOUR country instead of their own.

Oh wait, ask the Palestinians.

Bargain?

Smeggy Smurf: A bit late to the thread (is there any popcorn left?) but here goes...

Ponder this: What would cause the smallest regional war? Israel taking out Iran or the US doing it? Israel has no incentive to not level Iran. We at least take care to try to only kill the guys with guns.

If your "we" is Israel, then not really--ask her (new window) about that.

Edsel: Things would have been different if only people had followed the posting rules instead of just posting all willy-nilly all over the place.

I tried to warn 'um I did...Tatsuma must Weeners or the revolution will fail. But they...they wouldn't listen...

...they wouldn't listen

Spanky_McFarksalot: Tatsuma must Weeners

actually, it still works...

Sygerrik: Lawnchair: Sygerrik: Reagan sold weapons to Iran.

More to wit, Reagan sold weapons to both Iran and Iraq at that time, hoping that years of conflict between them would keep the oil-rich region from being unified (under Shia leadership of some sort presumably).

Yeah, but that's a little tangent to my point, to wit: my suggestion that we arm all the Arab states to match Israel is by no means unprecedented. If AIPAC gets mad about it, I encourage them to take up arms to defend Israel. It's fair to be able to defend what you think is yours, and I think we should level the playing field to allow both sides to do that. Our only mistake is taking sides.

Russia and China would just sell more to Israel, and in any case Israel isn't the powerhouse it was a few decades ago. Iran and Egypt are much stronger, and Iran has mastered assymetrical warfare with Hezbollah.

Oh and by the way, anyone who thinks Iran ain't building the bomb needs to hop off the unicorn.

Ah, John Bolton the suck-up, kick-down backdoor appointee Ambassador imposed upon us by W.

/STFU and crawl back under your rock Bolton!

Jewbag
I do recall that Israel has a good track record with "everyone vs Israel" conflicts.

Yeah, totally. Those wars worked out great for Israel.

/oh, wait...

mrexcess: Jewbag
I do recall that Israel has a good track record with "everyone vs Israel" conflicts.

Yeah, totally. Those wars worked out great for Israel.

/oh, wait...

Uh yeah, well Israel's still standing isn't it? So I guess your "oh, wait" attempt at being funny fails.

DFWPhotoGuy: I want him to take off his stache and use it like a razor boomerang and decapitate our enemies.

That fat fark couldn't muster the strength to get to the coke machine.

A couple of quick points, which I tried to make during the revolution threads but which were drowned out as trolling by the mob

First, some people are asking "what happens next if the Iranian regime holds power?" Well, one thing on the horizon is the completion of the current five-year Iranian economic plan. In a way similar to China, Iran has these economic plans. The current one ends next year - and presumably another will start. Now, the Iranian regime makes a lot of noise announcing the ambitions of the plans ... and now all of that is just waiting to bite them. The state of the Iranian economy - technically it is what is known as "in the shiatter, and likely to stay there" - means that this period will be hugely problematic for the regime. The economy was a big factor driving the recent unrest. Sure, we can say it was about better human rights, a desire for the rule of law and democracy, etc ... but if the economy was bouncing along would it have happened? Impossible to say, of course, but the very fact that it can't be said highlights the point. Now China largely meets its economic targets, or manages to make it look like it meets them; Iran is nowhere near being able to do either.

Second, regarding the nuclear question. Iran probably* (it can be argued that it doesn't, but it seems to me that it does. Despite its position in the oil-rich Middle East, Iran is faced with a coming energy crisis that will likely accentuate the current economic crisis) needs nuclear energy. It seems to be the most realistic option to its energy problems, anyway. In fact, a cornerstone of the current economic plan I just mentioned was nuclear energy. So, it must be understood that "taking out the nuclear research" is going to fark that up. Are the Iranian people going to welcome that? Difficult to say. Unlikely, of course, and they probably will not until the energy problem is solved

Third, regarding the influence of the Iranian regime. The regime controls a huge percentage of resources and industry. Obviously other powerful people want to control these things, and also the people want to control them. Ahmadinejad actually promised the latter, and this is still a major selling point of the regime to its followers. But, because they've effectively mismanaged the economy, the variables of which they control to a significant degree, the control is open to question. However, this does then tie in to the result of a strike against the regime - would they sabotage what they control? It's certainly possible

One further point worth making is the influence of China and Russia. Again, I tried repeatedly to raise this issue in the Iran threads, only to be told by the mob that I had failed to contribute even one worthy post. They are surely factors. Now they support the current regime. As such, I would hope that the internally-led overthrow of that regime would lead to a cooling of those dynamics. But, a strike by Israel or the US on the nuclear facilities, I believe, has the potential to be seen as being against the Iranian people, for the reasons mentioned above, and would potentially reduce anti-Russian and anti-Chinese sentiment.

Anyway ... Most of the above should probably be a starting point for any discussion about Iran and is pretty basic stuff. Unfortunately it got lost before in all the concern for the pks and ogs and all the awe that our brave fark revolutionaries inspired in themselves. Still, such is life :)

Oh, I guess lastly the thing to remember about Bolton, and those like him, is that he is essentially in a no-lose situation. He calles for military action. If at some future time military action is felt necessary he can say "I told you so and if you had done it sooner you would have benefited" (which is of course not necessarily true), and if at some future time military action is felt to be even more unnecessary Bolton can say "you were lucky, my plan would have been safer" (again not necessarily true). I think he is a nutcase, plain and simple, but hawks, if they are clever, can quite easily make careers for themselves. Of course, another possibility is the Iraq scenario. Neocons trumpet about cakewalks and being greeted as liberators. When that turns out to be totally untrue they first pretend it is true, then when the pretense can be sustained no longer, state their plan wasn't followed and other people made mistakes! Where did the cakewalk go? Who knows! Again, that's life :)

mrexcess: Jewbag
I do recall that Israel has a good track record with "everyone vs Israel" conflicts.

Yeah, totally. Those wars worked out great for Israel.

/oh, wait...

. . .

Yeah, they did go well for Israel. Israel gained land.

Oh hey, lets crush the green shoots of democracy under the boot heal of saber rattling and penis waving in order to further de-stablize the region and spur another half century of roiling anti-semitism!

Heck of an idea!

Sygerrik: Wolfmanjames: Sygerrik: Not to mention-- many Israeli Jews are of European extraction, while the Palestinians are a Semitic people. So who's the anti-Semite now?

1) About half the Jewish population of Israel are descendants from Arab Jews- forced out by their neighbors after 1948 and 1967.

2) The term anti-Semetism was coined by Wilhelm Marr to describe anti-Jewish animus. It takes a special kind of ignorance to think that BS arguement is clever.



FWIW, while I would normally say that an attack would galvanize the population, right now Dinnerjacket's popularity is lower than Bush 2's in 2006. He can't go out to public events etc. All he has is sabre rattling and his thugs. A kick in the nuclear nads will make him look weak. That could be what topples him.

Remember, Farouk got his fat ass booted after the 1948 fiasco and Nasser barely survived 67.


Couldn't leave this one alone. The thing is...
While I am well aware of the connotations and etymology of the term "Anti-Semitism" the fact remains that regardless of what it has come to mean, the words do mean something on their own, and the fact that Anti-Semitism is a barb thrown out by a group intent on oppressing a large number of Semitic people.

Furthermore, I am not attempting to redefine the word, merely stating that someone accusing me of racial bias in my argument is doing so in the service of a state where racial bias is ingrained into the culture, yet does not see the irony of it. Just like how the term "Anti-Semitic," when used to describe non-Jew-hating opponents of Israel, carries with it a special brand of irony.

Regardless, your arguments stating that a strike against Iran, nuclear or otherwise, would lead the population to topple Ahmadinejad is patently dishonest. They would rally behind the Persian state, not any particular leader. It would also either shut up moderate Ayatollahs like Montazeri and Rafsanjani or force them to toe the line with the Supreme Leader, setting back the cause of liberalism in Iran decades.


Does this guy edit your dictionary?



The word was coined with a specific meaning. It kept the meaning despite the recent attempt of propogandists top change it to cover themselves against fairly legit charges.

As for the idea that a Tzalhal strike will auctomatically and permanently increase the mullah's property, go sing that ditty to Leopoldo Galtieri. The Iranian government rules only by the fear of its thugs (including a cadre of Palestinains). Additionally, hostility to Israel is highly identified with Ahmadinejad. Protesters were specifically referring to it. An attack on Iranian nuke facilities will make him look weak and foolish. This may increase the likelyhood of the regime's collapse.



In conclusion, your post is bad and you should feel bad.

You wrote that load of wharrgarbl and say I should feel bad? From my, admittedly biased, persepctive you are wading in fail.

colon_pow sounds like a coward with the crap he posts.

Sarah Palin: One further point worth making is the influence of China and Russia. Again, I tried repeatedly to raise this issue in the Iran threads, only to be told by the mob that I had failed to contribute even one worthy post. They are surely factors. Now they support the current regime. As such, I would hope that the internally-led overthrow of that regime would lead to a cooling of those dynamics. But, a strike by Israel or the US on the nuclear facilities, I believe, has the potential to be seen as being against the Iranian people, for the reasons mentioned above, and would potentially reduce anti-Russian and anti-Chinese sentiment.


Either of which could simply hand Iran the bomb.

I too tried to raise the spectre of Russia, in particular, when the Iran Elections threads were in full swing. It was like talking to children. Our leaders are talking Realpolitik in the back room, while the masses screech about the last bumper sticker slogan they were fed.

Why so many Americans are willing to subrogate critical thinking to the corporate Media (and worse - anonymous people and groups on the net) is beyond me. I had some hope that the rape of the Treaasury and Wall St. would wake some folks up, it doesn't seem to have done much.

Sadly, people will only open their eyes when they are reduced to eating the leather seats out of their fuel-less Lexuses.

Wolfmanjames: Sygerrik: Wolfmanjames: Sygerrik: Not to mention-- many Israeli Jews are of European extraction, while the Palestinians are a Semitic people. So who's the anti-Semite now?

1) About half the Jewish population of Israel are descendants from Arab Jews- forced out by their neighbors after 1948 and 1967.

2) The term anti-Semetism was coined by Wilhelm Marr to describe anti-Jewish animus. It takes a special kind of ignorance to think that BS arguement is clever.



FWIW, while I would normally say that an attack would galvanize the population, right now Dinnerjacket's popularity is lower than Bush 2's in 2006. He can't go out to public events etc. All he has is sabre rattling and his thugs. A kick in the nuclear nads will make him look weak. That could be what topples him.

Remember, Farouk got his fat ass booted after the 1948 fiasco and Nasser barely survived 67.


Couldn't leave this one alone. The thing is...
While I am well aware of the connotations and etymology of the term "Anti-Semitism" the fact remains that regardless of what it has come to mean, the words do mean something on their own, and the fact that Anti-Semitism is a barb thrown out by a group intent on oppressing a large number of Semitic people.

Furthermore, I am not attempting to redefine the word, merely stating that someone accusing me of racial bias in my argument is doing so in the service of a state where racial bias is ingrained into the culture, yet does not see the irony of it. Just like how the term "Anti-Semitic," when used to describe non-Jew-hating opponents of Israel, carries with it a special brand of irony.

Regardless, your arguments stating that a strike against Iran, nuclear or otherwise, would lead the population to topple Ahmadinejad is patently dishonest. They would rally behind the Persian state, not any particular leader. It would also either shut up moderate Ayatollahs like Montazeri and Rafsanjani or force them to toe the line with the Supreme Leader, setting back the cause of liberalism in Iran decades.


Does this guy edit your dictionary?



The word was coined with a specific meaning. It kept the meaning despite the recent attempt of propogandists top change it to cover themselves against fairly legit charges.

As for the idea that a Tzalhal strike will auctomatically and permanently increase the mullah's property, go sing that ditty to Leopoldo Galtieri. The Iranian government rules only by the fear of its thugs (including a cadre of Palestinains). Additionally, hostility to Israel is highly identified with Ahmadinejad. Protesters were specifically referring to it. An attack on Iranian nuke facilities will make him look weak and foolish. This may increase the likelyhood of the regime's collapse.



In conclusion, your post is bad and you should feel bad.

You wrote that load of wharrgarbl and say I should feel bad? From my, admittedly biased, persepctive you are wading in fail.

Question: are you illiterate or merely blind?

I made two points in my post: first, that my use of Anti-Semitic to describe the fairly obvious bias against the Arabs that is endemic to supporters of Israel is intended to illuminate that bias, not redefine a word; second, that an attack by Israel on Iran would be counterproductive. You didn't address my first point, only resorting to a rather tangential image, but since there really isn't any possible rebuttal to it that wouldn't make you look like an even bigger idiot than you already are. Fair enough, the fifth amendment extends to the Internet as well.

But as for your second point-- you ignored what I wrote and continue to labor under serious misapprehensions about Iran's culture and political system. First of all, you continue to see Ahmadinezhad as the leader of the nation, not Khamenei.

Second, you seem to have been living under a goddamn stone for the past month. Ahmadinezhad is as unpopular as anyone has ever been. It doesn't matter. You saw what happened when the Iranian people attempted to rise against their government. The only way that regime change will occur in Iran is if the army sides with Montazeri against the Guardian Council. The military leaders are ultimately faithful to the ideals of the nation and the principles of the Islamic Revolution, and an outside attack would only galvanize them to the defend their nation. It would unite them against their external foe, and Khamenei could easily use this as an excuse to exercise his power.

Your ability to cite history is slightly less pathetic than the rest of what I would charitably call your "argument," but comparing the situation in Iran to Galtiera is disingenuous at best and ignorant at worst. The PRN voluntarily relinquished power after being thrashed by the British army. On the other hand, the army of Iran-- the army that would be the target of the Israelis-- is actually a moderate force, and is not involved in the Ayatollah's holding onto his power. That is enforced by the Basij, a civilian force that Israel could not hammer as decisively as the army.

While it is impossible to predict with 100% certainty the result of any military action, the fact that the Iranian Army is not key in supporting the Iranian regime, coupled with strong Persian national pride, leads any reasonable observer to conclude firstly that Israel striking Iran would be an incredibly foolish decision and secondly that you are a massive, massive tool.

When the real truth scares you to death, just pretend it's ideological lunacy, hide in yer basements, and pat yer selfs on the back at just how brilliant and smart your position is!

When WW 3 begins you can claim to be gay to avoid internment!

Sygerrik: I made two points in my post: first, that my use of Anti-Semitic to describe the fairly obvious bias against the Arabs that is endemic to supporters of Israel is intended to illuminate that bias, not redefine a word; second, that an attack by Israel on Iran would be counterproductive. You didn't address my first point, only resorting to a rather tangential image, but since there really isn't any possible rebuttal to it that wouldn't make you look like an even bigger idiot than you already are. Fair enough, the fifth amendment extends to the Internet as well.

But as for your second point-- you ignored what I wrote and continue to labor under serious misapprehensions about Iran's culture and political system. First of all, you continue to see Ahmadinezhad as the leader of the nation, not Khamenei.

Second, you seem to have been living under a goddamn stone for the past month. Ahmadinezhad is as unpopular as anyone has ever been. It doesn't matter. You saw what happened when the Iranian people attempted to rise against their government. The only way that regime change will occur in Iran is if the army sides with Montazeri against the Guardian Council. The military leaders are ultimately faithful to the ideals of the nation and the principles of the Islamic Revolution, and an outside attack would only galvanize them to the defend their nation. It would unite them against their external foe, and Khamenei could easily use this as an excuse to exercise his power.

Your ability to cite history is slightly less pathetic than the rest of what I would charitably call your "argument," but comparing the situation in Iran to Galtiera is disingenuous at best and ignorant at worst. The PRN voluntarily relinquished power after being thrashed by the British army. On the other hand, the army of Iran-- the army that would be the target of the Israelis-- is actually a moderate force, and is not involved in the Ayatollah's holding onto his power. That is enforced by the Basij, a civilian force that Israel could not hammer as decisively as the army.

While it is impossible to predict with 100% certainty the result of any military action, the fact that the Iranian Army is not key in supporting the Iranian regime, coupled with strong Persian national pride, leads any reasonable observer to conclude firstly that Israel striking Iran would be an incredibly foolish decision and secondly that you are a massive, massive tool.

1) I think you mean the First Amendment. You may consider using the Fifth though.

2) Obviously the Teniel joke went WAY over your head.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
You may have a personal definition of anti-Semitism. The fact that it is nt the actual definition of the word is something that will be pointed out.

3) I know Ahemidijahad is not the de facto ruler, but he is their chosen mouthpiece. Then ask yourself in an election where the only canditates were hand picked by the Mullahs, did they rig the elcetion specifically for this guy?
They're afraid of any reform, no matter how modest. This makes Ahemidijahad their stand in. By investing so much in him, the catspaw becomes the lynchpin.

4) The anti-government movement has, contrary to all report, not been crushed. It is just starting. It took over a year of protests to depose the Shah and he had a good economy. IN Iran inflation and unemployment are high and the anger is growing. the regime's hold grows shakier. (Consider Sharanksy's anaolgy in 'The Case for Democracy' of the gaurd who must always hold his rifle up.) A visible show of weakness can help topple the regime. Again, I point to Farkouk as well as the post 48 coup in Iraq that topled their monarchy.

5) You talk of Persian pride, but you forget the anti-Arab strain that resides within their nationalism. With Hizboullah supplanting government forces will not add to the affection already felt.

6) Arguementum ad hominem may make you feel like you're telling someone, but it, shall we say, tells everyone...

John "The 'Stache" Bolton: Israel, it's time for you to do what you do best against Iran

What, Kvetch at them and sell them diamonds?

SherKhan: He's the Hulk of idiots. The louder John gets, the wronger John gets. His incalculable idiocy can only be contained in a Right Wing think tank.

Don't make my mustache angry. You wouldn't want to see my mustache when it's angry.

There's only so many times you can hear yer crazy neighbor claiming to want to kill you before you step in and do something about it.
In a situation like this, I'll always support Israel.

Fark the U.N.
Fark Iran
end palestine

Wolfmanjames: Sygerrik: I made two points in my post: first, that my use of Anti-Semitic to describe the fairly obvious bias against the Arabs that is endemic to supporters of Israel is intended to illuminate that bias, not redefine a word; second, that an attack by Israel on Iran would be counterproductive. You didn't address my first point, only resorting to a rather tangential image, but since there really isn't any possible rebuttal to it that wouldn't make you look like an even bigger idiot than you already are. Fair enough, the fifth amendment extends to the Internet as well.

But as for your second point-- you ignored what I wrote and continue to labor under serious misapprehensions about Iran's culture and political system. First of all, you continue to see Ahmadinezhad as the leader of the nation, not Khamenei.

Second, you seem to have been living under a goddamn stone for the past month. Ahmadinezhad is as unpopular as anyone has ever been. It doesn't matter. You saw what happened when the Iranian people attempted to rise against their government. The only way that regime change will occur in Iran is if the army sides with Montazeri against the Guardian Council. The military leaders are ultimately faithful to the ideals of the nation and the principles of the Islamic Revolution, and an outside attack would only galvanize them to the defend their nation. It would unite them against their external foe, and Khamenei could easily use this as an excuse to exercise his power.

Your ability to cite history is slightly less pathetic than the rest of what I would charitably call your "argument," but comparing the situation in Iran to Galtiera is disingenuous at best and ignorant at worst. The PRN voluntarily relinquished power after being thrashed by the British army. On the other hand, the army of Iran-- the army that would be the target of the Israelis-- is actually a moderate force, and is not involved in the Ayatollah's holding onto his power. That is enforced by the Basij, a civilian force that Israel could not hammer as decisively as the army.

While it is impossible to predict with 100% certainty the result of any military action, the fact that the Iranian Army is not key in supporting the Iranian regime, coupled with strong Persian national pride, leads any reasonable observer to conclude firstly that Israel striking Iran would be an incredibly foolish decision and secondly that you are a massive, massive tool.

1) I think you mean the First Amendment. You may consider using the Fifth though.

2) Obviously the Teniel joke went WAY over your head.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
You may have a personal definition of anti-Semitism. The fact that it is nt the actual definition of the word is something that will be pointed out.

3) I know Ahemidijahad is not the de facto ruler, but he is their chosen mouthpiece. Then ask yourself in an election where the only canditates were hand picked by the Mullahs, did they rig the elcetion specifically for this guy?
They're afraid of any reform, no matter how modest. This makes Ahemidijahad their stand in. By investing so much in him, the catspaw becomes the lynchpin.

4) The anti-government movement has, contrary to all report, not been crushed. It is just starting. It took over a year of protests to depose the Shah and he had a good economy. IN Iran inflation and unemployment are high and the anger is growing. the regime's hold grows shakier. (Consider Sharanksy's anaolgy in 'The Case for Democracy' of the gaurd who must always hold his rifle up.) A visible show of weakness can help topple the regime. Again, I point to Farkouk as well as the post 48 coup in Iraq that topled their monarchy.

5) You talk of Persian pride, but you forget the anti-Arab strain that resides within their nationalism. With Hizboullah supplanting government forces will not add to the affection already felt.

6) Arguementum ad hominem may make you feel like you're telling someone, but it, shall we say, tells every ...

No, I meant the fifth. You have the right not to respond to arguments if doing so would make you look foolish-- and since ignorance is a crime here on Fark, self-incrimination equates to admitting fault.

And no, I didn't miss the Tenniel reference. I just think that you continue to misunderstand what I meant, as I've said twice now already, when I "redefined" anti-Semitism. Read-- really read, don't skim-- what I've written. You'll see why I said what I said and what it means. I'm not interested in playing semantic (or Semitic) games with you, I'm using the roots of a word whose meaning has little to do with its etymology to demonstrate the hypocrisy of Israel's biggest boosters.

As far as Ahmadinezhad is concerned, do you really think the Iranian regime has an "investment" in him that would threaten their dominance if he was to be toppled? Yes, he was the chosen candidate, but had Mousavi been elected, the regime would persist. Ahmadinezhad is the chosen mouthpiece but by no means the only one. Even Khatami, as liberal a ruler as any Iran has had, didn't topple the regime or even effectively mitigate its repression.

As for Sharansky, I have little time for his doggerel; as a strong advocate of regime change, little separates him from Mao's power from the barrel of a gun. Anyone who advocates forced regime change, even to democracy, is a crypto-fascist, since no matter how loudly you shout "liberty," you are still crushing the liberty of people to pick their rulers.

Again, I refer you to the Iranian revolution; while it does continue, it is out of the hands of the people in the streets. As the army goes, so goes the nation, and if the Israeli army gives the Iranian army an external threat to focus on, they will be unable to help the protestors. Argentina provides one counter-example, but there, the army was used to prop up the government, and in the absence of the army's ability to effectively oppress the citizens the unpopular government was toppled. Since the Iranian army does not function as the main organ of repression, any damage done to it does little to harm the regime's credibility or ability to suppress the populace.

Anti-Arabic sentiment in Persia turns them against Hizballah but does little to turn them against the Persian Basij, nor the Persian government. And anti-Israel sentiment is not confined to Ahmadinezhad-- the Persian "man on the street" is not particularly fond of them, either, though perhaps not as rabidly as their president. It's difficult for me to swallow your assertion that Iranians will see the assault on their army and government by Israel as the impetus to take up arms against said government, especially since any sign that the West was funding the protests or directly supporting them through military or material aid would galvanize the army to weigh in on the side of the regime and end all hope of true reform in Iran for decades.

As for ad hominem, well, perhaps I was harsh, but when you are as willfully obtuse as this, my frustration gets the better of me. Do not recycle old arguments, but explain to me how anything I said RE the logical outcome of an Israeli strike against Iran is false.

natas6.0: There's only so many times you can hear yer crazy neighbor claiming to want to kill you before you step in and do something about it.
In a situation like this, I'll always support Israel.

Why?

I know this is pissing into the wind, but here's some food for thought:

Iran knows full well what happened to Iraq's nuclear reactor and has built its hardened nuclear sites with that in mind. They are deep underground and redundant, and close to population centers. They have calculated that while Iran will easily survive an Israeli first strike, Israel will not survive their counter strike. Israel doesn't have 'bunker-busters', but the US does.

A nuclear Iran is a grave threat to the entire world, as follows:

1. A nuclear Shiite expansionist regime is anathema to all Sunni Moslem states.
2. A nuclear Iran can blackmail and control most of the world's supply of oil.
3. A nuclear Iran is an existential threat to nearly half of all the world population of Jews, who are in Israel mainly because of what Hitler (sorry, Godwin!) tried to do to them with the cooperation of most of the governments of Eastern Europe.

So basically, despite what the Walrus thinks, Israel is neither inclined nor likely capable of destroying Iran's nuclear capability single-handedly. Israel has continuously said that this is a global problem and asked the nations of the world to deal with it. I have heard that the Israeli intelligence services have tried to infiltrate the supply chain for uranium production, hoping that any bomb they do create can be sabotaged by inferior or flawed components slipped into their production process.

In my opinion America is being cowardly in trying to fob responsibility for this crisis off on Israel. And I have grave doubts that President Obama's stated policy of constructive engagement will give Iran the cover, and the time, it needs to achieve its long-term objective of becoming as difficult to 'contain'--read: "be dictated to by the West"--as Pakistan and North Korea.

Oh, and Israel has said that it prefers to see Amadmaninadinnerjacket return as president because he's an obvious enemy to the West's interest, while his challenger, a seeming moderate, is also committed to the nuclear project while projecting a much more palatable facade to the rest of the world. The Mullahs at the top of the Iranian power pyramid are quite happy with either figurehead president while they pull the strings.

Tatsuma, back me up here.

To use the word "Semitic" as an opposite for "anti-Semitic" is the same as saying "dote" as the opposie of "antidote." Anti-Semitic is a polite German euphemism for "Jew bashing" which would brought over as in into English.

The origins of "Aryan" and "Semite" referred to linguistic groups. Max Muller, who invented the word "Aryan" was shocked to see pro-slavery groups in the US using it in their propaganda to apply to races in the runup to the Civil War. They and others took scientific words and hijacked them for the pseudo-science of racism, but all that got discredited with WWII.

There is no such thing as a "Semitic" race. There is a Semitic group of languages. People divide into different skin colors but the only way you could know who belongs to which pseudo-scientific race is to know where everyone's mother came from.

Sygerrik:
1) I know what you were trying to do. For me it is a red cape for the bull. Too many Jew-baiters use the exact same semantic dodge to try not to get tarred with the label they deserve. A better literary refrence for illustration is in Stoppard's 'Travesties' where Tzara and Carr debate what it means to be an artist. Carr uses the analogy of claiming to fly when not actually leaving the ground. I'd get the exact quote, but I can't dig out my copy of the play now.

2) Sharansky is saying just the opposite of Mao. And when you use the word 'Fasict,' well, I'd get the Princess Bride pic out... Sharansky's main point s that most totalitarian regimes use fear and external enemies to quiet the population. When the dictator is no longer feared it's Caucescu time.

3) I know all the candidates were hand chosen, But with so much invested in Ad'jad, he is now the Mullah's man. If he falls they lose a dangerous amount of face.


geedavey: 3. A nuclear Iran is an existential threat to nearly half of all the world population of Jews, who are in Israel mainly because of what Hitler (sorry, Godwin!) tried to do to them with the cooperation of most of the governments of Eastern Europe.

1) Don't let the collaborators in Western Europe off so easily.

2) And also remember nearly 1 million Jews from Arab/Islamic lands were expelled or fled after 1948 and 1967. Most went to Israel. And funnily enough, they were resettled and not kept in camps for generations.

idov: To use the word "Semitic" as an opposite for "anti-Semitic" is the same as saying "dote" as the opposie of "antidote." Anti-Semitic is a polite German euphemism for "Jew bashing" which would brought over as in into English.


Main Entry: 1 Se·mit·ic

Function: adjective
Etymology: German semitisch, from Semit, Semite Semite, probably from New Latin Semita, from Late Latin Sem Shem

Date: 1813

1 : of, relating to, or constituting a subfamily of the Afro-Asiatic language family that includes Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, and Amharic

2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of the Semites

3 : jewish


Main Entry: Sem·i·tism

Function: noun
Date: 1851

1 a: Semitic character or qualities b: a characteristic feature of a Semitic language occurring in another language

2: policy or predisposition favorable to Jews



Main Entry: Sem·i·tist

Function: noun
Date: 1881

1: a scholar of the Semitic languages, cultures, or histories

2 often not capitalized : a person favoring or disposed to favor the Jews

Link (new window)

There is no such thing as a "Semitic" race. There is a Semitic group of languages. People divide into different skin colors but the only way you could know who belongs to which pseudo-scientific race is to know where everyone's mother came from.

If Semite = Jewish (definition 3), then an anti-Semite = one who is opposed to Jews or Judaism.

If Semitism = "policy or predisposition favorable to Jews" (definition 2), then anti-Semitism = opposition to "policy or predisposition favorable to Jews".

If Semitist = "a person favoring or disposed to favor the Jews" (definition 2), then anti-Semitist = a person (or policy) who does NOT favor or is not disposed to favor the Jews.

Some would no doubt prefer that ALL persons and policies always automatically favor Jews. Unfortunately they don't. But that does not necessarily make them "evil", does it?

idov: here is no such thing as a "Semitic" race. There is a Semitic group of languages. People divide into different skin colors but the only way you could know who belongs to which pseudo-scientific race is to know where everyone's mother came from.

Arabic is a Semitic language, no?

Wolfmanjames: Sygerrik:
1) I know what you were trying to do. For me it is a red cape for the bull. Too many Jew-baiters use the exact same semantic dodge to try not to get tarred with the label they deserve. A better literary refrence for illustration is in Stoppard's 'Travesties' where Tzara and Carr debate what it means to be an artist. Carr uses the analogy of claiming to fly when not actually leaving the ground. I'd get the exact quote, but I can't dig out my copy of the play now.

2) Sharansky is saying just the opposite of Mao. And when you use the word 'Fasict,' well, I'd get the Princess Bride pic out... Sharansky's main point s that most totalitarian regimes use fear and external enemies to quiet the population. When the dictator is no longer feared it's Caucescu time.

3) I know all the candidates were hand chosen, But with so much invested in Ad'jad, he is now the Mullah's man. If he falls they lose a dangerous amount of face.


geedavey: 3. A nuclear Iran is an existential threat to nearly half of all the world population of Jews, who are in Israel mainly because of what Hitler (sorry, Godwin!) tried to do to them with the cooperation of most of the governments of Eastern Europe.

1) Don't let the collaborators in Western Europe off so easily.

2) And also remember nearly 1 million Jews from Arab/Islamic lands were expelled or fled after 1948 and 1967. Most went to Israel. And funnily enough, they were resettled and not kept in camps for generations.

I don't think the Supreme Leader is concerned about losing face. People were chanting "Death to Khamenei" in the streets. What threatens him isn't the populace, it's the army, as I keep saying. That's why an Israeli strike would do no good. Not to mention, making Ahmadinezhad look weak does not make the regime look weak, since their "investment" in him ties up none of their political capital (as far as the term can be used in Iran) or their power. Were he to be assassinated tomorrow, Khamenei would not lose a single iota of power, because the instrument of repression responsible for preserving the regime does not answer to Ahmadinezhad. The people don't fear him. They fear the Basij. And no military strike can take them out-- it's not like they cluster conveniently to be bombed.

That's what you seem not to understand: the regime holds power not by popular consent but by a mixture of civilian support and paramilitary oppression. The civilians who support Khamenei tend to be more conservative and West-phobic and would likely see an attack on Iran as a reason to rally behind the banner of the regime, not to lose faith in it. And the civilians that hate the regime don't need outside forces whipping them up to hate them even more.

And I know you're smarter than that when talking about Sharansky. I don't mean his stance on democracy. I mean his belief that regime change can be external and still be effective-- the Bush Doctrine, so thoroughly vindicated in Iraq and Afghanistan. I say he's a crypto-Fascist not because I like to fling poo, but because he fundamentally believes his viewpoint is right so much that he has no moral qualms about forcing it on other societies; he's one of those idiots who says "if everyone had the choice, they'd obviously choose democracy! non-democratic societies have simply been denied the choice!" Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun, according to Sharansky; no matter the rightness of your ideas, rejection of them by external forces indicate the corruption and therefore illegitimacy of said forces.

Not to mention his ardent defense of "national identity" as a code word for religious and ethnic homogeny. He's one of those people who thinks it's ridiculous that Islamic states are allowed to get away with a religious regime, but has no idea why anyone would oppose labeling Israel a Jewish state. In other words, he's an asshole, a crappy writer, and politically stuck in the mid-20th century. He deserves neither respect nor citation.

fark Israel. They've gotten too big for their own britches. Remove U.S. financial and moral support from them, and let them stand on their own. Let's see how quick they are to chest-thump then. Everyone has to grow up and stand on their own two feet at some point, and now it's Israel's turn.

Has everyone forgotten that Israel is a UN creation?

That is all.