Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Some Guy)   Obama's Dilemma: how to dissuade Israel from bombing Iran without alienating pro-Israeli voters in November. So, the Obama admin has told Israel that the U.S. won't support an attack on Iran... quietly   (ipsnews.net) divider line 244
    More: Followup, Israelis, Iran, United States, Obama administration, CIA Director Leon Panetta, absence of evidence, Mark Regev, Bob Schieffer  
•       •       •

1889 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Feb 2012 at 12:49 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



244 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-05 12:27:14 PM  
This is actually quite a major problem for Israel. They can normally sustain an offensive for about two weeks before begging the US for arm shipments before they run out and that is against a bunch of low end guerrilla fighters like Hezbollah or Fatah. I don't believe they have the logistics necessary to do anything but pray there is no retaliation, and so it most likely the same old sabre rattling that goes on all the time in the area. Much cheaper for the Israelis to continue assassinating scientists and promoting economical damage to Iran rather than a military confrontation, despite the initial popularity surge it would cause.

Of course, it would distract from all the legal problems at home in Israel and the massive protests.
 
2012-02-05 12:29:42 PM  

limeyfellow: This is actually quite a major problem for Israel. They can normally sustain an offensive for about two weeks before begging the US for arm shipments before they run out and that is against a bunch of low end guerrilla fighters like Hezbollah or Fatah. I don't believe they have the logistics necessary to do anything but pray there is no retaliation, and so it most likely the same old sabre rattling that goes on all the time in the area. Much cheaper for the Israelis to continue assassinating scientists and promoting economical damage to Iran rather than a military confrontation, despite the initial popularity surge it would cause.

Of course, it would distract from all the legal problems at home in Israel and the massive protests.


Basically. It's a giant distraction to all the crap Israel is facing internally right now (cost of living, discrimination of women by orthodox jews, etc.)
 
2012-02-05 12:30:40 PM  

eraser8: cman: If someone constantly screamed "Death to America, you will feel our wrath" how would you anti-Israel folks respond?

Well, I don't think Americans would respond by demanding some other country to fight our wars for us.

Israel has the right to defend itself. It does not have the right to use American armed forces as a proxy for their own.


Except of course if we keep allowing ourselves to be Israel's biatch.
 
2012-02-05 12:33:12 PM  

dumbobruni: if the US were to go to war with Iran, would a single US soldier have to step foot inside (other than black ops missions), given the US' complete air superiority?


And it would only take a few weeks, maybe a few months at the most. And they would welcome us with flowers and chocolates. And their oil revenues would pay for the whole thing.

Now where have I heard that story before?
 
2012-02-05 12:44:00 PM  

Raharu: dumbobruni: if the US were to go to war with Iran, would a single US soldier have to step foot inside (other than black ops missions), given the US' complete air superiority?

Didn't people say the same thing about Iraq and Afghanistan?


to be clear, I'm not proposing a regime change scenario. just neutering Iran's military and nuclear ambitions.
 
2012-02-05 12:45:13 PM  

dumbobruni: Raharu: dumbobruni: if the US were to go to war with Iran, would a single US soldier have to step foot inside (other than black ops missions), given the US' complete air superiority?

Didn't people say the same thing about Iraq and Afghanistan?

to be clear, I'm not proposing a regime change scenario. just neutering Iran's military and nuclear ambitions.



What nuclear ambitions?
 
2012-02-05 01:07:57 PM  

Amos Quito: dumbobruni: Raharu: dumbobruni: if the US were to go to war with Iran, would a single US soldier have to step foot inside (other than black ops missions), given the US' complete air superiority?

Didn't people say the same thing about Iraq and Afghanistan?

to be clear, I'm not proposing a regime change scenario. just neutering Iran's military and nuclear ambitions.


What nuclear ambitions?


given that French Socialist party is backing the Iranian oil embargo, i'm guessing that Iran has nuclear ambitions.
 
2012-02-05 01:13:40 PM  

Tatsuma: Israel has never declared one way or another the existence of those supposedly existing nukes (who may or may not be real)


Do you really believe your own bullshait?
 
2012-02-05 01:19:40 PM  

dumbobruni: if the US were to go to war with Iran, would a single US soldier have to step foot inside (other than black ops missions), given the US' complete air superiority?


I wouldn't go with complete air superiority. It wouldn't be a cake walk because what a lot of people don't know is that Iran has one of the best Surface to Air Missile defense systems in the world. An air strike on Iran won't be easy for anybody.
 
2012-02-05 01:31:37 PM  

dumbobruni: Amos Quito: dumbobruni: Raharu: dumbobruni: if the US were to go to war with Iran, would a single US soldier have to step foot inside (other than black ops missions), given the US' complete air superiority?

Didn't people say the same thing about Iraq and Afghanistan?

to be clear, I'm not proposing a regime change scenario. just neutering Iran's military and nuclear ambitions.


What nuclear ambitions?

given that French Socialist party is backing the Iranian oil embargo, i'm guessing that Iran has nuclear ambitions.



Yeah, and Dinnerjihad might have "ambitions" to be a contestant on American Idol as well.

Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons. Hasn't been since 2003. We know this and have said as much. They allow IAEA inspectors free access to anywhere they want to go. There is no evidence to back up the allegations - just hollow rhetoric.

How can they stop doing what they aren't doing?

The ONLY reason they are being aggressively attacked is because ISRAEL has a had a hard on for farking Iran for decades.

What action could Iran possibly take to stop this attack?

No, seriously, What action could Iran possibly take to stop this attack?
 
2012-02-05 01:41:19 PM  
Just say the truth.
At this current point in time, we cannot financially support another war.

Any aggression from our allies toward another nation state can not be supported by the US economy.
 
2012-02-05 01:42:33 PM  

dumbobruni: if the US were to go to war with Iran, would a single US soldier have to step foot inside (other than black ops missions), given the US' complete air superiority?


That's what was said about Afghanistan.
 
2012-02-05 01:45:23 PM  
Anti-Semites hate it when Jews defend themselves.
 
2012-02-05 01:46:34 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: b-b-but for the last 20 years Iran has been within a year of the bomb!!1!

Won't somebody please think of the Israelis??

/Fark you, Israel - if you start something, be prepared to finish it alone.


They always have before. Why should this be any different?
 
2012-02-05 01:49:45 PM  

Gaylord Q. Tinkledink: Anti-Semites hate it when Jews defend themselves.



i1121.photobucket.com

Which Jews?

What are they "defending themselves" against?

Seems like Iran is the one who is being attacked.
 
2012-02-05 01:52:24 PM  

Amos Quito: dumbobruni: Amos Quito: dumbobruni: Raharu: dumbobruni: if the US were to go to war with Iran, would a single US soldier have to step foot inside (other than black ops missions), given the US' complete air superiority?

Didn't people say the same thing about Iraq and Afghanistan?

to be clear, I'm not proposing a regime change scenario. just neutering Iran's military and nuclear ambitions.


What nuclear ambitions?

given that French Socialist party is backing the Iranian oil embargo, i'm guessing that Iran has nuclear ambitions.


Yeah, and Dinnerjihad might have "ambitions" to be a contestant on American Idol as well.

Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons. Hasn't been since 2003. We know this and have said as much. They allow IAEA inspectors free access to anywhere they want to go. There is no evidence to back up the allegations - just hollow rhetoric.

How can they stop doing what they aren't doing?

The ONLY reason they are being aggressively attacked is because ISRAEL has a had a hard on for farking Iran for decades.

What action could Iran possibly take to stop this attack?

No, seriously, What action could Iran possibly take to stop this attack?


and Iran has credibility because?

this is the same regime that has denied the existence of the Holocaust, and claimed that gay Iranians don't exist.

now we are supposed to believe these clowns when they say that they are not pursuing nuclear weapons, even when the IAEA is concerned that they are?
 
2012-02-05 01:59:00 PM  

Amos Quito: Gaylord Q. Tinkledink: Anti-Semites hate it when Jews defend themselves.




Which Jews?

What are they "defending themselves" against?

Seems like Iran is the one who is being attacked.


They're defending themselves from a country ruled by leaders of a death cult who have vowed to wipe Israel of the map.

Bombs away.....and not a moment too soon. To hell with what you anti-Jewish bigots have to say.
 
2012-02-05 01:59:06 PM  

machodonkeywrestler: dumbobruni: if the US were to go to war with Iran, would a single US soldier have to step foot inside (other than black ops missions), given the US' complete air superiority?

That's what was said about Afghanistan.


Afghanistan was an invasion and occupation. as was iraq.

is that needed for Iran?
 
2012-02-05 02:01:33 PM  
I'm a Republican and I support Obama on this 100%. We don't need another war and if you thought the insurgency in Iraq was bad, wait until we try to occupy Tehran.

Ironically, the only state in the Middle East that actually has nukes is Israel, and they developed them in secret as well.
 
2012-02-05 02:01:35 PM  
Oi. Can't we just take a moment to remember that the young people of Iran are, by and large, just folks who want to have a good life and wear jeans and listen to rock music? They hate the religious oppression.

But if we attack Iran, they'll get radicalized quick. Then there WILL be many young Iranians signing up for summer camp in Afghanistan.

Tuesday AM:
Why America is the Great Satan, a lecture by Mullah Iam Ajerkh.

Tuesday PM:
Make a Godseye with popsicle sticks and yarn!
 
2012-02-05 02:06:53 PM  

kleppe: I'm a Republican and I support Obama on this 100%. We don't need another war and if you thought the insurgency in Iraq was bad, wait until we try to occupy Tehran.

Ironically, the only state in the Middle East that actually has nukes is Israel, and they developed them in secret as well.


You're not a Republican.
 
2012-02-05 02:08:32 PM  
The pro-Israel vote is the most overrated bloc of voters this side of undecided independents. If you love Israel so much that it's the deciding factor on how you vote in any other country, you are officially a traitor to that country.
 
2012-02-05 02:15:23 PM  

dumbobruni: Amos Quito: dumbobruni: Raharu: dumbobruni: if the US were to go to war with Iran, would a single US soldier have to step foot inside (other than black ops missions), given the US' complete air superiority?

Didn't people say the same thing about Iraq and Afghanistan?

to be clear, I'm not proposing a regime change scenario. just neutering Iran's military and nuclear ambitions.


What nuclear ambitions?

given that French Socialist party is backing the Iranian oil embargo, i'm guessing that Iran has nuclear ambitions.


Well, if the French Socialist party is for it...wat?
 
2012-02-05 02:18:14 PM  

Heron: What the hell do you think the IAEA inspections are about?


Yeah. Those guys were really effective in North Korea, weren't they? Now Fatty DingDongs is the first retard with his own personal nuke. Grats!
 
2012-02-05 02:26:51 PM  
Obama: Hey Israel, remember when you levelled Gaza as an inauguration gift to me? Yeah, me too. So... now you want a favor, huh?
 
2012-02-05 02:31:52 PM  

Sabyen91: dumbobruni: Amos Quito: dumbobruni: Raharu: dumbobruni: if the US were to go to war with Iran, would a single US soldier have to step foot inside (other than black ops missions), given the US' complete air superiority?

Didn't people say the same thing about Iraq and Afghanistan?

to be clear, I'm not proposing a regime change scenario. just neutering Iran's military and nuclear ambitions.


What nuclear ambitions?

given that French Socialist party is backing the Iranian oil embargo, i'm guessing that Iran has nuclear ambitions.

Well, if the French Socialist party is for it...wat?


how quickly you forget the antiwar movement's worship of Chirac (who, lets be honest, deserved such praise) for standing up to the US on the Iraq WMD claims.

the point is, if European political leaders, both left and right wing, agree that Iran has nuclear ambitions, then its probably true. I'm not saying that american liberals should endorse war with Iran (the european left certainly has not), but they should stop denying that the threat is credible.
 
2012-02-05 02:36:15 PM  

dumbobruni: Sabyen91: dumbobruni: Amos Quito: dumbobruni: Raharu: dumbobruni: if the US were to go to war with Iran, would a single US soldier have to step foot inside (other than black ops missions), given the US' complete air superiority?

Didn't people say the same thing about Iraq and Afghanistan?

to be clear, I'm not proposing a regime change scenario. just neutering Iran's military and nuclear ambitions.


What nuclear ambitions?

given that French Socialist party is backing the Iranian oil embargo, i'm guessing that Iran has nuclear ambitions.

Well, if the French Socialist party is for it...wat?

how quickly you forget the antiwar movement's worship of Chirac (who, lets be honest, deserved such praise) for standing up to the US on the Iraq WMD claims.

the point is, if European political leaders, both left and right wing, agree that Iran has nuclear ambitions, then its probably true. I'm not saying that american liberals should endorse war with Iran (the european left certainly has not), but they should stop denying that the threat is credible.


I am sorry but saying "French Socialists think they have nukes" and actually believing that is proof when IAEA has full access to their facilities is ridiculous.
 
2012-02-05 02:36:30 PM  

Amos Quito: What are they "defending themselves" against?


A country that has said repeatedly that they want to wipe Israel off of the map. Oh wait, Israel should wait until after a nuke is fired before responding.

You disgust me.
 
2012-02-05 02:40:28 PM  

Gaylord Q. Tinkledink: Amos Quito: Gaylord Q. Tinkledink: Anti-Semites hate it when Jews defend themselves.

Which Jews?

What are they "defending themselves" against?

Seems like Iran is the one who is being attacked.

They're defending themselves from a country ruled by leaders of a death cult who have vowed to wipe Israel of the map.

Bombs away.....and not a moment too soon. To hell with what you anti-Jewish bigots have to say.


Not sure if serious or really really stupid.

You understand that the Iran's president has no control over the military right?
 
2012-02-05 02:42:41 PM  

James F. Campbell: I have some news to those of you who have hopes that humanity will get off this rock:

We won't.

Why? Well, take a look at Israel and the warmongering being done. That's an example of why.

/Perhaps it's for the best.


We got to the moon thanks to that warmongering. Don't give up hope quite yet--weird shiat can lead to awesome results. And there's a whole generation of space freaks who would cut off our favored genetalia to make getting off this rock a reality.
 
2012-02-05 02:43:48 PM  

Sabyen91: dumbobruni: Sabyen91: dumbobruni: Amos Quito: dumbobruni: Raharu: dumbobruni: if the US were to go to war with Iran, would a single US soldier have to step foot inside (other than black ops missions), given the US' complete air superiority?

Didn't people say the same thing about Iraq and Afghanistan?

to be clear, I'm not proposing a regime change scenario. just neutering Iran's military and nuclear ambitions.


What nuclear ambitions?

given that French Socialist party is backing the Iranian oil embargo, i'm guessing that Iran has nuclear ambitions.

Well, if the French Socialist party is for it...wat?

how quickly you forget the antiwar movement's worship of Chirac (who, lets be honest, deserved such praise) for standing up to the US on the Iraq WMD claims.

the point is, if European political leaders, both left and right wing, agree that Iran has nuclear ambitions, then its probably true. I'm not saying that american liberals should endorse war with Iran (the european left certainly has not), but they should stop denying that the threat is credible.

I am sorry but saying "French Socialists think they have nukes" and actually believing that is proof when IAEA has full access to their facilities is ridiculous.


your insistance that the IAEA has full access is ridiculous, when it is outright wrong

Link (new window)
 
2012-02-05 02:49:37 PM  

IlGreven: If you love Israel so much that it's the deciding factor on how you vote in any other country, you are officially a traitor to that country.


www.jamesjoyce.co.uk
 
2012-02-05 02:59:05 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: One question for Tats to chew on, why should we have to be the 'big brother' and unquestioningly support everything the Israeli government does, even if it causes a major war to break out in the Middle East?


One question for you to chew on:

When have I ever said that?
 
2012-02-05 02:59:16 PM  

dumbobruni: How can they stop doing what they aren't doing?

The ONLY reason they are being aggressively attacked is because ISRAEL has a had a hard on for farking Iran for decades.

What action could Iran possibly take to stop this attack?

No, seriously, What action could Iran possibly take to stop this attack?

and Iran has credibility because?

this is the same regime that has denied the existence of the Holocaust, and claimed that gay Iranians don't exist.



Wait? They said THAT???

OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!!! 11 !!!

dumbobruni: now we are supposed to believe these clowns when they say that they are not pursuing nuclear weapons, even when the IAEA is concerned that they are?



Yeah, funny that they shold be "concerned" when their inspectors had reported no evidence.

Screw you and your Bibi too.
 
2012-02-05 03:01:09 PM  

dumbobruni: Sabyen91: dumbobruni: Sabyen91: dumbobruni: Amos Quito: dumbobruni: Raharu: dumbobruni: if the US were to go to war with Iran, would a single US soldier have to step foot inside (other than black ops missions), given the US' complete air superiority?

Didn't people say the same thing about Iraq and Afghanistan?

to be clear, I'm not proposing a regime change scenario. just neutering Iran's military and nuclear ambitions.


What nuclear ambitions?

given that French Socialist party is backing the Iranian oil embargo, i'm guessing that Iran has nuclear ambitions.

Well, if the French Socialist party is for it...wat?

how quickly you forget the antiwar movement's worship of Chirac (who, lets be honest, deserved such praise) for standing up to the US on the Iraq WMD claims.

the point is, if European political leaders, both left and right wing, agree that Iran has nuclear ambitions, then its probably true. I'm not saying that american liberals should endorse war with Iran (the european left certainly has not), but they should stop denying that the threat is credible.

I am sorry but saying "French Socialists think they have nukes" and actually believing that is proof when IAEA has full access to their facilities is ridiculous.

your insistance that the IAEA has full access is ridiculous, when it is outright wrong

Link (new window)


Yeah, I was mistaken. I thought they had recently made a tour of the facilities.
 
2012-02-05 03:04:15 PM  

dumbobruni: Sabyen91: dumbobruni: Sabyen91: dumbobruni: Amos Quito: dumbobruni: Raharu: dumbobruni: if the US were to go to war with Iran, would a single US soldier have to step foot inside (other than black ops missions), given the US' complete air superiority?

Didn't people say the same thing about Iraq and Afghanistan?

to be clear, I'm not proposing a regime change scenario. just neutering Iran's military and nuclear ambitions.


What nuclear ambitions?

given that French Socialist party is backing the Iranian oil embargo, i'm guessing that Iran has nuclear ambitions.

Well, if the French Socialist party is for it...wat?

how quickly you forget the antiwar movement's worship of Chirac (who, lets be honest, deserved such praise) for standing up to the US on the Iraq WMD claims.

the point is, if European political leaders, both left and right wing, agree that Iran has nuclear ambitions, then its probably true. I'm not saying that american liberals should endorse war with Iran (the european left certainly has not), but they should stop denying that the threat is credible.

I am sorry but saying "French Socialists think they have nukes" and actually believing that is proof when IAEA has full access to their facilities is ridiculous.

your insistance that the IAEA has full access is ridiculous, when it is outright wrong

Link (new window)


Yeah, I mean I understand his view that Israel oversteps it bounds many times because I agree. But to say that Iran isn't aiming to have nuclear arms and are playing by the rules is just foolishly naive especially since they talk about wiping Israel off the map constantly and they've been dicking around in the diplomatic process.

That said, we are no where at the point where we should consider military action in Iran.
 
2012-02-05 03:08:25 PM  

Mrtraveler01: But to say that Iran isn't aiming to have nuclear arms and are playing by the rules is just foolishly naive especially since they talk about wiping Israel off the map constantly and they've been dicking around in the diplomatic process.


You know who else this argument was made about? Iraq.
 
2012-02-05 03:09:32 PM  

MBrady: Raharu: dumbobruni: if the US were to go to war with Iran, would a single US soldier have to step foot inside (other than black ops missions), given the US' complete air superiority?

Didn't people say the same thing about Iraq and Afghanistan?

Isn't that what 0bama said about Libya? "No US troops on the ground in Libya." Uh-huh.


You should probably keep that argument in your head. That is the only place it sounds good.
 
2012-02-05 03:15:34 PM  

dumbobruni: Sabyen91: dumbobruni: Sabyen91: dumbobruni: Amos Quito: dumbobruni: Raharu: dumbobruni: if the US were to go to war with Iran, would a single US soldier have to step foot inside (other than black ops missions), given the US' complete air superiority?

Didn't people say the same thing about Iraq and Afghanistan?

to be clear, I'm not proposing a regime change scenario. just neutering Iran's military and nuclear ambitions.


What nuclear ambitions?

given that French Socialist party is backing the Iranian oil embargo, i'm guessing that Iran has nuclear ambitions.

Well, if the French Socialist party is for it...wat?

how quickly you forget the antiwar movement's worship of Chirac (who, lets be honest, deserved such praise) for standing up to the US on the Iraq WMD claims.

the point is, if European political leaders, both left and right wing, agree that Iran has nuclear ambitions, then its probably true. I'm not saying that american liberals should endorse war with Iran (the european left certainly has not), but they should stop denying that the threat is credible.

I am sorry but saying "French Socialists think they have nukes" and actually believing that is proof when IAEA has full access to their facilities is ridiculous.

your insistance that the IAEA has full access is ridiculous, when it is outright wrong

Link (new window)



From the Horse's mouth:

IAEA-Iran Discussions in Tehran, 29-31 January 2012 (new window)

1 February 2012 | Meetings between the IAEA and Iran were held in Tehran from 29 to 31 January 2012, aimed at resolving all outstanding substantive issues. Another meeting will take place in Tehran from 21 to 22 February 2012.

The IAEA explained its concerns and identified its priorities, which focus on the clarification of possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme.

The IAEA also discussed with Iran the topics and initial steps to be taken, as well as associated modalities.

"The Agency is committed to intensifying dialogue. It remains essential to make progress on substantive issues," IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano said.

END QUOTE


They sure sound panicked.

Better tell Bibi to launch quick.
 
2012-02-05 03:16:59 PM  

Sabyen91: dumbobruni: Sabyen91: dumbobruni: Sabyen91: dumbobruni: Amos Quito: dumbobruni: Raharu: dumbobruni: if the US were to go to war with Iran, would a single US soldier have to step foot inside (other than black ops missions), given the US' complete air superiority?

Didn't people say the same thing about Iraq and Afghanistan?

to be clear, I'm not proposing a regime change scenario. just neutering Iran's military and nuclear ambitions.


What nuclear ambitions?

given that French Socialist party is backing the Iranian oil embargo, i'm guessing that Iran has nuclear ambitions.

Well, if the French Socialist party is for it...wat?

how quickly you forget the antiwar movement's worship of Chirac (who, lets be honest, deserved such praise) for standing up to the US on the Iraq WMD claims.

the point is, if European political leaders, both left and right wing, agree that Iran has nuclear ambitions, then its probably true. I'm not saying that american liberals should endorse war with Iran (the european left certainly has not), but they should stop denying that the threat is credible.

I am sorry but saying "French Socialists think they have nukes" and actually believing that is proof when IAEA has full access to their facilities is ridiculous.

your insistance that the IAEA has full access is ridiculous, when it is outright wrong

Link (new window)

Yeah, I was mistaken. I thought they had recently made a tour of the facilities.



The Reuters article is full of shiat.

See my link above.
 
2012-02-05 03:20:33 PM  

9beers: Amos Quito: What are they "defending themselves" against?

A country that has said repeatedly that they want to wipe Israel off of the map. Oh wait, Israel should wait until after a nuke is fired before responding.

You disgust me.



Yeah, I heard that Jordan also has ambitions for developing Photon Torpedoes.

Better attack, AND QUICK.


Protip for you and your Israeli buddies: QUIT MAKING EVERYONE HATE YOU!
 
2012-02-05 03:26:25 PM  

Amos Quito: The Reuters article is full of shiat.

See my link above.


The Reuters article does mention IAEA inspectors have access, albeit limited. Holy crap, check this link out. It is almost the same article (also by Reuters), most of the same words but totally different in tone. And people wonder how hard news can be spun. Link (new window)
 
2012-02-05 03:32:28 PM  
Blame Reagan for this. Wasn't he the one who sold weapons to the Iranians? Not to point fingers, but Ollie North is working for Fox News here. Talk about manufactured warmongering.
 
2012-02-05 03:33:40 PM  

Amos Quito: Protip for you and your Israeli buddies: QUIT MAKING EVERYONE HATE YOU!


Yeah, it's clearly Israel's fault.
 
2012-02-05 03:41:47 PM  

Amos Quito: 9beers: Amos Quito: What are they "defending themselves" against?

A country that has said repeatedly that they want to wipe Israel off of the map. Oh wait, Israel should wait until after a nuke is fired before responding.

You disgust me.


Yeah, I heard that Jordan also has ambitions for developing Photon Torpedoes.

Better attack, AND QUICK.


Protip for you and your Israeli buddies: QUIT MAKING EVERYONE HATE YOU!


Anti-Semites hate Israel for existing. I doubt they can do anything to change your mind about that.
 
2012-02-05 03:42:59 PM  

Gaylord Q. Tinkledink: Amos Quito: 9beers: Amos Quito: What are they "defending themselves" against?

A country that has said repeatedly that they want to wipe Israel off of the map. Oh wait, Israel should wait until after a nuke is fired before responding.

You disgust me.


Yeah, I heard that Jordan also has ambitions for developing Photon Torpedoes.

Better attack, AND QUICK.


Protip for you and your Israeli buddies: QUIT MAKING EVERYONE HATE YOU!

Anti-Semites hate Israel for existing. I doubt they can do anything to change your mind about that.


Everyone who disagrees with Israel is an anti-Semite. I heard it here.
 
2012-02-05 03:49:47 PM  

Red Shirt Blues: Gets out ouija board and other seance paraphernalia. Starts to chant......bring us czarangelus........bring us czarangelus............bring him from the dark shadows of the banned and have his spirit join us in this thread.


Thanks for that. I've been thinking about that guy and wondering what happened to him. Couldn't remember his name!
 
2012-02-05 03:49:48 PM  
Only on Fark would you find morons siding with Iran.
 
2012-02-05 03:55:02 PM  

9beers: Only on Fark would you find morons siding with Iran.


Only on Fark will you find people who think a rational and reasonable approach to Middle-East policy is pro-Iranian.
 
2012-02-05 03:55:32 PM  
How about we buy oil on the international market and leave the middle east to figure shiat out for themselves? How about that, does that work?
 
Displayed 50 of 244 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report