FARK.com: (6931818) Senators circulating resolution urging Obama not to try anything sensible like trying to "contain" a nuclear-armed Iran diplomatically the way we did the Soviet Union, but instead go straight to the bombs and tanks

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.

		Senators circulating resolution urging Obama not to try anything sensible like trying to "contain" a nuclear-armed Iran diplomatically the way we did the Soviet Union, but instead go straight to the bombs and tanks (news.yahoo.com)		148
		More: Sad, President Obama, Soviet Union, Iran, Joseph Lieberman, Yahoo News, isotope separation, countries by electricity production, Lindsey Graham

• • •

2128 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Feb 2012 at 1:21 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/6931818

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

148 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

tallguywithglasseson		2012-02-09 12:38:48 PM

A bipartisan group of senators--Bob Casey (D-Penn.), Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.)

*sigh*
Almost forgot Lieberman was still serving... thanks for the reminder, Joe.

James!		2012-02-09 12:46:04 PM

tallguywithglasseson: A bipartisan group of senators--Bob Casey (D-Penn.), Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.)

*sigh*
Almost forgot Lieberman was still serving... thanks for the reminder, Joe.

fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com

Joe Lieberman is a dick.

Marcus Aurelius		2012-02-09 12:53:01 PM

Korea has nukes. Not invaded.
Iraq does not. Invaded and occupied.
Pakistan has nukes. Not invaded.
Afghanistan does not. Invaded and occupied.
India has nukes. Not invaded and given 1/4 of all high tech jobs in the world.
Libya does not. Government overthrown.
Israel has nukes. Given endless sloppy blowjobs.

It seems to me that there's no downside to having nukes. Only an up side.

Tatsuma		2012-02-09 01:05:10 PM

The difference between the USSR and the crazies in charge of Iran?

The people in charge of USSR were atheists who valued their power and lives more than anything else. The people in charge of Iran are crazed fundamentalists who cherish martyrdom and holy war more than they value life and their power, have said so for years and years, and have shown for decades they have no qualms sending their own children and friends to death for the greater good.

James!		2012-02-09 01:09:35 PM

sigdiamond2000		2012-02-09 01:20:50 PM

James!: Nuclear weapons aren't magic

They're box office magic.

James!		2012-02-09 01:24:49 PM

sigdiamond2000: James!: Nuclear weapons aren't magic

They're box office magic.

Highest grossing film of all time.

t0.gstatic.com

Kazrath		2012-02-09 01:25:34 PM

I am all for going to war with Iran as long as every senator and congressman who voted for the war gets a rifle and leads the charge. Otherwise they need to shut the fark up and stop killing our young adults for their own greed.

Sarah Palin's Conscience		2012-02-09 01:25:43 PM

tallguywithglasseson		2012-02-09 01:25:58 PM

James!: Then why haven't they bombed the shiat out of Israel already? Nuclear weapons aren't magic, regular bombs work kill just as well.

Because they're cunning, right up until they're crazy. That's why we, the rational actors, need to bomb them now, before they start acting crazy.

Cinaed		2012-02-09 01:26:00 PM

What about approaching Iran with Love, Peace and Mutual Respect instead?
That's like, totally, not containment.

Here Comes Everybody		2012-02-09 01:26:52 PM

I saw Israel's ambassador being interviewed on Fox News (I know, I know, it was on the TV at my gym) a couple of days ago and he was laying it on with a trowel, claiming that Iran wants to "rule the Arab world" (uh, Iranians aren't Arabs).

fark Bibi. fark Likud. They are not worth a single American life, and if Obama tells Bibi and the right wing to pound sand over war with Iran, he's a hero.

Jackson Herring		2012-02-09 01:27:32 PM

The fark is wrong with these people?

James!		2012-02-09 01:27:46 PM

tallguywithglasseson: James!: Then why haven't they bombed the shiat out of Israel already? Nuclear weapons aren't magic, regular bombs work kill just as well.

Because they're cunning, right up until they're crazy. That's why we, the rational actors, need to bomb them now, before they start acting crazy.

They've been crazy suicidal Israel haters thirsting for martyrdom for 33 years now, what are they waiting for?

qorkfiend		2012-02-09 01:27:51 PM

Seriously. What the fark is going on?

Marcus Aurelius: It seems to me that there's no downside to having nukes. Only an up side.

Also this. Nuclear weapons would simultaneously prevent an American invasion and make Iran the most powerful country in the Middle East. Their whole program is aimed at Saudi Arabia, IMO; now that Iraq is out of the picture, Saudi Arabia is basically the only nation that can challenge Iran for regional hegemony.

Obviously I'm skipping Israel, because they're not an Arab country, and by and large want to be left alone.

MindStalker		2012-02-09 01:28:15 PM

Nadie_AZ		2012-02-09 01:28:41 PM

Oh for f*ck's sake.

These men should take up arms and lead their own armies if they really want to do this. Maybe Israel can loan them some men.

I Havent Killed Anybody Since 1984		2012-02-09 01:28:51 PM

I can't believe our representatives are marching into war again, and with more WMD shenanigans.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Just kidding, I can totally believe it :-/

Muta		2012-02-09 01:29:29 PM

Tatsuma: The difference between the USSR and the crazies in charge of Iran?

(. . .) have shown for decades they have no qualms sending their own children and friends to death for the greater good.

Iran has a lot on common with the US.

tallguywithglasseson		2012-02-09 01:29:49 PM

James!: They've been crazy suicidal Israel haters thirsting for martyrdom for 33 years now, what are they waiting for?

President Barack Hussein Obama, duh.

James!		2012-02-09 01:29:53 PM

MindStalker: Marcus Aurelius: Korea has nukes. Not invaded.
Iraq does not. Invaded and occupied.
Pakistan has nukes. Not invaded.
Afghanistan does not. Invaded and occupied.
India has nukes. Not invaded and given 1/4 of all high tech jobs in the world.
Libya does not. Government overthrown.
Israel has nukes. Given endless sloppy blowjobs.

It seems to me that there's no downside to having nukes. Only an up side.

For the most part the countries with Nukes are advanced technically and socially and we don't see them as a threat. NK and Pakistan are slight oddballs in that group, but I suspect its because we don't see them as a direct threat to the US.

NK was part of the axis of evil before they had nukes, afterword not so much.

God's Hubris		2012-02-09 01:31:26 PM

Won't somebody think of the military industrial complex??!!

James!		2012-02-09 01:31:28 PM

tallguywithglasseson: James!: They've been crazy suicidal Israel haters thirsting for martyrdom for 33 years now, what are they waiting for?

President Barack Hussein Obama, duh.

It all makes sense! Iran needed a Kenyan in power in America to something something DESTROY! ISRAEL!

How have I been so blind?

God's Hubris		2012-02-09 01:34:00 PM

squidgod2000		2012-02-09 01:34:06 PM

Just another part of the "Bomb Iran!" Israeli ad blitz this week.

ShawnDoc		2012-02-09 01:35:24 PM

SoCalSurfer		2012-02-09 01:35:28 PM

Kazrath: I am all for going to war with Iran as long as every senator and congressman who voted for the war gets a rifle and leads the charge. Otherwise they need to shut the fark up and stop killing our young adults for their own greed.

This

Unless you're currently serving or have served, you don't get to decide who we go to war with or when we go to war unless we're under attack. Why can't they pass that bill

TyrantII		2012-02-09 01:36:04 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND		2012-02-09 01:36:58 PM

As soon as I opened the page and saw a pictuere of those two dicks I closed it. I'm eating lunch. I don't feel like getting pissed.

/I despise Joe Lieberman.

Sarah Palin's Conscience		2012-02-09 01:38:05 PM

Ok, so it's like this:

The US military is going through a drastic reduction in force. A lot of people are getting the boot and a lot more are being barre from re/entering the service.

The economy is doing better, but it's not really good enough to support a surge of unemployed troops and recent graduates who banked on getting a gov. gig.

And we can't really justify a huge military and inflated defense budget when our only military action is Afghanistan + a few surgical drone/SF missions.

So what to do? Either extend the war in Afghanistan (Americans see no point), create a boogey-man (Osama is dead), or get involved where we're not really needed (Iran).

Honestly, I think that we could get involved in areas like Syria or most of Africa, but there's no economic gain there. War with Iran can not only be justified (omigawd nukes) but can secure beneficial trade agreements as well.

/adjusts tinfoil hat
//it's the latest style

CitizensUnited		2012-02-09 01:41:31 PM

It's a shame Liebermann is leaving the Senate. he was one of my favorite Senators.

Leo Bloom's Freakout		2012-02-09 01:41:44 PM

Kazrath: I am all for going to war with Iran as long as every senator and congressman who voted for the war ~~gets a rifle and leads~~ sends their children to lead the charge. Otherwise they need to shut the fark up and stop killing our young adults for their own greed.

A) Most of them are so old, that dying that way is not such a big threat.
B) It's one thing to die for your country, it's another to be at home and get a call from a military bigwig offering his condolences for your loss. they need to be here and take the call and live with the decision. Death is too easy a way out of these types of calls.

Dinobot		2012-02-09 01:41:49 PM

remind me again where does it say that the US needs to be isarel's shabbos goy.

you know tats, i dont agree with israel's methods altho i kind of understand why they're very defensive and willing to go in the offensive - but why do you guys have the need to drag the US into what's clearly your own goddamn fight.

theknuckler_33		2012-02-09 01:42:02 PM

Geotpf		2012-02-09 01:44:17 PM

Tatsuma: The difference between the USSR and the crazies in charge of Iran?

The people in charge of USSR were atheists who valued their power and lives more than anything else. The people in charge of Iran are crazed fundamentalists who cherish martyrdom and holy war more than they value life and their power, have said so for years and years, and have shown for decades they have no qualms sending their own children and friends to death for the greater good.

Ok, let's first assume you are right that Iran will immediately use a nuke the moment they get it (unlikely, but let's assume so). Let's also assume that they are really working on it (seems likely, but still not proven). Let's also assume they are anywhere near getting one (completely unknown). Let's also assume they have a delivery method (possible they have a missile capable of hitting Israel, highly unlikely they have a missile capable of hitting the US, although I guess they could just smuggle it in on a boat).

Then, you have to assume that attacking them we will actually stop them from building it (unlikely; maybe we will slow them down, but that's probably it). Then, you have to assume that Iran won't respond from the attack (they absolutely will). Now, you have to factor in the total number of deaths from the response versus the chances that all the other assumtions are correct times the total number of deaths from an attack.

That is, let's say we (or the Israelis) attack them. Even if you assume we destroy their nuke program, assuming it exists, and assuming that it was going anywhere, and assuming that they were planning on bombing somebody once they got the nukes, they almost certainly will counter-attack in some fashion.

If you average out all the assumptions there, attacking Iran will likely kill more Israelis and/or Americans than not attacking them.

GleeUnit		2012-02-09 01:44:42 PM

Am I missing something here? What's the deal with the recent surge of manufactured 'desperate need' to start a war with Iran?

Is it really just that the MIC is getting hungry again? Because if so, that war is going to be pretty tough to sell to a weary country that just got out of one war less than four months ago and is still engaged in another. I would like to think we're collectively a lot more skeptical about "oh noes, WMDs!" after the Iraq debacle.

/Not that there aren't plenty of foaming-at-the-mouth retards who gobble that shiat up
//And not that it matters what we think anyway when there's money to be made

theknuckler_33		2012-02-09 01:45:31 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: As soon as I opened the page and saw a pictuere of those two dicks I closed it. I'm eating lunch. I don't feel like getting pissed.

/I despise Joe Lieberman.

As a Pennsylvanian, I would like to personally apologize for Bob Casey. That guy has been a colossal disappointment (it was his vote that prevented an override of Bush's veto of federal stem-cell research funding... and now this). On the other hand, keep in mind that the alternative was Rick Santorum. So lesser of two evils.

kingoomieiii		2012-02-09 01:46:32 PM

I am so farking tired of that entire part of the world. How about we put a moratorium on American soldiers dying in the desert until MINIMUM 2025.

I mean, hell, Israel is REALLY good at assassinating valuable targets, where does the religious leadership of Iran hang out most of the time? How hard could it be to have a spy on a motorcycle stick a bomb to their limo or whatever? Why does the US need to be involved?

From now on, you stir up the shiat, the clean it up.

Loucifer		2012-02-09 01:46:32 PM

I hate to sound like a liberal pussy, but let's give assassinations and terror bombings more time to work before we actually invade.

jake_lex		2012-02-09 01:47:20 PM

It's a completely cynical political ploy, because this is the only way to make Obama look weak in foreign affairs after he ended the war in Iraq and finally managed to kill bin Laden. "Fartbama is gonna let Iran get nukes!"

That's all this is about. The right has become so desperate to find ways to hurt Obama that they are, quite literally, willing to start a war.

BlackPete		2012-02-09 01:47:51 PM

What people looking to martyr themselves look like.

www.spiked-online.com

/hot like Iran's glass parking lot.

Jim_Callahan		2012-02-09 01:48:04 PM

Tatsuma: The people in charge of Iran are crazed fundamentalists who cherish martyrdom and holy war more than they value life and their power, have said so for years and years, and have shown for decades they have no qualms sending their own children and friends to death for the greater good.

Iran hasn't actually been sending off its own people as holy warriors, they've just been funding extremist groups in other countries which have politically convenient targets. Which is something that the US and Israel (second example for your benefit since this is where the thread is heading with you here anyhow) both have done on a regular basis. Well "have done" in the US's case, Israel's pretty unsubtle about still actively doing it.

I don't see Iran sending "settlers" into areas specifically forbidden by treaties with hostile political entities in an attempt to bait those entities into martyring them, either, or establishing an apartheid state (Christians do just fine in Iran, as, iirc, do Jews that don't have direct ties to Israel. Muslims in Israel? Forced into ghettoes).

Basically what I'm saying here is that Israel, or at least one of the primary ruling factions controlling Israel, is exactly the kind of batshiat theocracy you're describing, to a much greater extent than Iran, and they've held off on nuking the world just fine, thanks. Realpolitik is king even in looneyville, at least where weapons that can cause the US to glass your entire nation are concerned. We've damocles'd that issue pretty spectacularly, all Iran joining the nuclear club would do is let them have a real voice in the world government that they've been denied for some time.

qorkfiend		2012-02-09 01:48:20 PM

James!		2012-02-09 01:50:36 PM

GleeUnit: Am I missing something here? What's the deal with the recent surge of manufactured 'desperate need' to start a war with Iran?

My theory is that our soldiers have been genetically altered into mindless murder machines by a shady government program partnered with the RAND corporation. The only people who know are former Bush Pentagon officials who are desperately trying to keep them away at war so that Americans aren't eaten alive by these monster-soldiers.

Goodfella		2012-02-09 01:51:18 PM

As long as they put in the bill that these same senators, along with their sons and daughters, lead the first charge into Tehran, yes, sounds like a good plan.

Khellendros		2012-02-09 01:52:06 PM

Tatsuma: The difference between the USSR and the crazies in charge of Iran?

The people in charge of USSR were atheists who valued their power and lives more than anything else. The people in charge of Iran are crazed fundamentalists who cherish martyrdom and holy war more than they value life and their power, have said so for years and years, and have shown for decades they have no qualms sending their own children and friends to death for the greater good.

If this were true, they would have acted VERY differently over the last 10 years. You've exaggerated and created caricatures of Iran in your mind. Amadinnerjacket is a dangerous idiot, as is much of their government. They are not, however, war mongers and slobbering fundies who are trying to burn the world down.

I'm all for stopping Iran. but dropping the hammer as we've so eloquently done over the last decade isn't going to do the trick. Two wars, nearly a trillion dollars in unbudgeted expenditures, 5,000 soldiers killed, massive drop in citizen and solider morale, netting nearly zero useful accomplishments while toppling two governments and leaving awful power vacuums and massive internal violence, stirring up already strong anti-American sentiment in the region.....

So let's do it all over again in the country between the two we already shredded? Screw that. Blockade and sanction them until either they give in and allow the dismantling of their nuclear program, or their people revolt and tear the government down. We haven't paid for our last two wars which have driven us into the ground financially. Let's not do this again. There are other ways that are much cheaper, and won't create 500,000 destitute, starving terrorists who now have a blood and bones reason to attack us.

Wasteland		2012-02-09 01:55:07 PM

ShawnDoc: Tatsuma: The people in charge of Iran are crazed fundamentalists who cherish martyrdom and holy war more than they value life and their power, have said so for years and years, and have shown for decades they have no qualms sending their own children and friends to death for the greater good.

Nah. The people in charge of Iran cherish their lives and are not looking for martyrdom, they want to maintain their wealth and power. They're looking for a distraction to keep the people from realizing their leaders are the cause of their problems. And as often has been a case "teh jews" are that distraction. So they fire the rhetoric up, blame every problem on "the zionists" and if they can convince angry young males to blow themselves up before they realize they've been misled and cause trouble for their leaders at home, all the better.

Actually killing off all the jews or getting rid of Isreal takes that distraction away.

^ Recursive ursines.

Any Iranian leader that actually wanted "martyrdom and holy war more than they value life and their power" would be dead by now. The rest have a deeply vested personal interest in going on living, and the sense to want nukes as a bargaining chip rather than an ultimate grade of suicide bomb. Genuine fanatics and motivational hype go up front, manipulators and forward planning sit watchfully in the back.

Goodfella		2012-02-09 01:55:38 PM

Here Comes Everybody: I saw Israel's ambassador being interviewed on Fox News (I know, I know, it was on the TV at my gym) a couple of days ago and he was laying it on with a trowel, claiming that Iran wants to "rule the Arab world" (uh, Iranians aren't Arabs).

fark Bibi. fark Likud. They are not worth a single American life, and if Obama tells Bibi and the right wing to pound sand over war with Iran, he's a hero.

Except there are already British SAS forces fighting in Syria right now along side the rebels, and very likely, US special forces as well. And Russian Spetznaz fighting alongside the Syrian army.

Hmmm, we pull tens of thousands of troops out of Afghanistan while at the same time parking an aircraft carrier group right off the coast of Israel and Hormuz. Nope, nothing suspicious about that.

Basically its a proxy war right now between the Brits, US, Israel and Syrian rebels vs the Syrian government, Iran, and Russia. Hopefully no US or British units kill any Russians or this could get hot.

Leo Bloom's Freakout		2012-02-09 01:56:22 PM

James!: GleeUnit: Am I missing something here? What's the deal with the recent surge of manufactured 'desperate need' to start a war with Iran?

My theory is that our soldiers have been genetically altered into mindless murder machines by a shady government program partnered with the RAND corporation. The only people who know are former Bush Pentagon officials who are desperately trying to keep them away at war so that Americans aren't eaten alive by these monster-soldiers.

4.bp.blogspot.com

Curse you Trioxin!!

Geotpf		2012-02-09 01:57:19 PM

GleeUnit: Am I missing something here? What's the deal with the recent surge of manufactured 'desperate need' to start a war with Iran?

Is it really just that the MIC is getting hungry again? Because if so, that war is going to be pretty tough to sell to a weary country that just got out of one war less than four months ago and is still engaged in another. I would like to think we're collectively a lot more skeptical about "oh noes, WMDs!" after the Iraq debacle.

/Not that there aren't plenty of foaming-at-the-mouth retards who gobble that shiat up
//And not that it matters what we think anyway when there's money to be made

It's an attempt by the Israeli government to get a Republican elected President of the USA.

I wish I was joking.

Magorn		2012-02-09 01:57:43 PM

ShawnDoc: Tatsuma: The people in charge of Iran are crazed fundamentalists who cherish martyrdom and holy war more than they value life and their power, have said so for years and years, and have shown for decades they have no qualms sending their own children and friends to death for the greater good.

Nah. The people in charge of Iran cherish their lives and are not looking for martyrdom, they want to maintain their wealth and power. They're looking for a distraction to keep the people from realizing their leaders are the cause of their problems. And as often has been a case "teh jews" are that distraction. So they fire the rhetoric up, blame every problem on "the zionists" and if they can convince angry young males to blow themselves up before they realize they've been misled and cause trouble for their leaders at home, all the better.

Actually killing off all the jews or getting rid of Isreal takes that distraction away.

It's the same reason that Congress and will pass tons of Abortion restrictions now that Obama is president and Dems have a majority in the Senate, but passed exactly 0 when they had control of the presidency, both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court: because if they actually DID outlaw abortion, thousands of Catholic and evangelical voters would no longer have any compelling reason to support them

Karac		2012-02-09 01:59:01 PM

Military option #1 - we bomb their nuclear production facilities.
Military option #2 - full scale boots-on-ground invasion until we manage to find the WMD's.

Now for option 1, it would be helpful to know exactly where those facilities are, and be actually able to damage them. I have serious doubts as to both issues. Option 2 - Iraq has 169,000 square miles and 30 million Iraqis, Iran has 637,000 square miles and 75 million citizens. Is anyone really wanting to take on a job between 2 and 4 times as big as Iraq? Are we supposed to believe that Iranians will rise up against the ayatollahs and then peacefully submit to an occupation? If getting rid of a madman like Saddam wasn't enough to buy peace in Iraq, why would getting rid of the ayatollahs do it in Iran.

Magorn		2012-02-09 02:00:38 PM

hawcian		2012-02-09 02:01:00 PM

Why don't we just tell Iran that if they stop their enrichment process, we'll join them in a joint research project developing thorium reactors (initially more expensive, but once you have multiples up and running it gets cheaper). Thorium is much harder to pull weapons grade material from, doesn't need to be enriched, produces less long-term radioactivity...and then the US gets a testbed for Thorium reactors outside the whole NIMBY thing and gets to prove they work. Plus we can keep a nice close eye on Iran.

Granted, they'll more then likely refuse, but hey, nice offers first.

FailOut08		2012-02-09 02:03:05 PM

It's about the oil. And, it always will be.

theknuckler_33		2012-02-09 02:05:51 PM

Karac: Military option #1 - we bomb their nuclear production facilities.
Military option #2 - full scale boots-on-ground invasion until we manage to find the WMD's.

Now for option 1, it would be helpful to know exactly where those facilities are, and be actually able to damage them. I have serious doubts as to both issues. Option 2 - Iraq has 169,000 square miles and 30 million Iraqis, Iran has 637,000 square miles and 75 million citizens. Is anyone really wanting to take on a job between 2 and 4 times as big as Iraq? Are we supposed to believe that Iranians will rise up against the ayatollahs and then peacefully submit to an occupation? If getting rid of a madman like Saddam wasn't enough to buy peace in Iraq, why would getting rid of the ayatollahs do it in Iran.

Not that I am advocating option #2, but it is pretty likely that there wouldn't anywhere near the sectarian violence that there was in Iraq since Iran is like 95% shia. Of course the real thing about either of those options, even if successful, is 'then what'? It's not like they are going to just stop trying. Do we invade and stay... forever? That's not a policy. Same thing with bombing, do we just go through this exercise every 5 years? It's completely ridiculous. There really is nothing we can do to stop a properly motivated country from obtaining the technology and know-how to developer nuclear weapons. Diplomacy is the only viable option.

bulldg4life		2012-02-09 02:07:26 PM

How long until McCain joins his chickenhawk buddies Graham and Lieberman? These retards have been beating the drum for war with Iran for 4 years.

Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down. The military industrial complex needs to spend money somewhere.

cmb53208		2012-02-09 02:08:14 PM

jjorsett		2012-02-09 02:08:20 PM

So we've gone from a nuclear-armed Iran being "intolerable" to the possibility of a policy of "containment"? No doubt soon to be followed by debates about which countries wouldn't be worth doing anything about if they nuked.

Le Bomb Suprize		2012-02-09 02:10:22 PM

James!: tallguywithglasseson: James!: Then why haven't they bombed the shiat out of Israel already? Nuclear weapons aren't magic, regular bombs work kill just as well.

Because they're cunning, right up until they're crazy. That's why we, the rational actors, need to bomb them now, before they start acting crazy.

They've been crazy suicidal Israel haters thirsting for martyrdom for 33 years now, what are they waiting for?

Don't you see? I'll spell it out for you simpler terms if need be.

The longer they don't attack Israel means a progressively shorter time until they do attack Israel. Which is why we must, must I say, strike them before they wait so long to attack Israel that we run out of time until they do attack Israel. Make sense now?

bulldg4life		2012-02-09 02:10:42 PM

Also, Israel has been worried about Iran's nuclear program for 20 years or more. They've been 6 months or so away from a bomb forever.

This thread is no different.

James!		2012-02-09 02:11:04 PM

jjorsett: So we've gone from a nuclear-armed Iran being "intolerable" to the possibility of a policy of "containment"? No doubt soon to be followed by debates about which countries wouldn't be worth doing anything about if they nuked.

Well, no, but it was a long article with complicated facts and you shouldn't be expected to read it or understand.

James!		2012-02-09 02:12:14 PM

Le Bomb Suprize: James!: tallguywithglasseson: James!: Then why haven't they bombed the shiat out of Israel already? Nuclear weapons aren't magic, regular bombs work kill just as well.

Because they're cunning, right up until they're crazy. That's why we, the rational actors, need to bomb them now, before they start acting crazy.

They've been crazy suicidal Israel haters thirsting for martyrdom for 33 years now, what are they waiting for?

Don't you see? I'll spell it out for you simpler terms if need be.

The longer they don't attack Israel means a progressively shorter time until they do attack Israel. Which is why we must, must I say, strike them before they wait so long to attack Israel that we run out of time until they do attack Israel. Make sense now?

They've been charging their lazors for over three decades now! IMAGINE HOW POWERFUL THEIR LAZORS ARE NOW!

Tigger		2012-02-09 02:14:20 PM

Tatsuma is calling someone a crazed fundamentalist.

Read that sentence a couple of times.

WhiskeySticks		2012-02-09 02:15:01 PM

Meanwhile our school systems continue to deteriorate.

sweetmelissa31		2012-02-09 02:16:35 PM

Jackson Herring: The fark is wrong with these people?

theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com

moralpanic		2012-02-09 02:17:00 PM

Yes, because ramping up the war in Afghanistan, invading Pakistani airspace for drone attacks, killing OBL in Pakistan, bombing in Yemen, bombing Libya, sending in SEALs to rescue hostages in pirates and Somali kidnappers, it's obvious Obama is a pacifist.

meat0918		2012-02-09 02:18:55 PM

There is no appetite for another war within the majority of the American public.

Tel Aviv would have to be a smoking crater to get Americans on board invading Iran.

I don't think the Israelis are willing to use one of their own nukes to implicate Iran.

I do think they are willing to start a war to stop them from getting 70 year old technology.

Lost Thought 00		2012-02-09 02:21:15 PM

It's unAmerican to not be at war with the Middle East. It's the foundation of our economy, and bombs are our only major export

moralpanic		2012-02-09 02:22:44 PM

Lost Thought 00: It's unAmerican to not be at war with the Middle East. It's the foundation of our economy, and bombs are our only major export

Not to mention over 10 years of continuous wars have made Americans pretty farking good at war.

DarnoKonrad		2012-02-09 02:23:03 PM

meat0918: I don't think the Israelis are willing to use one of their own nukes to implicate Iran.

I wouldn't put it past them.

Lost Thought 00		2012-02-09 02:24:34 PM

meat0918: There is no appetite for another war within the majority of the American public.

Tel Aviv would have to be a smoking crater to get Americans on board invading Iran.

I don't think the Israelis are willing to use one of their own nukes to implicate Iran.

I do think they are willing to start a war to stop them from getting 70 year old technology.

Just air a new episode of "24" with Iranians as the bad guys, and the public will be all for it. Worked with the Iraq war.

/If we have to invade anyone, we should invade Pakistan

that bosnian sniper		2012-02-09 02:26:28 PM

Geotpf: If you average out all the assumptions there, attacking Iran will likely kill more Israelis and/or Americans than not attacking them.

Let's also assume biological and chemical weapons are harder and more expensive to produce than nuclear weapons, require building materials that are more easily-tracked on the global market, and are more difficult to smuggle and hand over to terrorists. Let's also assume Iran hasn't had a biological and chemical weapons program in the past, has never used either, and doesn't have the capacity to mass produce and stockpile biological and chemical weapons today.

While we're at it, let's assume Iran hasn't had the technological capability to deploy biological and chemical weapons -- if they had them -- against Israel for well over twenty years.

And even if they had bio and chemical weapons, they certainly wouldn't have a high probability of deploying them against Israel, or liquidating their stockpile en masse to every jihadist in the Islamic world, if attacked in a revenge move.

Could you imagine the brinkmanship and intimidation if Iran did have chemical and biological weapons? Or the capacity to mass produce or stockpile them? Israel probably would have been gassed years ago, especially in light of these Israeli air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. If Iran really wanted to wipe Israel off the map, they could make a damn good job of it with bio/chemical weapons...you know, if they had them. It would be like all that stuff the right is saying about Iranian nukes right now, except easier to produce and transport under the radar, put into terrorists' hands (especially Iranian-sponsored terrorists), and equally as deadly in a preemptive strike that thanks to the relative subtlety of biochemical weapons is vastly more likely than would be the case of a nuclear strike.

Jackson Herring		2012-02-09 02:27:06 PM

sweetmelissa31: Jackson Herring: The fark is wrong with these people?

[theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com image 550x294]

[scrappinlibrarian.files.wordpress.com image 540x360]

I just had an aneurysm trying to hold in an audible chortle at work

Magorn		2012-02-09 02:32:27 PM

BlackPete: What people looking to martyr themselves look like.

[www.spiked-online.com image 394x300]

/hot like Iran's glass parking lot.

I talked to guy about two years ago who risked jail or worse a few years back by travelling back into Iran to hold a Burning Man-inspired event that was extremely well attended even by several famous Iranian celebrities, even though everyone there would have been facing jail time and heavy fines at minimum even for attending, if they'd been caught. Iran is an extremely progressive country that's been under the thumb of extremely conservative, repressive leaders who they lack the power to change. Think, say, Austin, TX as an analogy

sweetmelissa31		2012-02-09 02:35:45 PM

Jackson Herring: I just had an aneurysm trying to hold in an audible chortle at work

I have to do one more. I think I'm addicted.

ww3.hdnux.com

tricycleracer		2012-02-09 02:36:01 PM

Tigger: Tatsuma is calling someone a crazed fundamentalist.

Read that sentence a couple of times.

www.toplessrobot.com

meat0918		2012-02-09 02:36:01 PM

Magorn: BlackPete: What people looking to martyr themselves look like.

[www.spiked-online.com image 394x300]

/hot like Iran's glass parking lot.

I talked to guy about two years ago who risked jail or worse a few years back by travelling back into Iran to hold a Burning Man-inspired event that was extremely well attended even by several famous Iranian celebrities, even though everyone there would have been facing jail time and heavy fines at minimum even for attending, if they'd been caught. Iran is an extremely progressive country that's been under the thumb of extremely conservative, repressive leaders who they lack the power to change. Think, say, Austin, TX as an analogy

Which is why we cannot attack, but really need to support these groups as quietly as possible, because there are many Iranians still pissed at American meddling and the whole propping up a despot to keep the oil flowing thing.

colithian		2012-02-09 02:37:05 PM

Yeah, fark all those diplomats and American citizens in Israel! Bomb them to hell! It's not like they're people or anything!

/sister is in Tel Aviv right now
//kinda scared
///all you farkers screaming "Death to Israel!" and "Death to the Evil Empire!" can please stfu.

Lunaville		2012-02-09 02:38:04 PM

Is it appropriate, yet, to state to citizens serving in our armed forces "As a civilian citizen of the United States of America, I grant my personal permission for you to walk away: just walk off the base and never come back. Feel free to steal stuff on your way out."? Would such a statement be out of line or can we go ahead and say that now?

ecmoRandomNumbers		2012-02-09 02:39:02 PM

fark you, Lieberman!

vpb		2012-02-09 02:40:30 PM

Jackson Herring		2012-02-09 02:40:38 PM

sweetmelissa31: Jackson Herring: I just had an aneurysm trying to hold in an audible chortle at work

I have to do one more. I think I'm addicted.

[ww3.hdnux.com image 385x471]

[www.mamapop.com image 309x379]

Can I go a different way with this one?

theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com

James!		2012-02-09 02:41:16 PM

eagles95		2012-02-09 02:45:45 PM

WhiskeySticks: Meanwhile our school systems continue to deteriorate.

And infrastructure

SilentStrider		2012-02-09 02:49:52 PM

What the fark Casey? We voted you in because you were supposed to be smarter than Santorum, not do the exact kind of shiat he would do.
Congrats on losing my vote for the future asshole.

DozeNutz		2012-02-09 02:50:31 PM

Funny, the headline makes it seem that Obombya wasn't going to anyways...

Nice job subby, getting people to think he might actually listen to congress or something like that regarding foreign policy...

apoptotic		2012-02-09 02:50:44 PM

sweetmelissa31		2012-02-09 02:51:22 PM

Jackson Herring: Can I go a different way with this one?

The "what is Obama thinking" angle?

Forgot_my_password_again		2012-02-09 02:51:54 PM

hmmm, heading to SE Asia this summer, wonder if buy the ticket now just in case of a war and prices go up?

Jake Havechek		2012-02-09 02:52:24 PM

SixPaperJoint		2012-02-09 02:53:46 PM

Tatsuma: .

Go to hell, man.

I support Israel and her right to self-defense, but you are full of hate and fear and only succeeding in turning off people to your cause and people. STOP!

IlGreven		2012-02-09 02:56:21 PM

SixPaperJoint		2012-02-09 02:57:17 PM

Jake Havechek: Tatsuma:

At least once more. Sorry, but I have liked that guy since the Green Revolution in Iran. He was great and made himself damn useful and informative. But damn, shiat has gone off the rails.

Jake Havechek		2012-02-09 03:00:01 PM

SixPaperJoint: Jake Havechek: Tatsuma:

At least once more. Sorry, but I have liked that guy since the Green Revolution in Iran. He was great and made himself damn useful and informative. But damn, shiat has gone off the rails.

It's farking ludicrous. He has an excuse for everything. Not like the countries and people he opposes don't have reason to be opposed, but all I can glean is that in Israel, everybody shiats ice cream and the sun shines all the time.

One totally unrealistic motherfarker.

Jackson Herring		2012-02-09 03:00:04 PM

sweetmelissa31: Jackson Herring: Can I go a different way with this one?

The "what is Obama thinking" angle?

The "Obama is such a bloodthirsty killer of brown people, Lindsey Graham looks like a pasty, flabby white guy by comparison" angle

Virtual Pariah		2012-02-09 03:01:02 PM

James!:

The optimal number of bombed cities is zero.

Agreed.
This is the message that extremists on both sides can't seem to understand.

Most of us have had enough of war for a generation or so. Were burnt out and broke from the effort.

Jackson Herring		2012-02-09 03:04:28 PM

I don't know, I think I've lost track of my roots on this one

CaptainCliche		2012-02-09 03:09:16 PM

colithian: Yeah, fark all those diplomats and American citizens in Israel! Bomb them to hell! It's not like they're people or anything!

/sister is in Tel Aviv right now
//kinda scared
///all you farkers screaming "Death to Israel!" and "Death to the Evil Empire!" can please stfu.

So now there is a wordfilter on Fark that converts "Let Israel solve their own problems" to "Death to Israel!" What an odd thing for the mods to do.

/sarcasm

Now, what most of us ARE saying, is that Iran has had the CAPABILITY to seriously harm Israelis for years, yet they haven't done it. Perhaps they have a vested interest in the continued existence of Israel as a scapegoat for all the problems in Iran.

Did you know, in fact that the last Nation that Iran/Persia invaded was India, in 1738. Since then Iran has been invaded by: Russia, Britain, The USA, and Iraq. Not to mention there are strong implications that Mossad operates with impunity within Iran's borders performing everything from sabotage to espionage to outright assassination.

Israel is in no more danger today than it was 20 years ago.

relcec		2012-02-09 03:10:58 PM

contain the soviet union diplomatically?
who is the f*cking moron who submitted this? out yourself ignoramus.

qorkfiend		2012-02-09 03:13:49 PM

moralpanic: Yes, because ramping up the war in Afghanistan, invading Pakistani airspace for drone attacks, killing OBL in Pakistan, bombing in Yemen, bombing Libya, sending in SEALs to rescue hostages in pirates and Somali kidnappers, it's obvious Obama is a pacifist.

Those are all closer to the Indian Ocean.

Oh, pacifist, not pacificist. My bad.

Summer Glau's Love Slave		2012-02-09 03:15:02 PM

Tigger: Tatsuma is calling someone a crazed fundamentalist.

Read that sentence a couple of times.

I know. Hard to farkin believe.

/I'd put Tats on ignore if I didn't need the lulz.
//He's the Bevets of the politics tab.

Headso		2012-02-09 03:15:23 PM

These tards are going to need another massive terror attack in order to get America involved in Iran. People in the US are not itching to attack another country in the mid east.

James!		2012-02-09 03:17:52 PM

relcec: contain the soviet union diplomatically?
who is the f*cking moron who submitted this? out yourself ignoramus.

That's senator moron to you, buddy.

"The attached bi-partisan resolution will put the Senate on record as ruling out a strategy of containment for a nuclear-armed Iran in the strongest and clearest terms, detailing why the consequences cannot be 'contained' like the threat of the Soviet Union," Senators Casey, Lieberman and Graham wrote in a note introducing the draft resolution, obtained by Yahoo News.

Khellendros		2012-02-09 03:18:29 PM

CaptainCliche: Now, what most of us ARE saying, is that Iran has had the CAPABILITY to seriously harm Israelis for years, yet they haven't done it. Perhaps they have a vested interest in the continued existence of Israel as a scapegoat for all the problems in Iran.

Let's be clear here. Iran hasn't gone after Israel militarily because the Middle East learned in the 1960s that Israel can take them on 3-1 and win. The gap in military capability has only grown many times wider since then (primarily due to US involvement). In addition, they know of the military backlash they'd have to deal with from Israel's western allies. They're not dumb. It's not in their interests to attack, though they'd love to do so.

wingnut396		2012-02-09 03:18:49 PM

Why don't these founding fellating consititutional 'orginalist' look more often to the words of those that actually wrote the farking Contiution?

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

--Some peacnik hippie whose wife bakes HoHos and other snack cakes I think.

Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies; the preservation of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a jealous care of the right of election by the people -- a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism; a well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war till regulars may relieve them; the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burthened; the honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith; encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid; the diffusion of information and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of the public reason; freedom of religion; freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected

Some obvious anti-semite that I believe owns a small dry cleaning chains and lives in a de-luxe apartment in the sky.

So we are preparing to enter another war, in no small part due to an alliance of increasingly questionable value, after 10 years of war in which we increased debt and decreased liberty at home. Who could have seen such things happening? I wish they would have warned us!

PanicMan		2012-02-09 03:27:41 PM

We can't contain a nuclear-armed Iran because a nuclear-armed Iran doesn't exist. It is an empty set. There is nothing to contain.

DarnoKonrad		2012-02-09 03:32:52 PM

SixPaperJoint: Jake Havechek: Tatsuma:

At least once more. Sorry, but I have liked that guy since the Green Revolution in Iran. He was great and made himself damn useful and informative. But damn, shiat has gone off the rails.

Those Green Revolution threads were pure propaganda, disinformation, and attention whoring. It was without a doubt one of the most despicable instances of group-think and confirmation bias I've ever seen.

Aldon		2012-02-09 03:33:37 PM

Do these people wnt to start another ground war in Asia because we actually might have a leader competent enough to win one now, or are they just stupid?

Saying Iran is some sort of terrorist state is like saying Iraq had WMD's they are about to use....they might have been about that a decade or more ago, but they aren't about that now and if they could the US would not be their target.

relcec		2012-02-09 03:33:47 PM

James!: relcec: contain the soviet union diplomatically?
who is the f*cking moron who submitted this? out yourself ignoramus.

That's senator moron to you, buddy.

"The attached bi-partisan resolution will put the Senate on record as ruling out a strategy of containment for a nuclear-armed Iran in the strongest and clearest terms, detailing why the consequences cannot be 'contained' like the threat of the Soviet Union," Senators Casey, Lieberman and Graham wrote in a note introducing the draft resolution, obtained by Yahoo News.

I don't see them saying we did it exclusively through diplomatic channels.
korean war, vietnam war, congo, thailand, lebanon, taiwan, greece, cambodia, afganistan war, grenada invasion, nicaragua, el salvador, honduras, cuban missile crisis which almost precipitated ww3, and various proxy wars in the mideast.

Jacobin		2012-02-09 03:42:21 PM

Wow the AIPAC checks to congress must have cleared yesterday.

James!		2012-02-09 03:48:09 PM

relcec: James!: relcec: contain the soviet union diplomatically?
who is the f*cking moron who submitted this? out yourself ignoramus.

That's senator moron to you, buddy.

"The attached bi-partisan resolution will put the Senate on record as ruling out a strategy of containment for a nuclear-armed Iran in the strongest and clearest terms, detailing why the consequences cannot be 'contained' like the threat of the Soviet Union," Senators Casey, Lieberman and Graham wrote in a note introducing the draft resolution, obtained by Yahoo News.

I don't see them saying we did it exclusively through diplomatic channels.
korean war, vietnam war, congo, thailand, lebanon, taiwan, greece, cambodia, afganistan war, grenada invasion, nicaragua, el salvador, honduras, cuban missile crisis which almost precipitated ww3, and various proxy wars in the mideast.

I don't think anyone is suggesting doing anything exclusively through diplomatic channels.

Close2TheEdge		2012-02-09 03:59:25 PM

Containment is what we will do. Containment is what we should do, because Obama is not stupid and will not start listening to a couple of grandstanding assholes in the Senate or House. Not while he is still POTUS.

Backwards Cornfield Races		2012-02-09 04:19:31 PM

Dear all those advocating US involvement:

www.GoArmy.com

RyogaM		2012-02-09 04:36:53 PM

Obama should refuse to use anything other than diplomatic means in dealing with Iran until the Congress gets some skin in the game by first, declaring war against Iran, second, by ensuring that at least the first trillion dollars of the war are paid for by raised taxes or spending cuts, and three, authorizing a draft to ensure that there are enough able bodies on the field to make. If the Congressional Republicans believe Iran is a serious threat, then they should act like it.

apeiron242		2012-02-09 04:48:45 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Korea has nukes. Not invaded.
Iraq does not. Invaded and occupied.
Pakistan has nukes. Not invaded.
Afghanistan does not. Invaded and occupied.
India has nukes. Not invaded and given 1/4 of all high tech jobs in the world.
Libya does not. Government overthrown.
Israel has nukes. Given endless sloppy blowjobs.

It seems to me that there's no downside to having nukes. Only an up side.

Normally you are a voice of sanity here, but here you've gone off the rails.

Iran != Iraq != India != ....

Different situations are, different!

Korea has nukes. Not invaded.

i'm guessing you mean North Korea. Do they really have nukes? They tested some lil thing in a hole under a mountain. The DO however have enough artillery pointed at Seoul that it doesn't matter if they have nukes. They also still have something of a friend in China.

Iraq does not. Invaded and occupied.

The sanctions were about to end, leaving Saddam with billions in oil revenue to rebuild his military and resume WMD programs.

Pakistan has nukes. Not invaded.

We had no interest in them until we push the Taliban and AQ out of Afghanistan.

Afghanistan does not. Invaded and occupied.

Because OBL was there. How did you miss that point?

India has nukes. Not invaded and given 1/4 of all high tech jobs in the world.

India is fairly civilized, never done us any harm. Why the fark are you mentioning them here? You might as well have listen the UK and France.

Libya does not. Government overthrown.

In which parallel universe did we overthrow their gov't?

Israel has nukes. Given endless sloppy blowjobs.

[Citation Needed]

Iran is a signatory to the NPT. They don't get to have nukes. End of discussion.

Philip Francis Queeg		2012-02-09 04:51:55 PM

apeiron242: Pakistan has nukes. Not invaded.

We had no interest in them until we push the Taliban and AQ out of Afghanistan.

Afghanistan does not. Invaded and occupied.

Because OBL was there. How did you miss that point?

Wait, where was OBL??????????

apeiron242		2012-02-09 04:53:37 PM

Backwards Cornfield Races: Dear all those advocating US involvement:

www.GoArmy.com

You can't watch football unless you are in the NFL.

You can't like U2 unless you're in the band.

You can't eat any meal you didn't cook for yourself.

You can't watch porn in which you do not appear.

You can't vote unless you're running for office.

Go be stupid on DailyKOS. You're embarrassing us all.

--

We will NOT be attacking, much less invading Iran. The ONLY way we would is if they test a nuke on Tel Aviv or close the straight. Israel will handle it before we do anything but impose sanctions.

Conservatives: Put it back in your pants.

Liberals: Unbunch your panties.

child_god		2012-02-09 04:57:39 PM

Lost Thought 00: It's unAmerican to not be at war with the Middle East. It's the foundation of our economy, and bombs are our only major export

Quoted for truth.

that bosnian sniper		2012-02-09 04:58:16 PM

RyogaM: Obama should refuse to use anything other than diplomatic means in dealing with Iran until the Congress gets some skin in the game by first, declaring war against Iran, second, by ensuring that at least the first trillion dollars of the war are paid for by raised taxes or spending cuts, and three, authorizing a draft to ensure that there are enough able bodies on the field to make. If the Congressional Republicans believe Iran is a serious threat, then they should act like it.

Oh, fark that.

Ensuring the entirety of the war is paid for and fought by the people in whose best interests the war is: the 1%. No drafts, no poor and middle-class Americans sent off to die in a war against their own interest let alone having nothing to do with the defense of this country.

SixPaperJoint		2012-02-09 05:18:48 PM

DarnoKonrad: SixPaperJoint: Jake Havechek: Tatsuma:

At least once more. Sorry, but I have liked that guy since the Green Revolution in Iran. He was great and made himself damn useful and informative. But damn, shiat has gone off the rails.

Those Green Revolution threads were pure propaganda, disinformation, and attention whoring. It was without a doubt one of the most despicable instances of group-think and confirmation bias I've ever seen.

O.K. cool. But as someone who had paid little attention to the actual government of Iran, I found that some of what was being typed in the threads was interesting and yes, Tats was a part of that. Since then I have made it a point to learn more about a topic I was woefully uninformed about. I don't remember all that was said, but as an initial jump off point, I copied and pasted in to google a lot from Tats. Maybe that was wrong.

He_Hate_Me		2012-02-09 06:24:49 PM

They're the same war! Doesn't anyone notice this?! I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

supageil		2012-02-09 06:25:19 PM

Forcing a war with Iran is just one of the tactics anti-Obama politicians are using as a weapon against him.

This is an election year. Conservatives have most likely realized that an unnecessary war--even a threatened one--for Israel's sake would divide the Democratic party. On one hand there are the pro-peace liberals, and on the other are pro-Israel voters. Obama can't really afford to lose either group. Or even make either group suspect he's abandoning them.

I also wonder at the timing of this. Many Republicans seemed to criticize Obama for not "doing more" to help the Iranian protesters during the Green Revolution marches (even though US involvement would have discredited the protesters).

Now, suddenly, many of the same Republicans want to attack Iran, an action that would drive the average Iranian straight into the arms of the government that they were protesting in '09.

Are they attempting to preempt any more anti-authority protests? I can't help but compare that to the timing of the Occupy crackdowns.

Just a few thoughts. Curious to hear others' views on this.

Rebuffering		2012-02-09 06:26:36 PM

There are decent people in every country, which is why war should be the last option. More civilians were killed in Iraq then soldiers or insurgents. Ask yourself a question... Would you want to die because your government was being idiotic and picking a fight? Maybe if we manned up and admitted our mistakes in installing and supporting the shah of Iran, we wouldn't be in this situation. To punish others for our own foreign policy errors is extremely farked up. Anyone supporting war is supporting the killing of civilians, who probably don't like what their government is doing in the first place. Its like killing the hostages to arrest the criminals... it's completely asinine. I don't care if they have Stockholm syndrome, it is still wrong.

Jackson Herring		2012-02-09 06:30:49 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Wait, where was OBL??????????

at the bottom of the Indian Ocean

best fart..........................?
.......................................
.......................................
...........................fartever

tlchwi02		2012-02-09 06:34:45 PM

SixPaperJoint: . cool. But as someone who had paid little attention to the actual government of Iran, I found that some of what was being typed in the threads was interesting and yes, Tats was a part of that. Since then I have made it a point to learn more about a topic I was woefully uninformed about. I don't remember all that was said, but as an initial jump off point, I copied and pasted in to google a lot from Tats. Maybe that was wrong.

probably not a good idea if you want a real analysis of the situation, tbh. Right wing/neo-con cherry picked facts, best case scenarios and wishful thinking? yeah.

grotto_man		2012-02-09 06:43:18 PM

Marcus Aurelius

Korea has nukes. Not invaded.
Iraq does not. Invaded and occupied.
Pakistan has nukes. Not invaded.
Afghanistan does not. Invaded and occupied.
India has nukes. Not invaded and given 1/4 of all high tech jobs in the world.
Libya does not. Government overthrown.
Israel has nukes. Given endless sloppy blowjobs.

...in the delusions of Israel bashers. Egypt gets the same ballpark of aid, and doesn't have nukes but has had long standing human rights abuses.
And I presume you meant N Korea. S Korea doesn't have nukes, not only not invaded but defended at considerable cost to US lives and fortunes, and the cost of keeping our troops there to defend them is very likely more than the US gives to Israel or Egypt.

Similar cases with W Europe, so your examples are pretty lousy all around.

As far as the comparison w the Soviets from subtard, you might note that the containment involved more than just diplomacy - it involved military spending, military action, espionage, etc. And it came after the Soviets already had nukes, to illustrate the value of stopping the Iranians before they get nukes.

StokeyBob		2012-02-09 07:09:06 PM

Gyrfalcon		2012-02-09 07:18:51 PM

PsiChick		2012-02-09 07:26:39 PM

GleeUnit: Am I missing something here? What's the deal with the recent surge of manufactured 'desperate need' to start a war with Iran?

Is it really just that the MIC is getting hungry again? Because if so, that war is going to be pretty tough to sell to a weary country that just got out of one war less than four months ago and is still engaged in another. I would like to think we're collectively a lot more skeptical about "oh noes, WMDs!" after the Iraq debacle.

/Not that there aren't plenty of foaming-at-the-mouth retards who gobble that shiat up
//And not that it matters what we think anyway when there's money to be made

High-RWA personality types want warfare. They want to be the glorious underdog who saves the day.

This is not something we should ever encourage.

bugontherug		2012-02-09 07:38:28 PM

It is a tragedy that in the wake of Bush's Iraq debacle it's going to be more difficult for any president to pursue sensible foreign policy objectives that require the use of military force.

Two things to keep in mind, young folks:

1) Not every president is a Republican psychopath willing to put our troops in harm's way for cynical domestic political gain.

2) Not every military action involves invasion, conquest, and occupation.

Nuclear non-proliferation is more than a laudable US foreign policy goal. It is a critical US foreign policy goal. Nuclear weapons are the single greatest threat to human existence. The more people who possess them, the more likely they are to be used.

I'm no fan of Bush, the Republicans, the Iraq War, or Israel. I am a fan of not letting nuclear weapons spread uncontrolled around the world. And the issue is too important to rule out military force. And Israel, when it assassinates Iran's nuclear scientists, is doing the right thing.

Of course, America should have been willing to assassinate Israel's nuclear scientists too. But that's for another thread.

relcec		2012-02-09 07:54:57 PM

James!: relcec: James!: relcec: contain the soviet union diplomatically?
who is the f*cking moron who submitted this? out yourself ignoramus.

That's senator moron to you, buddy.

"The attached bi-partisan resolution will put the Senate on record as ruling out a strategy of containment for a nuclear-armed Iran in the strongest and clearest terms, detailing why the consequences cannot be 'contained' like the threat of the Soviet Union," Senators Casey, Lieberman and Graham wrote in a note introducing the draft resolution, obtained by Yahoo News.

I don't see them saying we did it exclusively through diplomatic channels.
korean war, vietnam war, congo, thailand, lebanon, taiwan, greece, cambodia, afganistan war, grenada invasion, nicaragua, el salvador, honduras, cuban missile crisis which almost precipitated ww3, and various proxy wars in the mideast.

I don't think anyone is suggesting doing anything exclusively through diplomatic channels.

I don't really give a shiat what anyone is or isn't suggesting for Iran.
I just wanted to point out subby is an idiot if he thinks the cold war containment strategy was based on diplomatic containment with no military intervention when we didn't like what we saw. we didn't go five minutes when we weren't sending troops somewhere to kill people. so if I was subby I wouldn't chose the cold war as my historical example of the time we did not intervene militarily but still succeeded through diplomatic channels.
that's all.

by the way, where did iran get it's reactor? they didn't build it all themselves, did they?

residentgeek		2012-02-09 08:24:42 PM

Would agree heartily

/hot like John Goodman isn't

Rashnu		2012-02-09 09:06:58 PM

Getting really tired of the psychotically paranoid Israel first hawks and their chickenhawk American co-propagandists' attempts to force us to act stupidly and against our own self interests. It's completely unsubstantiated and evidence-devoid bullsh*t that the Iranian power structure live only for the destruction of Israel and don't care if they stay in power or doom their populace to certain death. They're a rational state actor as much as any other. Some bombastic, populist anti-Zionist rhetoric and quotes don't change that.

I've been a general vague supporter, however qualified, of Israel in the past but following them down this path is madness. F*ck 'em; we should burn our bridges and let them sort themselves out at this point. Yeah it sucks being a tiny country surrounded by enemies. Good thing you have nukes. I have no doubt of your irrational, paranoid, fundamentalist, and knee-jerk mindset leading to you using them preemptively in a paroxysmal fit of self-immolating rage and psychosis.

KidneyStone		2012-02-09 09:15:00 PM

wedun		2012-02-09 09:37:15 PM

Tatsuma: crazed fundamentalists who cherish martyrdom and holy war more than they value life and their power, have said so for years and years, and have shown for decades they have no qualms sending their own children and friends to death for the greater good.

wait are we talking about Israeli settlers or the Bush administration?

firefly212		2012-02-09 11:12:30 PM

The amassing of the Soviet power alerted free nations to a new danger of aggression. It compelled them in self-defense to spend unprecedented money and energy for armaments. It forced them to develop weapons of war now capable of inflicting instant and terrible punishment upon any aggressor.

It instilled in the free nations-and let none doubt this-the unshakable conviction that, as long as there persists a threat to freedom, they must, at any cost, remain armed, strong, and ready for the risk of war.

It inspired them-and let none doubt this-to attain a unity of purpose and will beyond the power of propaganda or pressure to break, now or ever.

There remained, however, one thing essentially unchanged and unaffected by Soviet conduct: the readiness of the free nations to welcome sincerely any genuine evidence of peaceful purpose enabling all peoples again to resume their common quest of just peace.

The free nations, most solemnly and repeatedly, have assured the Soviet Union that their firm association has never had any aggressive purpose whatsoever. Soviet leaders, however, have seemed to persuade themselves, or tried to persuade their people, otherwise.

And so it has come to pass that the Soviet Union itself has shared and suffered the very fears it has fostered in the rest of the world.

This has been the way of life forged by 8 years of fear and force.

What can the world, or any nation in it, hope for if no turning is found on this dread road?

The worst to be feared and the best to be expected can be simply stated.

The worst is atomic war.

The best would be this: a life of perpetual fear and tension; a burden of arms draining the wealthand the labor of all peoples; a wasting of strength that defies the American system or the Soviet system or any system to achieve true abundance and happiness for the peoples of this earth.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms in not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

As applicable today as ever, thanks Ike.

Gyrfalcon		2012-02-10 12:11:54 AM

KidneyStone: Tatsuma: The difference between the USSR and the crazies in charge of Iran?

The people in charge of USSR were atheists who valued their power and lives more than anything else. The people in charge of Iran are crazed fundamentalists who cherish martyrdom and holy war more than they value life and their power, have said so for years and years, and have shown for decades they have no qualms sending their own children and friends to death for the greater good.

Pretty much this.

Too many people don't realize the extreme difference in culture

Too many people don't realize that Herr Tatsuma would argue that the only difference between Hitler's Germany and Khamenei's Iran is that Hitler spoke German with a Bavarian accent.

dehehn		2012-02-10 12:40:16 AM

He_Hate_Me: [mikeely.files.wordpress.com image 307x360]

They're the same war! Doesn't anyone notice this?! I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

The war hasn't ended since it began in the Crusades. The west has been trying to control the Middle East ever since.

The_Time_Master		2012-02-10 08:12:47 AM

Jlop985		2012-02-10 08:17:08 AM

Karac: Military option #1 - we bomb their nuclear production facilities.
Military option #2 - full scale boots-on-ground invasion until we manage to find the WMD's.

Now for option 1, it would be helpful to know exactly where those facilities are, and be actually able to damage them. I have serious doubts as to both issues. Option 2 - Iraq has 169,000 square miles and 30 million Iraqis, Iran has 637,000 square miles and 75 million citizens. Is anyone really wanting to take on a job between 2 and 4 times as big as Iraq? Are we supposed to believe that Iranians will rise up against the ayatollahs and then peacefully submit to an occupation? If getting rid of a madman like Saddam wasn't enough to buy peace in Iraq, why would getting rid of the ayatollahs do it in Iran.

Not to mention that, unlike Iraq, which was hastily carved out of the Ottoman Empire, Iran is an organically-formed country, and a very old one, at that. The resistance in Iran would make Iraq look like a park stroll on Saturday morning.

Bullseyed		2012-02-10 03:18:59 PM

Bullseyed		2012-02-10 03:20:27 PM

James!: Tatsuma: The difference between the USSR and the crazies in charge of Iran?

The people in charge of USSR were atheists who valued their power and lives more than anything else. The people in charge of Iran are crazed fundamentalists who cherish martyrdom and holy war more than they value life and their power, have said so for years and years, and have shown for decades they have no qualms sending their own children and friends to death for the greater good.

Then why haven't they bombed the shiat out of Israel already? Nuclear weapons aren't magic, regular bombs work kill just as well.

See? Public schools don't work. Retards like this don't even know Israel has been invaded many times. They currently are being invaded by Hamas and Hezbollah, which are both funded by Iran.

Bullseyed		2012-02-10 03:21:56 PM

Cinaed: What about approaching Iran with Love, Peace and Mutual Respect instead?
That's like, totally, not containment.

Obama went over there and kissed the feet of every muslim he could find. They still want to kill all free people.

Bullseyed		2012-02-10 03:23:41 PM

Bullseyed		2012-02-10 03:25:06 PM

Bullseyed		2012-02-10 03:26:46 PM

MindStalker: Marcus Aurelius: Korea has nukes. Not invaded.
Iraq does not. Invaded and occupied.
Pakistan has nukes. Not invaded.
Afghanistan does not. Invaded and occupied.
India has nukes. Not invaded and given 1/4 of all high tech jobs in the world.
Libya does not. Government overthrown.
Israel has nukes. Given endless sloppy blowjobs.

It seems to me that there's no downside to having nukes. Only an up side.

For the most part the countries with Nukes are advanced technically and socially and we don't see them as a threat. NK and Pakistan are slight oddballs in that group, but I suspect its because we don't see them as a direct threat to the US.

NK has a crazy leader, not crazy people. Like Cuba.

Pakistan doesn't give a crap about the USA, and probably couldn't find us to attack anyway. They want to blow up India for not eating cows or something. Tech support wait times would go up, but most tech support is in Manila now.

Bullseyed		2012-02-10 03:28:15 PM

I Havent Killed Anybody Since 1984: I can't believe our representatives are marching into war again, and with more WMD shenanigans.

Just kidding, I can totally believe it :-/

Can you name one country that hasn't confirmed Iran wants and is working on nukes, other than Iran?

Even Russia, China and the UN agree.

Displayed 148 of 148 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh comments

This thread is closed to new comments.