If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wall Street Journal)   Obama Administration continues to play patty-cake with Iran on nuclear weapons, leaves mess for next administration to clean up   (online.wsj.com) divider line 316
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

917 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Apr 2010 at 12:49 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



316 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-04-06 10:31:05 AM
You can't keep 60 year old technology from people who want to develop it.

There really isn't anything we can do if Iran really wants nuclear energy and nuclear weapons.
 
2010-04-06 10:33:07 AM
We should trick Blackboma into being president for eight years so he'll have to deal with it!
 
2010-04-06 10:33:34 AM
TFA, last paragraph: President George W. Bush will share responsibility for a nuclear Iran given his own failure to act more firmly against the Islamic Republic or to allow Israel to do so, thereby failing to make good on his pledge not to allow the world's most dangerous regimes to get the world's most dangerous weapons. But it is now Mr. Obama's watch, and for a year he has behaved like a President who would rather live with a nuclear Iran than do what it takes to stop it.

P.S. both sides are bad
 
2010-04-06 10:36:49 AM
WSJ continues to agitate for an expensive war with Iran.
 
2010-04-06 10:55:57 AM
Because a third expensive war is exactly what we need to fix a giant deficit and a troubled economy. Oh, and in case someone decides to bring up WWI and say a war would fix everything, we had to build shiat for WWII and call up millions of troops in a draft. That's why that fixed the Great Depression.

Besides, I still think it's better than even money Israel nukes them.
 
2010-04-06 10:55:59 AM
vernonFL: There really isn't anything we can do if Iran really wants nuclear energy and nuclear weapons.

We can, though, keep them and the people who supply them with the necessary materials off, for instance, the most-favored-nations list.
 
2010-04-06 11:03:58 AM
I can only presume that that columnists at The Wall Street Journal are going to help ante up the money to fight a third war. And also get all of their fighting-age family members to enlist.
 
2010-04-06 11:11:42 AM
aden_nak: I can only presume that that columnists at The Wall Street Journal are going to help ante up the money to fight a third war. And also get all of their fighting-age family members to enlist.

Maybe that is why they're charging for content now, they're raising money for war.
 
2010-04-06 11:21:11 AM
The solution is simple: we dump Israel like a used hooker, and snuggle up to the Iranians. After all, they've got oil.
 
2010-04-06 11:23:20 AM
Marcus Aurelius: The solution is simple: we dump Israel like a used hooker, and snuggle up to the Iranians. After all, they've got oil.

Side of the highway wrapped in plastic with it's underwear on inside out?
 
2010-04-06 11:25:46 AM
Barbigazi: Side of the highway wrapped in plastic with it's underwear on inside out?

In the harbor, no head or hands.
 
2010-04-06 11:31:00 AM
vernonFL: Barbigazi: Side of the highway wrapped in plastic with it's underwear on inside out?

In the harbor, no head or hands.


From now on we should call that the "Obama Doctrine".

"Hooker found in San Diego bay is the most recent victim of the Obama Doctrine"
 
2010-04-06 11:41:09 AM
Yet another discussion where we all ignore the fact that a genuine batshiat crazy person that's threatened to sell warheads actually does have them in North Korea.

Go out and campaign for a draft, which will be necessary if you really, truly want to fight three farking wars (four, if you're going to fairly apply the "we must not let these people get nuclear weapons" argument). Then get a tax increase passed so we can pay for another military offensive/occupation. Then sign up for military service. Then you can continue on your course of agitating for more wars.

Or, alternatively, as I've said before in these threads, you can send a nice letter on State Department stationary stating that Iran will see its entire population disappear in a mushroom cloud if an attack with atomic weaponry is ever initiated against the United States or its forces. Carbon copy North Korea on the letter when you send it.
 
2010-04-06 11:50:17 AM
Cagey B: Yet another discussion where we all ignore the fact that a genuine batshiat crazy person that's threatened to sell warheads actually does have them in North Korea.

Go out and campaign for a draft, which will be necessary if you really, truly want to fight three farking wars (four, if you're going to fairly apply the "we must not let these people get nuclear weapons" argument). Then get a tax increase passed so we can pay for another military offensive/occupation. Then sign up for military service. Then you can continue on your course of agitating for more wars.

Or, alternatively, as I've said before in these threads, you can send a nice letter on State Department stationary stating that Iran will see its entire population disappear in a mushroom cloud if an attack with atomic weaponry is ever initiated against the United States or its forces. Carbon copy North Korea on the letter when you send it.


I think MAD is already on the Ayatollah's minds. They know what will happen. They need a noisier saber to rattle at the Saudis, China, Russia, Israel, and the US.
 
2010-04-06 12:00:18 PM
meat0918: I think MAD is already on the Ayatollah's minds. They know what will happen. They need a noisier saber to rattle at the Saudis, China, Russia, Israel, and the US.

I think the saber rattling is more for the theocracy's benefit. If they can keep playing up the "see? the western world wants to meddle in our affairs!" thing, which for reasons that everyone here might guess tends to resonate, they can keep forestalling dealing with their domestic problems, which are significant.
 
2010-04-06 12:31:53 PM
Really, there is no good option.

Military action would be a disaster. Covert action to support a revolution would be basically making the same damn mistake that caused Iran to become a hostile nation in the first place.

Not every problem has a solution, and doing nothing is better than making things worse.
 
2010-04-06 12:51:25 PM
GAT_00: Oh, and in case someone decides to bring up WWI and say a war would fix everything, we had to build shiat for WWII and call up millions of troops in a draft. That's why that fixed the Great Depression.

Funny, I thought the New Deal saved America. Have you forgotten your talking points?
 
2010-04-06 12:51:45 PM
pandabear: We can, though, keep them and the people who supply them with the necessary materials off, for instance, the most-favored-nations list.

Which is totally happening now that Obama is President and that is unacceptable.
 
2010-04-06 12:52:14 PM
By "playing patty cake" you mean pursuit of diplomacy and respect for the sovereignty of other nations? What if all the other industrialized countries didn't like the fact that we don't have socialized medicine and for that reason they decided to impose their will on our country? I mean they shouldn't play patty cake when they disagree with us right?
 
2010-04-06 12:52:18 PM
Why exactly are the US, GB, France, Germany, Russia, India, Pakistan, etc. deemed acceptable to wield this dangerous technology, and yet Iran is not? Is there something specific in their history, other than rhetoric, that would lead you to believe they would be any more dangerous with the technology than those countries listed above?
 
2010-04-06 12:52:49 PM
I guess the WSJ is really looking forward to $400/barrel oil and seeing the Dow back down to 4000. Because that's what'll happen within a week of attacking Iran.
 
2010-04-06 12:53:09 PM
i43.tinypic.com
 
2010-04-06 12:53:10 PM
I will believe the WSJ (and the GOP in general) is really for a war when they advocate raising the taxes on themselves to pay for it.

/ex-Republican
 
2010-04-06 12:57:59 PM
What's the case for being 'serious' about it? Fark Iran. And fark its enemies. We've got our own serious problems to deal with.
 
2010-04-06 12:58:23 PM
Sum Dum Gai: Really, there is no good option.

Military action would be a disaster. Covert action to support a revolution would be basically making the same damn mistake that caused Iran to become a hostile nation in the first place.

Not every problem has a solution, and doing nothing is better than making things worse.


Since the current leadership in Iran rose to power by defying the U.S., maybe calm passive resistance is the way to go while Iran implodes with internal conflict.

May work, may not work. The problem is that any action we take just shores up the political power of the hardliners. It also doesn't help that they have a valid grudge against us for supporting the Shah. As a country, we have had a tendency to look away while our allies act like dicks. It seems that is starting to change.
 
2010-04-06 12:59:24 PM
Four more wars!
 
2010-04-06 12:59:59 PM
I wonder if the brain trust at the WSJ has considered the possibility that starting a third war in the region will destabilize Pakistan enough that theyr nukes, which actually exist, will end up in the hands of radicals?
 
2010-04-06 01:00:08 PM
krelborne: TFA, last paragraph: President George W. Bush will share responsibility for a nuclear Iran given his own failure to act more firmly against the Islamic Republic or to allow Israel to do so, thereby failing to make good on his pledge not to allow the world's most dangerous regimes to get the world's most dangerous weapons. But it is now Mr. Obama's watch, and for a year he has behaved like a President who would rather live with a nuclear Iran than do what it takes to stop it.

P.S. both sides are bad


So vote Palin-American
 
2010-04-06 01:00:36 PM
neorepublica.com

what a tard... 2012 cannot get here soon enough.
 
2010-04-06 01:01:18 PM
I can't decide which is more appropriate:

homepage.mac.com

homepage.mac.com

/replace "Enron" with "Fox News" or "WSJ" in the second one
//both hot
 
2010-04-06 01:01:43 PM
Sometimes I wonder who's stupid enough to believe this shiat, or if it's all just obvious hyperbole.

Most of the time I could just farking care less.
 
2010-04-06 01:01:59 PM
Nuke the WSJ from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

They're doing more actual damage to the US than Iran is.
 
2010-04-06 01:02:21 PM
Brick-House: what a tard... 2012 cannot get here soon enough.

What, is 2012 the year when you will stop posting?
 
2010-04-06 01:03:11 PM
FTFA: Mrs. Clinton called a nuclear-armed Iran "unacceptable" no fewer than four times in a single paragraph in her AIPAC speech. But why should the Iranians believe her? President Obama set a number of deadlines last year for a negotiated settlement of Iran's nuclear file, all of which Tehran ignored, and then Mr. Obama ignored them too.


Pathetic.
 
2010-04-06 01:03:31 PM
now for all the libs that just want to stare adoreingly at the Obama and are prepared to slam me for referring to the Obama as a tard, let me ask you tis:

Have you ever played Poker? If so, when betting do you show your hand to your oponents? If so, Poker party at my house tonight, bring lots of cash!
 
2010-04-06 01:04:43 PM
Jackson Herring: Brick-House: what a tard... 2012 cannot get here soon enough.

What, is 2012 the year when you will stop posting?


If only John McCain were President, he would have Hulk Smashed Iran back into submission. Duh!
 
2010-04-06 01:05:41 PM
Sum Dum Gai: Really, there is no good option.

Military action would be a disaster. Covert action to support a revolution would be basically making the same damn mistake that caused Iran to become a hostile nation in the first place.

Not every problem has a solution, and doing nothing is better than making things worse.


We could wean ourselves off Middle Eastern oil. A friend of mine and I often lament what would have happened if we'd had a visionary in office on 9/11. We could have spent those 3 trillion dollars on green technology to get us off Middle Eastern oil (the Saudis aren't our friends). Instead, we got Iraq, and we're just as dependent on oil as we were on 9/11. Sigh. If only.
 
2010-04-06 01:05:50 PM
Jackson Herring: Brick-House: what a tard... 2012 cannot get here soon enough.

What, is 2012 the year when you will stop posting?


blood bath in Nov 2010, then we fumagate the white house in 2012. live in your world of denial... B.. B... Bu... But it's, it's Bushe's Fault!
 
2010-04-06 01:06:25 PM
Brick-House: what a tard... 2012 cannot get here soon enough.

What happens in 2012?
 
2010-04-06 01:06:39 PM
aden_nak: Jackson Herring: Brick-House: what a tard... 2012 cannot get here soon enough.

What, is 2012 the year when you will stop posting?

If only John McCain were President, he would have Hulk Smashed Iran back into submission. Duh!


And the stress would have been too much for his frail old body, and we'd have President Palin.
 
2010-04-06 01:08:19 PM
Tell us how to pay for it and have congress declare war. Until then, STFU.
 
2010-04-06 01:08:31 PM
aden_nak: Jackson Herring: Brick-House: what a tard... 2012 cannot get here soon enough.

What, is 2012 the year when you will stop posting?

If only John McCain were President, he would have Hulk Smashed Iran Turkey back into submission. Duh!
 
2010-04-06 01:08:47 PM
madmann: Nuke the WSJ from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

They're doing more actual damage to the US than Iran is.


YEAH BRO! The WSJ is much more dangerous than Iran with Nuclear weapons.

/facepalm
 
2010-04-06 01:08:50 PM
Brick-House: blood bath in Nov 2010, then we fumagate the white house in 2012. live in your world of denial... B.. B... Bu... But it's, it's Bushe's Fault!

You're trying incredibly too hard.
 
2010-04-06 01:09:12 PM
That's change we can believe in!

just hand over the codes already,
 
2010-04-06 01:09:21 PM
Thanks for breaking my probably-intentional-irony meter, subby
 
2010-04-06 01:09:36 PM
Brick-House: Have you ever played Poker? If so, when betting do you show your hand to your oponents? If so, Poker party at my house tonight, bring lots of cash!

Ever played global thermonuclear war?

I hear there's no winners. If they don't want to nuke us now, they sure will after we invade and "bring them democracy."

Also, we're the only country to ever use nuclear weapons on another country, what does that say about us?
 
2010-04-06 01:10:06 PM
Brick-House: Jackson Herring: Brick-House: what a tard... 2012 cannot get here soon enough.

What, is 2012 the year when you will stop posting?

blood bath in Nov 2010, then we fumagate the white house in 2012. live in your world of denial... B.. B... Bu... But it's, it's Bushe's Fault!


OK, Karnak...

soundpolitics.com
 
2010-04-06 01:11:52 PM
HotWingConspiracy: Tell us how to pay for it and have congress declare war. Until then, STFU.

Whoa buddy. I'm not sure you understand how this works pal. We don't actually pay for anything. We just blame liberals and Muslims and gays to distract people. Try and keep up friend.
 
2010-04-06 01:13:07 PM
It wasn't a concern when Halliburton was selling nuclear reactor parts to Iran throughout the mid-late 90s from their headquarters in Texas though for some reason. It wasn't a problem when we were trying to give away the technology for free to the Shah of Iran. It wasn't even really taken seriously during the past decade, when the only concern is to make sure they don't get involved in Iraq and as a decent scapegoat.

Now it is a big problem and won't stop until Iran destroys the whole universe with its weapons of mass photoshopping.
 
Displayed 50 of 316 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report