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.

(Times of Israel)   Israel to US: 'Dude, Iran isn't even scared of you. You should go over and like totally bust that ass, bro"   (timesofisrael.com) divider line 186
    More: Followup, United States, Iran, military intelligences, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, NPT, nonproliferation, Iranian nuclear, Iranian nuclear program  
•       •       •

2739 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Aug 2012 at 10:33 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-18 11:05:13 PM
no drama obama iz all like "stuxnet" biatch! And Akhmood iz all like "Oh I know you didnit jus' do that!"
 
2012-08-18 11:05:31 PM

Party Boy: AliceBToklasLives: Sure - that's why U.S. aid to Israel has gone down dramatically since 1990. Why send massive amounts of aid - far, far more than anyone else -- to a country with which we are at odds?

You are not about to use foreign aid to Israel as a metric to defend your argument, are you? You might want to rethink this.


Why does the United States send Israel so much foreign aid? Did we just pick a name out of a hat?
 
2012-08-18 11:07:24 PM
You know, Israelis are nice people and all but that being said fark THEM. They're big boys and girls. Let them take care of their own shiat for a change.
 
2012-08-18 11:08:10 PM

AliceBToklasLives: Party Boy: AliceBToklasLives: Sure - that's why U.S. aid to Israel has gone down dramatically since 1990. Why send massive amounts of aid - far, far more than anyone else -- to a country with which we are at odds?

You are not about to use foreign aid to Israel as a metric to defend your argument, are you? You might want to rethink this.

Why does the United States send Israel so much foreign aid? Did we just pick a name out of a hat?


When youi look at how much money we give away, and the countries we give it to, that scenario seems quite plausible, actually. Or, perhaps, an Ouija board is involved.
 
2012-08-18 11:08:27 PM

AliceBToklasLives: Why does the United States send Israel so much foreign aid? Did we just pick a name out of a hat?


Once upon a time, a rouge computer program took control of a political action committee...
 
2012-08-18 11:08:35 PM

PlasticMoby: You know, Israelis are nice people and all but that being said fark THEM. They're big boys and girls. Let them take care of their own shiat for a change.


No, no. Stick with the first part. And then try to figure out how to help the nice people, who, by the way, think we're nice people, too.
 
2012-08-18 11:08:43 PM

Hobodeluxe: Israel must be afraid of them too. I don't see them fighting them right now either. they still want big brother to go fights they pick.


Exactly. Helping Israel defend itself is one thing, but right now, they are behaving like an obnoxious frat boy with a Napoleon complex, who talks shiat to everyone at the bar because he thinks his boys are going to step in.
 
2012-08-18 11:09:07 PM

AliceBToklasLives: Party Boy: AliceBToklasLives: Sure - that's why U.S. aid to Israel has gone down dramatically since 1990. Why send massive amounts of aid - far, far more than anyone else -- to a country with which we are at odds?

You are not about to use foreign aid to Israel as a metric to defend your argument, are you? You might want to rethink this.

Why does the United States send Israel so much foreign aid? Did we just pick a name out of a hat?


Holocaust guilt
 
2012-08-18 11:09:18 PM
What's in it for us, a country that has spent over a trillion to go to war for over a decade?
 
2012-08-18 11:10:31 PM

stoli n coke: Hobodeluxe: Israel must be afraid of them too. I don't see them fighting them right now either. they still want big brother to go fights they pick.

Exactly. Helping Israel defend itself is one thing, but right now, they are behaving like an obnoxious frat boy with a Napoleon complex, who talks shiat to everyone at the bar because he thinks his boys are going to step in.


That's the most accurate depiction I've ever heard describing Israel's foreign/domestic policy.
 
2012-08-18 11:12:58 PM

WizardofToast: What's in it for us, a country that has spent over a trillion to go to war for over a decade?


well the fundies think that we're obligated to do the bidding of "God's chosen people"
and the corporate media seems to think it's the rational thing to do.
and the military industrial complex loves the idea

but unless you're one of them all you get is the bill.
 
2012-08-18 11:14:55 PM

WizardofToast: What's in it for us, a country that has spent over a trillion to go to war for over a decade?


One nuke on Teheran wouldn't cost near that much and would instantly take all the fight out of Ahadinnahjacket.
 
2012-08-18 11:15:09 PM

AliceBToklasLives: Why does the United States send Israel so much foreign aid? Did we just pick a name out of a hat?


The reasons why we used to give money and the reasons why we give money now have changed.
This predates the shift of economic/military and now military aid and easily goes back to Truman. People will make the argument that from about 1967 to 1988-89 that your argument will hold up. Some will criticize it, but it has merit during these years. Though, the cold war justification fell apart after the cold war.

Now you have a country that unifies a naturally divided region against the US.

Just like i posted in the other thread this has roots in a strategic shift by israel after Sadam was weakened in the first gulf war. The Israeli 180 on Iran occurred right after Iraq had its nuts cut off in Desert Storm. Theres both domestic and regional elements there. Also, theres the relationship between Israel and the US that was in peril after the end of the Cold War.
So they're looking for a new explanation in the form of a new common enemy. And so they've invented one, which we're going to hear a great deal more about in the future, and that is Islamic fundamentalism, which they say is the great wave that's threatening the West.
-George Ball 1993

We needed some new glue for the alliance [with America]. And the new glue . . . was radical Islam.And Iran was radical Islam.
-Efraim Inbar, Begin-Sadat Center

2011-12-05 12:24:30 AM
The defeat ofIraq and the disappearance ofthe dreaded "eastern front"caused Israel's eyes to turn to Iran. 166

Israelis need existential threat - worst case scenario 167

In spite ofIraq's defeat,many in the Israeli military continued to worry about Saddam's chemical and nuclear weapons program."Iran wasn't an im- mediate threat.Iran was never an immediate threat.Iraq was,however,"Gen. Amnon Lipkin-Shahak explained.Israeli academics and security experts were equally critical.Israel Shahak pointed out that the Labor government depicted Iran as a threat at the height ofIran's weakness. 168

Shai Feldman ofthe Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies wrote that Israel's need for a new "boogey man"lay behind the exaggeration ofIran's military power. Anoushiravan Ehteshami and Raymond Hinnebusch argued that Peres and Rabin turned Iran into a modern day Golem-a mythical figure of fear and loathing in Israeli folklore. 168

Perhaps most importantly,the alarmism over Iran reinforced the message that Washington needed Israel.The strategic significance Israel had enjoyed during the Cold War could be regained through the common threat ofIran and Islamic fun- damentalism-instead ofbeing a friendly bulwark against Soviet expan- sionism,Israel would now be a friendly bulwark against Iran's regional am- bitions in a unipolar world."There was a feeling in Israel that because of the end ofthe Cold War,relations with the U.S.were cooling and we needed some new glue for the alliance,"Inbar said."And the new glue... was radical Islam. And Iran was radical Islam." 170

pro-Israeli think tank that Indyk helped found in 1985.It was a major policy declaration,originally slated to be given by National Security Advisor Anthony Lake himself. The policy was a major shift in America's approach to the region.Traditionally,Washington sought to balance Iran and Iraq against each other to maintain a degree ofstability. Now,Indyk argued,America's strength had reached such levels that it did not need to balance the two against each other-it could balance both with- out relying on either. 171

While winning praise in Tel Aviv,the new policy met with heavy criticism in Washington.Foreign policy experts inside the Beltway found the Israeli focus ofthe new policy disturbing.The Israeli origin of Dual Containment "was pretty much accepted in Washington,"according to Assistant Secretary ofState Pelletreau,even though in public administration officials conceded only that the policy was "influenced or stimulated"by Israeli thinking. 171

The harshest critics maintained that the Israeli tilt ofthe policy produced undesirable consequences for American interests."It was a nutty idea,"Scowcroft complained.It was simply "crazy"to try to balance both Iran and Iraq with American power,he said. 171

Iran and Israel were two ofthe few countries in the region that were powerful enough to shape the new Middle East order.This alone put the two non-Arab powerhouses on a collision course.Israel rec- ognized this reality first,but the Iranians were quick to pick up on it. 174

In the new Israel-centric order that would be created,Israel would lead while Tehran would be prevented from "playing a role equal to its capacity and power." 176

For the first time,Iran began to translate its anti-Israel rhetoric into opera- tional policy. Contrary to the dictum ofAyatollah Khomeini,Iran would now become a front-line state against Israel,because ifOslo failed,so would the efforts to create a new regional order on the back ofIran's isolation. 176
 
2012-08-18 11:17:57 PM

shotglasss: WizardofToast: What's in it for us, a country that has spent over a trillion to go to war for over a decade?

One nuke on Teheran wouldn't cost near that much and would instantly take all the fight out of Ahadinnahjacket.


I love it when people frame diplomacy in terms of the casual murder of millions of innocent people
 
2012-08-18 11:22:25 PM

Party Boy: AliceBToklasLives: Why does the United States send Israel so much foreign aid? Did we just pick a name out of a hat?

The reasons why we used to give money and the reasons why we give money now have changed.
This predates the shift of economic/military and now military aid and easily goes back to Truman. People will make the argument that from about 1967 to 1988-89 that your argument will hold up. Some will criticize it, but it has merit during these years. Though, the cold war justification fell apart after the cold war.

[etc. etc.]


In other words, the US sent foreign aid to Israel from 1967 to 1989 because they believed Israel supported their interests in the Middle East, and the US sent foreign aid to Israel from 1990 to present because they believed Israel supported their interests in the Middle East.
 
2012-08-18 11:22:48 PM
Though, not everyone agreed with this. Forrestal, the first US Secretary of Defense is famous (or infamous) in this regard. Heres a couple of excerpts from his diary.

2012-03-03 09:48:01 AM

From 14 July 1946
America has lost very greatly in prestige in the Arab world by our attitude on Palestine. The British say that they cannot do all they would like to for the Arabs because of the pressure that we were able to exert in connection with the British loan.

26 July 1946
After the Cabinet meeting today talked with Byrnes, Patterson and Snyder [now Secretary of the Treasury] about the Palestine-Arabian-Jewish question. Jews are injecting vigorous and active propaganda to force the president's hand with reference to the immediate immigration of Jews into Palestine. Two areas have been agreed upon-one for the Arabs and one for the Jews, with the Arabs getting the less desirable land. The problem is complicated by the fact that the President went out on the limb in endorsing the Barkley-Krumm [sic] report, saying that a hundred thousand Jews should be permitted entry into Palestine.

August 1947
[Marshall] read a monograph on Palestine in which the conclusion was drawn that the british are not keeping troops in Palestine on account of their oil interests in particular. Aside from the normal British doggedness in sticking out a difficult and unpleasant situation, he thought there was no particularly strong British desire to retain the mandate over Palestine.
4 Sept 1947
At the end of the lunch Hannegan [Postmaster General] brought up the question of the president's making a statement of policy on Palestine, particularly with reference to the entrance of a hundred and fifty thousand Jews into Palestine. he said he didn't want to press for a decision one way or the other but simply wanted to point out that such a statement would have a very great influence and great effect on the raising of funds for the Democratic National Committee. He said very large sums were obtained a year ago from jewish contributors and that they would be influenced in either giving or withholding by what the President did on Palestine. . . . I pointed out that the president's remarks on Palestine of a year ago did not have the expected efect in the New York election. [It was added] that the President was prompted to make the statement by Rabbi [Abba Hillel] Silver of Cincinnati [actually of Cleveland], who was neither a Democrat nor friendly to Truman, and said that the net effect of the President's observation was to make the British exceedingly angry, particularly when it was coupled with the rejection by the Grady committee Report. It amounted to a denunciation of the work of his own appointee. it also resulted in Secretary of State Byrnes washing his hands of the whole Palestine matter, which meant that it was allowed to drift without action and practically without and American policy.

1 Dec 1947
Lovett reported on the result of the United Nations action on Palestine over the week end. He said he had never in his life been subject to as much pressure as he had been in the three days beginning Thursday morning and ending Saturday night. [Herbert Bayard] Swope, Robert Nathan, were among those who had importuned him. . . . The Firesstone Tire and Rubber Company, which has a concession in Liberia, reported that it had been telephoned to and asked to transmit a message to their representative in Liberia directing him to bring pressure on the Liberian government to vote in favor of partition. The zeal and activity of the jews had almost resulted in defeating the objectives they were after.
I remarked that many thoughful people of the Jewish faith had deep misgivings about the wisdom of the Zionists' presssures for a Jewish state in Palestine, and I also remarked that the New York Times editorial of Sunday morning pointed up those misgivings when it said, "Many of us have long had doubts. . . . concerning the wisdom in erecting a political state on the basis of religious faith." I said I thought that the situation was fraught with great danger for the future security of this country.
The President referred to the limitations put under our participation in the implementation of the Palestine partition (that he had repeatedly made the statement that American armed forces could not be used toward this end): however, i fail to see how we can avoid meeting that issue if participation by our forces is asked by the United Nations; (in other words, if we are asked to contribute our prorated share of an international force to carry out the United Nations decision). . . .

3 December 1947
Lunch today with Jimmy Byrnes. We talked about Palestine. Byrnes recalled the fact that he had disassociated himself from his decision of a year ago to turn down the Grady report which recommended a federated state for palestine or a single Arabian state. he said the decision on the part of the President to reject this recommendation and to criticize the british for their conduct of Palestinian affairs had placed Bevin and Attlee in a most difficult position. He said that Niles [David K. Niles, administrative assistant to the President,] and Sam Rosenman were chiefly responsible for the presidents decision; that both had told the president that Dewey was about to come out with a statement favoring the Zionist position on Palestine, and that they had insisted that unless the president anticipated this movement New York State would be lost to the Democrats.
I asked Byrnes what he thought of the possibility of getting Republican leaders to agree with the Democrats to have the Palestine question placed on a nonpolitical basis. He wasn't particularly optimistic about the sucess of this effort because fo the fact that Rabbi Silver was one of Taft's close associates and because Taft followed Silver on the Palestine-Haifa question. I said I thought it was a most disastrous and regrettable fact that the foreign policy of this country was determined by the contributions of a particular bloc of special might make to the party funds. 
 
2012-08-18 11:23:47 PM

AliceBToklasLives: Party Boy: AliceBToklasLives: Sure - that's why U.S. aid to Israel has gone down dramatically since 1990. Why send massive amounts of aid - far, far more than anyone else -- to a country with which we are at odds?

You are not about to use foreign aid to Israel as a metric to defend your argument, are you? You might want to rethink this.

Why does the United States send Israel so much foreign aid? Did we just pick a name out of a hat?


Because Jesus.
 
2012-08-18 11:24:55 PM

sno man: jaylectricity: themindiswatching: Vote for a REAL man.

If only there was one running.

There is only one running.


Is it considered running when you are able to out strut your opponent to the finish line?
 
2012-08-18 11:26:38 PM

RoyBatty: nmemkha: How about Israel fighting its our own damn war for a change? Why don't you take all those high-tech weapons we have given you and $2 billion a year we've still give you and go knock yourselves out?

Um, I think that's the point of this article. You realize "Why don't you take all those high-tech weapons we have given you" that's exactly what Netanyahu wants to do.

Though farker Lionel Mandrake, naming himself after a character famous for trying to avoid a nuclear world war doesn't listen to me, simply sticking your fingers in your ears and saying la la la go do it yourself to Israel is precisely the action that many people think will bring the US to a nuclear world war.


Well then, we must clearly attack every nation that pursues nuclear research. This is the only plan that will keep us safe and prosperous and not result in a nuclear war. And it will always work forever.
 
2012-08-18 11:30:15 PM

AliceBToklasLives: Party Boy: AliceBToklasLives: In other words, the US sent foreign aid to Israel from 1967 to 1989 because they believed Israel supported their interests in the Middle East, and the US sent foreign aid to Israel from 1990 to present because they believed Israel supported their interests in the Middle East.


After the early aid to Israel becomes increasingly politicized and tied to domestic lobbying efforts. Bush 41 makes up a famous example.
2006-12-07 05:11:04 PM
keep on reading down to
2006-12-07 05:49:23 PM


Its also easy to demonstrate the change in strategic liability. The first point of reference is to weigh the liabilities to the zero (0) times Israel attacked anyone on our behalf.
 
2012-08-18 11:31:51 PM

Fuggin Bizzy: Because Jesus.


The religious right in this country are a suprisingly inept, diffuse, and splintered, group.
 
2012-08-18 11:32:19 PM

SN1987a goes boom: sno man: jaylectricity: themindiswatching: Vote for a REAL man.

If only there was one running.

There is only one running.

Is it considered running when you are able to out strut your opponent to the finish line?


The trick will be getting everyone out to vote... If it's a lock, many won't bother and all of a sudden, it's not a lock anymore...
 
2012-08-18 11:35:06 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Well then,


Lionel, the point is not that you and I disagree, the point is that you and Benjamin Netanyahu agree entirely and perhaps because you refuse to read the article or cannot understand it.

Lionel Mandrake: Iran is simply not afraid of the United States, says Israel's former military intelligence chief

I simply don't care. Fight your own wars.

 
2012-08-18 11:37:12 PM

shotglasss: WizardofToast: What's in it for us, a country that has spent over a trillion to go to war for over a decade?

One nuke on Teheran wouldn't cost near that much and would instantly take all the fight out of Ahadinnahjacket.


Yea a nuke.

Republicans always the intelligence long term thinkers.
 
2012-08-18 11:38:19 PM

RoyBatty: the point is that you and Benjamin Netanyahu agree entirely and perhaps because you refuse to read the article or cannot understand it.


Netanyahu isn't even mentioned in the article. What's your point, again?
 
2012-08-18 11:46:35 PM

Party Boy: AliceBToklasLives: Party Boy: AliceBToklasLives: In other words, the US sent foreign aid to Israel from 1967 to 1989 because they believed Israel supported their interests in the Middle East, and the US sent foreign aid to Israel from 1990 to present because they believed Israel supported their interests in the Middle East.

After the early aid to Israel becomes increasingly politicized and tied to domestic lobbying efforts. Bush 41 makes up a famous example.
2006-12-07 05:11:04 PM
keep on reading down to
2006-12-07 05:49:23 PM


Its also easy to demonstrate the change in strategic liability. The first point of reference is to weigh the liabilities to the zero (0) times Israel attacked anyone on our behalf.


So it's AIPAC? Certainly part of the reason, but strategic reasons are also given (by, among others, AIPAC).

/BTW - I agree Israel is a strategic liability - at least in the real world and not in policy-making circles
 
2012-08-18 11:46:40 PM

NateGrey: shotglasss: WizardofToast: What's in it for us, a country that has spent over a trillion to go to war for over a decade?

One nuke on Teheran wouldn't cost near that much and would instantly take all the fight out of Ahadinnahjacket.

Yea a nuke.

Republicans always the intelligence long term thinkers.


Al Franken once said that one thing Republicans hate is being told that their actions have long-term consequences.
 
2012-08-18 11:49:03 PM
This is a lot like the scheme we used to play in high school, where you'd casually mention to the huge, yet developmentally stunted jock, that someone across the cafeteria was talking shiat about him. I had a larger point to make here, but after writing that first sentence, yeah, America is a developmentally stunted jock, and we're going to pick a fight with some random dude because our short friend with glasses told us he was talking shiat...

/Politics: it's like your high school cafeteria, but with nuclear weapons
 
2012-08-18 11:50:30 PM

Lionel Mandrake: RoyBatty: the point is that you and Benjamin Netanyahu agree entirely and perhaps because you refuse to read the article or cannot understand it.

Netanyahu isn't even mentioned in the article. What's your point, again?


Sigh.

The article is about a guy that has been trying to avert the immediate Israeli strike that you and Netanyahu seem to favor.

You don't understand the article and so your response is:

"I simply don't care. Fight your own wars."

To which your pal Bibi, says, "Thank you Lionel Mandrake, we will."
 
2012-08-18 11:56:44 PM

shotglasss: WizardofToast: What's in it for us, a country that has spent over a trillion to go to war for over a decade?

One nuke on Teheran wouldn't cost near that much and would instantly take all the fight out of Ahadinnahjacket.


That would have an astronomical moral cost.

Murder is wrong.

I feel a little sick every time some group of people argues over whether or not mass murder is merely too expensive.
 
2012-08-18 11:57:35 PM

RoyBatty: Lionel Mandrake: RoyBatty: the point is that you and Benjamin Netanyahu agree entirely and perhaps because you refuse to read the article or cannot understand it.

Netanyahu isn't even mentioned in the article. What's your point, again?

Sigh.

The article is about a guy that has been trying to avert the immediate Israeli strike that you and Netanyahu seem to favor.

You don't understand the article and so your response is:

"I simply don't care. Fight your own wars."

To which your pal Bibi, says, "Thank you Lionel Mandrake, we will."


You clearly know what I believe better than I do.

Thank you for explaining it to me.
 
2012-08-18 11:58:55 PM

AliceBToklasLives: So it's AIPAC?


AIPAC is just one organization. Theres others.

AliceBToklasLives: /BTW - I agree Israel is a strategic liability - at least in the real world and not in policy-making circles


AAhhhhhhhhhhhh. Ok. Thanks for the clarification.

Let me add then.

Recall, then the famous fight between Powell/State and the neocons that those policy making circles were having this discussion. Sometimes it wasnt just the neocons.

Recall the neocons were lobbying for Clinton to push the ILA (Iraq Liberation Act) during the blowjob trial. It was a political loser for him to veto this congressional act. In October 1998, under intense lobbying pressure from the neocons, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the "Iraqi Liberation Act." Brownback summed up Clintons actions on it: "I cannot understand why President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act when he had absolutely no intention of implementing the provisions of that law.....and yet not one official of this Administration has been willing to take even the most minimal step toward that end....nothing - NOTHING - has been spent.

Also recall "when Israel formally requested the loan guarantee last September, Israeli officials attempted to go over President [Bush]'s head to win passage in Congress. Mr. Bush responded by calling himself "one lonely little guy" standing up to "a thousand lobbyists working the other side of the question. [1]"
 
2012-08-19 12:04:32 AM
Fark you, Israel. Take care of your own problems.
 
2012-08-19 12:06:35 AM

Zeno-25: Fark you, Israel Middle East. Take care of your own problems.


FTFM.
 
2012-08-19 12:06:38 AM

Zeno-25: Fark you, Israel. Take care of your own problems.


In case nobody heard that:

Fark you, Israel. Take care of your own problems.

Seriously: fark you.
 
2012-08-19 12:06:59 AM

Zeno-25: Fark you, Israel. Take care of your own problems.


Watch it. Party Boy is going to come in and lecture you
 
2012-08-19 12:07:52 AM

Lionel Mandrake: Watch it. Party Boy is going to come in and lecture you


great. now i feel like a school marm.

Ill take a fark break.
 
2012-08-19 12:09:29 AM
FTA:

There is no American president who wants the NPT [the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] to collapse on his watch and for Iran to be the Middle East hegemon because it is nuclear...

Over launching another preemptive war in the Middle East? Yeah, good luck with that. Fool me once...
 
2012-08-19 12:12:45 AM

sno man: The trick will be getting everyone out to vote... If it's a lock, many won't bother and all of a sudden, it's not a lock anymore...


Bingo. It's kind of crazy how we give so much power to the people willing to go out and vote. But then again, it almost doesn't even matter because most of your life is determined by the people you deal with every day.
 
2012-08-19 12:21:26 AM
Iran is simply not afraid of the United States, says Israel's former military intelligence chief

What childlike manipulative bullshiat.
 
2012-08-19 12:23:29 AM

Rich Cream: Iran is simply not afraid of the United States, says Israel's former military intelligence chief

What childlike manipulative bullshiat.



I heard they said your mom sucks dick in the alley.
 
2012-08-19 12:25:51 AM

ArcadianRefugee: Zeno-25: Fark you, Israel. Take care of your own problems.

In case nobody heard that:

Fark you, Israel. Take care of your own problems.

Seriously: fark you.


Sigh, just stop not contributing to this discussion.
 
2012-08-19 12:28:35 AM
Why the fark should anybody care? Israel doesn't want to get along with its neighbors, it never has. Hell, back before there was an Israel, there were Zionists in Palestine committing terrorist acts on the Palestinian people, no matter if those Palestinians were Muslim, Christian or Jew. Know how Israel remembers them? With a farking medal. fark Lehi, its Likkud descendants, and every American who backs them.
 
2012-08-19 12:28:46 AM
It's odd because I keep hearing from the Zionists that Iran is a threat but I only ever read about Israels promise to attack Iran......
 
2012-08-19 12:28:53 AM

consider this: Obviously you don't understand the meaning of the word "pals".


I'm not your pals, buddies.
 
2012-08-19 12:30:01 AM

RoyBatty: 2wolves: RoyBatty: And don't be afraid to ask questions.

How long would Israel exist without U.S. foreign aid?

Beats me. Their GDP is $242.93 B, I believe our aid to them is $3B so presumably forever (??), but I am not sure of your point or its relevance to this article....


You said to not be afraid to ask questions.
 
2012-08-19 12:31:54 AM

LectertheChef: Why the fark should anybody care? Israel doesn't want to get along with its neighbors, it never has. Hell, back before there was an Israel, there were Zionists in Palestine committing terrorist acts on the Palestinian people


And look at how much has changed today
 
2012-08-19 12:36:41 AM

shotglasss: WizardofToast: What's in it for us, a country that has spent over a trillion to go to war for over a decade?

One nuke on Teheran wouldn't cost near that much and would instantly take all the fight out of Ahadinnahjacket.


Imagine all Persian people live up to the negative stereotypes. The men are all douchebags, and the women are all snobby materialists who are easily impressed by overly done hair and gaudy amounts of gold (and by douchebags.) Imagine that. And imagine that all the Iranians who are not douchey are religious fundamentalists. Do they deserve to have their cities bombed, even with conventional weapons? Do you like thinking about all those unpleasant people standing in the streets crying outside the remains of their houses while body parts of their douchey neighbors lie nearby? And if that sounds good to you, why don't we start in New Jersey? Or Dallas (see my username)?

Okay, now imagine that many Iranians are okay people, nice people. Don't you think we should tell Israel to cool their heels and not be the ones to ignite a war? There's plenty for them to do in the unconventional war, assassinating scientists while the Iranian government supports Hamas and tries to pretend it works for them. Let the nasties fight the nasties. Just three years ago we were cheering on the Green Revolution; now do we want to bomb those same people? Of course not. Leave the people of Tehran and Isfahan in peace while their governments settle their differences some other way.
 
2012-08-19 12:42:30 AM
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-08-19 12:42:55 AM

2wolves: You said to not be afraid to ask questions.


Well that was for GAT_00 and Lionel_Mandrake.

But you, no, be afraid, be very afraid.
 
Displayed 50 of 186 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report