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.

(Reuters)   '20 reasons not to attack Iran.' Strangely, 'Not our problem' absent from list   (reuters.com) divider line 157
    More: Obvious, Iran, NPT, states with nuclear weapons, Iranian nuclear, Cairo speech, own resources, fatwas, National Intelligence Estimate  
•       •       •

7784 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Aug 2012 at 8:48 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-08-23 08:12:06 PM
By Hossein Mousavian. Hmm. Hmm. Do I have a point? Hmm.
 
2012-08-23 08:39:17 PM
Technically, it is a problem we caused.
 
2012-08-23 08:54:23 PM
If we were to declare war on Iran, it would make the Saudis happy. Therefore, I'm against it.
 
2012-08-23 08:55:32 PM
If you're going to attack Iran, you have to destroy the source:


i74.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-23 08:55:52 PM
Israel will fight to the last dead American?
 
2012-08-23 08:56:03 PM
Is "ground wars in Asia seldom end well for the invaders" on the list?

How about "it would start World War 3?"
 
2012-08-23 08:56:17 PM
Look, subby, you should know by now it is ALWAYS America's problem! All those poor people laboring under their brutal theocracy with no way to stand up for themselves and experience the wonders of US Democracy (tm) and Starbucks and Home Depot...why, it's a wonder we're not over there already!
 
2012-08-23 08:57:26 PM

King Something: Is "ground wars in Asia seldom end well for the invaders" on the list?

How about "it would start World War 3?"


I think we can make a deal with Russia, and China won't go to war over this.
 
2012-08-23 09:03:16 PM
Got as far as reason number one:

"First, Iran has become the leading country in the Muslim world advocating for an end to nuclear weapons by religiously committing itself against weapons of mass destruction (WMD)"

And realized the author of this article is out of his mind.
 
2012-08-23 09:04:38 PM
Read TFA. Sounds like they had one good reason and then copied it in Photoshop 19 times.
 
2012-08-23 09:06:09 PM
Is "because it's completely unnecessary" on the list?

/in before derp Amhdinnerjacket wipe izreal offder mapz
 
2012-08-23 09:07:57 PM
Eighth, an Israeli or U.S. strike on Iran would kill the hopes for rapprochement between Tehran and Washington for decades to come.

A new boogie man for the PNAC or whatever they call themselves these days. With all the billion dollars missiles and other weapons systems they can dream up. With no oversights because that would be unpatriotic. To help our "ally" Israel, of course.
 
2012-08-23 09:08:16 PM
Do we really have the $$$ for another war? I think not..couldn't we accomplish the same basic objectives covertly or with cyber attacks? Maybe I've been reading too many action novels..wishful thinking is wishful
 
2012-08-23 09:08:21 PM
As for the author of this [bullshiat] article--if you'll take the time to read the notation at the bottom, you'll notice:

from 2003 to 2005, he served as spokesman for Iran in its nuclear negotiations with the European Union

//garbage
 
2012-08-23 09:09:27 PM
Number 1 reason:

tundratabloids.com
 
2012-08-23 09:09:56 PM
Because we're not batshiat insane?
 
2012-08-23 09:10:26 PM
Whoa, no relation.
 
2012-08-23 09:10:40 PM

Mantour: Number 1 reason:


Gotta go with this one.
 
2012-08-23 09:11:05 PM

flucto: By Hossein Mousavian. Hmm. Hmm. Do I have a point? Hmm.


Indeed you do.
 
2012-08-23 09:11:27 PM
The views expressed are the author's own and not those of Reuters.



Reuters wants to attack Iran!!



(probably not far from the truth)
 
2012-08-23 09:12:58 PM

Gyrfalcon: Look, subby, you should know by now it is ALWAYS America's problem! All those poor people laboring under their brutal theocracy with no way to stand up for themselves and experience the wonders of US Democracy (tm) and Starbucks and Home Depot...why, it's a wonder we're not over there already!


You joke, but that's about the only good reason to do it. That and it's part of a treaty obligation with one of our allies.

But there are a lot more reasons not to.
 
2012-08-23 09:13:22 PM
Well if Romney wins then the whole issue will be moot, because we'll be balls deep in Iran. Probably Syria too. Whatever Israel tells us.
 
2012-08-23 09:13:42 PM
Second, the IAEA in the past decade, following more than 4,000 inspection hours, frequently and constantly has declared that there is no evidence of diversion in Iranian nuclear activity toward building a weapon.

Third, the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) has maintained that Iran does not have nuclear weapons, has not made the decision to build them and is not on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. The international community also accepts this conclusion.


It amazes my how little attention these two points get in the media. Though after the circus that was the leadup to the Iraq war I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Why question the casus belli when you can just stomp your feet and salute the flag?
 
2012-08-23 09:13:43 PM
(Hossein Mousavian is a research scholar at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. From 1997 to 2005, he was the head of the Foreign Relations Committee of Iran's National Security Council; from 2003 to 2005, he served as spokesman for Iran in its nuclear negotiations with the European Union.)

So in other words, he's similar to the Iranian equivalent of Colin Powell. And we all know that the Bush administration told Powell the truth right from the get go.
 
2012-08-23 09:14:30 PM
21. Because we ain't no biatch to the j00's!

/not likely
 
2012-08-23 09:14:44 PM
While those are very compelling reasons, I counter with; Iran has oil. Lots of it.
 
2012-08-23 09:16:03 PM
That's right. Not America's problem.


img5.bdbphotos.com
 
2012-08-23 09:16:31 PM

Makh: While those are very compelling reasons, I counter with; Iran has oil. Lots of it.


Right, because invading oil rich countries has made gas prices plummet for us so far.
 
2012-08-23 09:19:42 PM

Quasar: Technically, it is a problem we caused.


wait, what is the problem?
 
2012-08-23 09:20:34 PM

Mugato: Makh: While those are very compelling reasons, I counter with; Iran has oil. Lots of it.

Right, because invading oil rich countries has made gas prices plummet for us so far.


No, but I'm sure it's made some oil company executives very, very happy.
 
2012-08-23 09:20:37 PM

Mugato: Makh: While those are very compelling reasons, I counter with; Iran has oil. Lots of it.

Right, because invading oil rich countries has made gas prices plummet for us so far.


Newt already said the war would pay for itself and would take a year, tops.
 
2012-08-23 09:22:28 PM
sorry....the numbskull that wrote this piece of garbage, lost me after point one.
 
2012-08-23 09:24:25 PM
Because their arrows will blot out the sun?
 
2012-08-23 09:25:39 PM

Gyrfalcon: Newt already said the war would pay for itself and would take a year, tops.


See? And that's a man who knows fiscal responsibility.
 
2012-08-23 09:28:07 PM

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: Because their arrows will blot out the sun?


Then we shall have cocktails in the shade.
 
2012-08-23 09:28:45 PM

Quasar: Technically, it is a problem we caused.


You Brits and your cute little imperial holdings!
 
2012-08-23 09:30:16 PM
In this case, even though we're still the world's ranking superpower, it just doesn't matter.

Let me channel T.S. Eliot:

Israel's gonna do it. Israel's gonna do it. Israel's gonna do it.

Not with a whimper.....
 
2012-08-23 09:30:32 PM
Is it sad that we have to have an excuse NOT to attack someone?
 
2012-08-23 09:32:14 PM

King Something: Is "ground wars in Asia seldom end well for the invaders" on the list?

How about "it would start World War 3?"


Alexander didn't have a problem conquering the area.

Wine and hoes did him in.
 
2012-08-23 09:33:57 PM
if we attack another country we need to raise the age to be in the military to 75 and start drafting ppl who are 45 and older who have voted straight republican for the past 12 years.
 
2012-08-23 09:35:17 PM
Whoever wants to attack Iran, get your sorry chicken hawk neocon ass in a uniform and enlist.
 
2012-08-23 09:35:52 PM

Mugato: Makh: While those are very compelling reasons, I counter with; Iran has oil. Lots of it.

Right, because invading oil rich countries has made gas prices plummet for us so far.


Wait a sec. You don't actually believe that our various Adventures are designed to make life better for you, do you? Oil company profits are doing very well, thank you very much.
 
2012-08-23 09:39:02 PM
"Eighth, an Israeli or U.S. strike on Iran would kill the hopes for rapprochement between Tehran and Washington for decades to come."

Yeah, because we've gotten along so well over the last few decades.

"First, Iran has become the leading country in the Muslim world advocating for an end to nuclear weapons by religiously committing itself against weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The Iranian Supreme Leader issued a Religious Decree, or Fatwa, that forbids the production, stockpiling and use of all WMDs."

Anybody who believes that these guys are adhering to that are naive.

Akmafukinslob has already said he wanted to wipe Isreal off the face of the earth. If you think he isn't trying to develope a nuke to do just that, you're an idiot. He would go down in history as the most holy muslin since Mohammed. Trust me. His pathologically narcissistic ass WANTS that.

Today it's a nuke that they can lob into Isreal. Tommorow it's an ICBM.

These people HATE us, folks. They've hated us for decades. It's in their freakin religion to hate us. They count on the fact that can pursuade us into thinking that they're not up to no good. And when they've lulled the majority of us to sleep, they'll laugh in our faces for being so "naive" as they kill thousands.
 
2012-08-23 09:41:49 PM
We shouldn't do it, but if we decide to attack, I hope we at least get some good recipes from the invasion.
 
2012-08-23 09:44:10 PM

consider this: Well except that it is our problem since they're threatening one of our closest allies.


The story of everything we've done in the Mideast for the last 60 years.
 
2012-08-23 09:49:45 PM

Mugato: consider this: Well except that it is our problem since they're threatening one of our closest allies.

The story of everything we've done in the Mideast for the last 60 years.


No, this is the story of everything we've done in the Mideast for the last 60 years:


www.oil-price.net 

Until this map substantially changes, Iran will be our problem
 
2012-08-23 09:50:00 PM
First the writer of this article notes the presence of an Iranian Fatwa against all WMDs, then he says:

"Sixth, a strike would likely neither completely destroy the Iranian nuclear program, nor cause a major delay to the program."

Anyone else find this logic a bit strange?
 
2012-08-23 09:51:12 PM

consider this: Well except that it is our problem since they're threatening one of our closest allies.


Remind me what WE get from that alliance again?

Aside from having our tech sold to China, I mean...
 
2012-08-23 09:53:45 PM
Unfortunatly, it is our problem. When we vote in representatives, the most inpressionable and influential people our reps encounter are jews. More specifically, AIPAC and they are the second largest lobbyist behind AARP (at least it was eight years ago, last time I checked). Keep in mind that lobbyist groups in the US range in upwards of ten of thousands. Also keep in mind that what AIPAC lobbys for is the betterment of Israel, a foreign country, not the US and the very reason why our country now have disgruntled vets hopping around without appendages with PTSD and the like.
 
2012-08-23 10:01:09 PM

Generation_D: Whoever wants to attack Iran, get your sorry chicken hawk neocon ass in a uniform and enlist.


BroncoFan_17: "Eighth, an Israeli or U.S. strike on Iran would kill the hopes for rapprochement between Tehran and Washington for decades to come."

Yeah, because we've gotten along so well over the last few decades.

"First, Iran has become the leading country in the Muslim world advocating for an end to nuclear weapons by religiously committing itself against weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The Iranian Supreme Leader issued a Religious Decree, or Fatwa, that forbids the production, stockpiling and use of all WMDs."

Anybody who believes that these guys are adhering to that are naive.

Akmafukinslob has already said he wanted to wipe Isreal off the face of the earth. If you think he isn't trying to develope a nuke to do just that, you're an idiot. He would go down in history as the most holy muslin since Mohammed. Trust me. His pathologically narcissistic ass WANTS that.

Today it's a nuke that they can lob into Isreal. Tommorow it's an ICBM.

These people HATE us, folks. They've hated us for decades. It's in their freakin religion to hate us. They count on the fact that can pursuade us into thinking that they're not up to no good. And when they've lulled the majority of us to sleep, they'll laugh in our faces for being so "naive" as they kill thousands.


You're so out to lunch it is deadly. Iranians do not hate the United States. Their a bit bitter about the restoration of the monarchy, but that's because they had a stable democracy before.

Iran does not want to build nuclear weapons. To think so is to jump into this ongoing narrative that is so tired.

Remeber. Iranians hate their government. They don't hate Israel. Don't confuse the two. The Iranian government is horrible. The average Iranian is not.

You're post is dangerous lunacy.
 
2012-08-23 10:01:28 PM

00batou: First the writer of this article notes the presence of an Iranian Fatwa against all WMDs, then he says:

"Sixth, a strike would likely neither completely destroy the Iranian nuclear program, nor cause a major delay to the program."

Anyone else find this logic a bit strange?


No. A nuclear program to create electricity is not the same thing as building nuclear weapons.
 
2012-08-23 10:01:36 PM

consider this: Well except that it is our problem since they're threatening one of our closest allies.


Oh, okay. Let's just invade every country that threatens our allies. In alphabetical order. We should be done by 2200 A.D. at the earliest.
 
2012-08-23 10:01:40 PM

00batou: First the writer of this article notes the presence of an Iranian Fatwa against all WMDs, then he says:

"Sixth, a strike would likely neither completely destroy the Iranian nuclear program, nor cause a major delay to the program."

Anyone else find this logic a bit strange?


Ya, fairly useless article.

STILL doesn't mean another war is a good idea...
 
2012-08-23 10:01:51 PM

PunGent: consider this: Well except that it is our problem since they're threatening one of our closest allies.
Remind me what WE get from that alliance again?



Why, we get Israel's problems, of course. Not to mention all the good will the alliance generates around the Middle East.

We actually get quite a lot from that alliance.

/though, I'd rather not get those things
 
2012-08-23 10:02:11 PM

00batou: First the writer of this article notes the presence of an Iranian Fatwa against all WMDs, then he says:

"Sixth, a strike would likely neither completely destroy the Iranian nuclear program, nor cause a major delay to the program."

Anyone else find this logic a bit strange?


Proof positive that the Iranian government can't even fool fools.
 
2012-08-23 10:03:19 PM
Sorry Generation D, I was going to "This' your comment and then got distracted by BroncoFan_17 frothing, I didn't mean to include you in that post.

So:

Generation_D: Whoever wants to attack Iran, get your sorry chicken hawk neocon ass in a uniform and enlist.


Big old THIS.
 
2012-08-23 10:03:27 PM

Wittenberg Dropout: 21. Because we ain't no biatch to the j00's!

/not likely


The joo's what?

/you're an anti-semite and suck at punctuation
 
2012-08-23 10:03:43 PM
Number one reason we will attack iran....Israel, who appear to direct the movements of the US in much the same way the male in a porn movie directs the woman's head, wants us to

So which candidate can i vote for that will tell israel to solve their own damn problems, and has a greater than 0% chance of winning a national office?
 
2012-08-23 10:06:18 PM

BroncoFan_17:
"First, Iran has become the leading country in the Muslim world advocating for an end to nuclear weapons by religiously committing itself against weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The Iranian Supreme Leader issued a Religious Decree, or Fatwa, that forbids the production, stockpiling and use of all WMDs."

Anybody who believes that these guys are adhering to that are naive.


Ali Bey's attempt to overthrow the Ottoman sultan collapsed when his general Isma'il had an attack of piety at Damascus and turned the army right back around. Apparently, it occurred to him that attacking the caliph wasn't very Islamic. But if you read a story where the usurper general halts his rampage midcourse because he suddenly remembered it was a big Jesusy nono, you'd spit your drink all over your face. Yet it happened in real life.

Though religion has its downsides, it is excellent at keeping a rigidly hierarchical society in line.

They have taken the First Strike off their side of the table. They're like bearded, sandy Chiss.
 
2012-08-23 10:06:56 PM
Congratulations Assholes. You've got people talking about Iran again. You planted the bug, and now you just have to hope crazy takes over and kill hundreds of thousands or millions of innocent people get killed.

And then you get some power or something. I'm not really sure why you're so interested in starting WW III.
 
2012-08-23 10:09:27 PM

BroncoFan_17: Today it's a nuke that they can lob into Isreal. Tommorow it's an ICBM.


If they nuke Israel, I'm sure Israel will mount an in-kind response. Granted it'll be completely pointless since one or two nukes would probably destroy much of the nation of Israel in one blow, so there would be nothing left to defend. ...but vengeance is rarely rational.

If Iran does try to threaten the US directly, they would not be the first. Remember these guys:

www.armyrecognition.com

...yet, somehow we survived an enemy with (thousands of) ICBMs.
 
2012-08-23 10:11:34 PM

00batou: First the writer of this article notes the presence of an Iranian Fatwa against all WMDs, then he says:

"Sixth, a strike would likely neither completely destroy the Iranian nuclear program, nor cause a major delay to the program."

Anyone else find this logic a bit strange?


Nuclear programs aren't ALL weapons programs. Some have dual-use, others don't. If we bomb their reactors, they WILL restart the program and will have all the reason in the world to hit 5%, then keep going all the way to +90%.

Explosions in occupied buildings have, historically, solved problems how many times, exactly?
 
2012-08-23 10:14:46 PM

omnibus_necanda_sunt: Explosions in occupied buildings have, historically, solved problems how many times, exactly?


Explosions -- much like alcohol -- can be the cause of and solution to many of life's problems. 

/I keed
 
2012-08-23 10:19:10 PM

jshine: BroncoFan_17: Today it's a nuke that they can lob into Isreal. Tommorow it's an ICBM.

If they nuke Israel, I'm sure Israel will mount an in-kind response. Granted it'll be completely pointless since one or two nukes would probably destroy much of the nation of Israel in one blow, so there would be nothing left to defend. ...but vengeance is rarely rational.

If Iran does try to threaten the US directly, they would not be the first. Remember these guys:



...yet, somehow we survived an enemy with (thousands of) ICBMs.


There are more jews in America than Israel. If Iran nuked Israel, we would strike back, unfortunatly.
 
2012-08-23 10:19:12 PM

jshine: BroncoFan_17: Today it's a nuke that they can lob into Isreal. Tommorow it's an ICBM.

If they nuke Israel, I'm sure Israel will mount an in-kind response. Granted it'll be completely pointless since one or two nukes would probably destroy much of the nation of Israel in one blow, so there would be nothing left to defend. ...but vengeance is rarely rational.

If Iran does try to threaten the US directly, they would not be the first. Remember these guys:

[www.armyrecognition.com image 640x480]

...yet, somehow we survived an enemy with (thousands of) ICBMs.


Yes. Been there. Done that.

Growing up next to ground zero for their first strike isn't something I would want future generations to have to deal with.
 
2012-08-23 10:23:07 PM
President Obama has done everything possible to prevent the Iranians from having the ability to produce a nuclear weapon at will.


ROTFLMAO

Bowing o terrorists != "doing everything possible"
 
2012-08-23 10:23:57 PM
"Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran!"

"Taxed enough already!"
 
2012-08-23 10:24:51 PM
King Something Smartest Funniest
2012-08-23 08:56:03 PM

Is "ground wars in Asia seldom end well for the invaders" on the list?

How about "it would start World War 3?"

You moon-bats said the same thing before gulf war I.

/// the current US military action in that region is "nation building" bullshiat so don't even pretend it's applicable.
 
2012-08-23 10:25:49 PM
Ahmadinejad's term ends in June next year and his successor will naturally be a less polarising figure - he won't have the baggage of the current president's statements. Israel is pushing for an attack before Ahmadinejad leaves office because they know it will be much more difficult to garner support after he goes.
 
2012-08-23 10:33:10 PM

thisispete: Ahmadinejad's term ends in June next year and his successor will naturally be a less polarising figure...


I'm not up on the line of succession in Iran but why is that a "naturally"?
 
2012-08-23 10:40:02 PM
Look at a map. Realize who we're allies with, and the War on Terror looks like a "let's surround Iran!" party.
 
2012-08-23 10:40:15 PM

fusillade762: Second, the IAEA in the past decade, following more than 4,000 inspection hours, frequently and constantly has declared that there is no evidence of diversion in Iranian nuclear activity toward building a weapon.

Third, the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) has maintained that Iran does not have nuclear weapons, has not made the decision to build them and is not on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. The international community also accepts this conclusion.

It amazes my how little attention these two points get in the media. Though after the circus that was the leadup to the Iraq war I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Why question the casus belli when you can just stomp your feet and salute the flag?


Well not exactly. It's more of the fact they don't know either way.

"Contrary to the relevant resolutions of the Board of Governors and the Security Council, Iran is not
implementing its Additional Protocol. The Agency will not be in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran unless and until Iran provides the necessary cooperation with the Agency, including by implementing its Additional Protocol."

"While the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear
facilities and LOFs declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement, as Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation, including by not implementing its Additional Protocol, the Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities."

Link
 
2012-08-23 10:40:24 PM

Mambo Bananapatch: thisispete: Ahmadinejad's term ends in June next year and his successor will naturally be a less polarising figure...

I'm not up on the line of succession in Iran but why is that a "naturally"?


Because whoever his successor is wouldn't have issued the batshiat crazy statements that he has. Now I do understand that foreign policy and the military is in the hands of the clerics, but it's Ahmadinejad who has earned the ire of the western world (e.g. his speeches prompting walkouts at the UN). He's the person who the media focuses on. The Iranian parliament is tired of his bullshiat too In terms of succession, the presidency is a directly elected position by the Iranian people. The clerics have supreme authority, though.
 
2012-08-23 10:44:19 PM
Ron Paul, are you writing under a nom de plume?
 
2012-08-23 10:45:40 PM

PunGent: consider this: Well except that it is our problem since they're threatening one of our closest allies.

Remind me what WE get from that alliance again?

Aside from having our tech sold to China, I mean...


Well, we got a few planes run into a few buildings because of it.
 
2012-08-23 10:46:30 PM

BroncoFan_17: Akmafukinslob has already said he wanted to wipe Isreal off the face of the earth. If you think he isn't trying to develope a nuke to do just that, you're an idiot. He would go down in history as the most holy muslin since Mohammed. Trust me. His pathologically narcissistic ass WANTS that.


If you were half as smart as you think you are (and therefore twice as smart as you actually are), you would know that Ahmadinejad is not the top guy in Iran. That honor goes to one Ali Khamenei. Nice try, buddy. You would also have the faculty to find out how to spell Ahmadinejad. You would also know how to spell Israel.

Need I continue?
 
2012-08-23 10:49:12 PM
publikenemy: Do we really have the $$$ for another war?

What trivial issues. Former VP Dick Cheney says that an invasion of Iran "would pay for itself". And it had better do that because his company, Halliburton, moved off to the UAE and they aren't helping to pay for it.
 
2012-08-23 10:50:01 PM

consider this: cameroncrazy1984: Oh, okay. Let's just invade every country that threatens our allies.

Who the hell said we're going to attack Iran? Where the hell are you anti-Semites getting your talking points?


You don't pay attention much, huh?
 
2012-08-23 10:51:32 PM
Iran is full of young, hip cool people.

I would rather not kill them.

/ahmadinnerjacket won't last forever.
 
2012-08-23 10:53:36 PM
Reason #21

/made similar pun yesterday
 
2012-08-23 11:00:13 PM
First, Iran has become the leading country in the Muslim world advocating for an end to nuclear weapons by religiously committing itself against weapons of mass destruction

Doooon't yoooou belieeeeeve iiiiiit!

/I doubt there will be a war with Iran, even with Obama in the White house.
/Israel will rough them up a bit, everyone will change their shorts, and its back to business as usual by monday morning.
 
2012-08-23 11:03:46 PM

danielscissorhands: Reason #21

/made similar pun yesterday


Ok, I finally got that joke. 

www.danwade.com
 
2012-08-23 11:08:33 PM
Is there something on the list about hot Persians?

//dnrtfaott
 
2012-08-23 11:09:08 PM

SandMann: Mugato: consider this: Well except that it is our problem since they're threatening one of our closest allies.

The story of everything we've done in the Mideast for the last 60 years.

No, this is the story of everything we've done in the Mideast for the last 60 years:


[www.oil-price.net image 819x419] 

Until this map substantially changes, Iran will be our problem


Try 100. Since Churchill carved up the Middle East and the world sat around and let him do it.
 
2012-08-23 11:35:39 PM

Gyrfalcon: SandMann: Mugato: consider this: Well except that it is our problem since they're threatening one of our closest allies.

The story of everything we've done in the Mideast for the last 60 years.

No, this is the story of everything we've done in the Mideast for the last 60 years:


[www.oil-price.net image 819x419] 

Until this map substantially changes, Iran will be our problem

Try 100. Since Churchill carved up the Middle East and the world sat around and let him do it.


Let's not forget, that Iran HAD one of the most progressive democracies in the Middle East, and we helped the Brits oust Mohammad Mosaddegh, and set the tone for the Islamic Revolution, and the rise of the theocracy therein. Mossaddegh's crime? He nationalized their oil fields, and the Brits and the US overthrew a civilian government.

Kohmeini and the rest? That is blowback from ousting the most democratic government in the Middle East when it dared to set its own national interest over our own. There is a reason that folks in the region are not fond of us, or the Israelis for that matter, and maybe, just maybe, we should let them sort out their issues on their own, and wait for them to ask us for help, because they've had our "help" before, and what bothers a lot of folks in the West, is that these folks remember all too well how that turned out...
 
2012-08-23 11:53:34 PM

Quasar: Technically, it is a problem we caused.


Killing Iran's # 1 enemy... Saddam Hussein, which allowed hundreds of suicide groups sympathetic to Iran
to take hold of the region... yeah, you're damn right it's the United States fault. Way to go champ.
 
2012-08-23 11:56:47 PM

EmmaLou: if we attack another country we need to raise the age to be in the military to 75 and start drafting ppl who are 45 and older who have voted straight republican for the past 12 years.


Go ahead... we got nukes ! And a motto of "make my day".. we look ahead, not at the little screen..
 
2012-08-24 12:02:38 AM

ontariolightning: Quasar: Technically, it is a problem we caused.

Killing Iran's # 1 enemy... Saddam Hussein, which allowed hundreds of suicide groups sympathetic to Iran
to take hold of the region... yeah, you're damn right it's the United States fault. Way to go champ.


Sorry Kiddo, grown ups are talking. When your country actually matters sometimes things aren't so simple, I wouldn't expect you to understand.

Anyways, of course going to war with Iran would be idiotic (especially now) but that article was a godamned joke. We're not going to war with Iran though, not a chance. Obama doesn't have the political capital to pull something like that off and we just can't afford it right now.
 
2012-08-24 12:05:24 AM

ComicBookGuy: Israel will fight to the last dead American?


If necessary, yes.
 
2012-08-24 12:07:33 AM
Things are looking up for the Keystone Pipeline, so suck it, Nebraska.
 
2012-08-24 12:07:40 AM

I had Snu Snu: ontariolightning: Quasar: Technically, it is a problem we caused.

Killing Iran's # 1 enemy... Saddam Hussein, which allowed hundreds of suicide groups sympathetic to Iran
to take hold of the region... yeah, you're damn right it's the United States fault. Way to go champ.

Sorry Kiddo, grown ups are talking. When your country actually matters sometimes things aren't so simple, I wouldn't expect you to understand.

Anyways, of course going to war with Iran would be idiotic (especially now) but that article was a godamned joke. We're not going to war with Iran though, not a chance. Obama doesn't have the political capital to pull something like that off and we just can't afford it right now.


are you being smart assed with me because you disagree? because it's well known fact that what I said is all right, all of it
 
2012-08-24 12:07:51 AM

jshine: BroncoFan_17: Today it's a nuke that they can lob into Isreal. Tommorow it's an ICBM.

If they nuke Israel, I'm sure Israel will mount an in-kind response. Granted it'll be completely pointless since one or two nukes would probably destroy much of the nation of Israel in one blow, so there would be nothing left to defend. ...but vengeance is rarely rational.

If Iran does try to threaten the US directly, they would not be the first. Remember these guys:

[www.armyrecognition.com image 640x480]

...yet, somehow we survived an enemy with (thousands of) ICBMs.


The Russians were not lead by a theocracy that teaches it must kill or convert. They believed that they could kill,or wait it out. With the West slowly turning socialist they were right with the wait it out and Putin is the guy. With the god nuts they will kill each other over who's prophet was taller or had a longer beard, so they will not win by attrition.They will kill and kill again.
 
2012-08-24 12:12:49 AM

swangoatman:

The Russians were not lead by a theocracy that teaches it must kill or convert. They believed that they could kill,or wait it out. With the West slowly turning socialist they were right with the wait it out and Putin is the guy.


Eh, the west is turning socialist? Do you even know how dumb that sounds? Do you even know what real socialist countries look like? probably not
 
2012-08-24 12:16:08 AM
If we do, the Muslim world will hate us. Therefore, we have to, or the Muslim world will hate us
 
2012-08-24 12:16:18 AM

hubiestubert: He nationalized their oil fields, and the Brits and the US overthrew a civilian government.


You mean he STOLE our money and infrastructure like a common thief.It's the same thing all DICTATORS do.
 
2012-08-24 12:17:37 AM

ontariolightning: swangoatman:

The Russians were not lead by a theocracy that teaches it must kill or convert. They believed that they could kill,or wait it out. With the West slowly turning socialist they were right with the wait it out and Putin is the guy.

Eh, the west is turning socialist? Do you even know how dumb that sounds? Do you even know what real socialist countries look like? probably not


Looks like South America.
 
2012-08-24 12:18:46 AM

swangoatman: ontariolightning: swangoatman:

The Russians were not lead by a theocracy that teaches it must kill or convert. They believed that they could kill,or wait it out. With the West slowly turning socialist they were right with the wait it out and Putin is the guy.

Eh, the west is turning socialist? Do you even know how dumb that sounds? Do you even know what real socialist countries look like? probably not

Looks like South America.


I've confirmed you're a foxnews junkie. We have nothing else to say to each other. Enjoy watching faux news
 
2012-08-24 12:19:08 AM

ontariolightning: Eh, the west is turning socialist? Do you even know how dumb that sounds? Do you even know what real socialist countries look like? probably not


Yes, they look like Norway, Finland, Sweden, and to a lesser extent France and the UK.
 
2012-08-24 12:20:01 AM

cameroncrazy1984: ontariolightning: Eh, the west is turning socialist? Do you even know how dumb that sounds? Do you even know what real socialist countries look like? probably not

Yes, they look like Norway, Finland, Sweden, and to a lesser extent France and the UK.


Those are Social Democracies. Learn the difference between socialist countries and socialist democracies, then get back to me aight?
 
2012-08-24 12:23:38 AM

thisispete: Mambo Bananapatch: thisispete: Ahmadinejad's term ends in June next year and his successor will naturally be a less polarising figure...

I'm not up on the line of succession in Iran but why is that a "naturally"?

Because whoever his successor is wouldn't have issued the batshiat crazy statements that he has. Now I do understand that foreign policy and the military is in the hands of the clerics, but it's Ahmadinejad who has earned the ire of the western world (e.g. his speeches prompting walkouts at the UN). He's the person who the media focuses on. The Iranian parliament is tired of his bullshiat too In terms of succession, the presidency is a directly elected position by the Iranian people. The clerics have supreme authority, though.


OK. As long as there's a good reason.

/thanks
 
2012-08-24 12:23:45 AM

Acharne: Generation_D: Whoever wants to attack Iran, get your sorry chicken hawk neocon ass in a uniform and enlist.

BroncoFan_17: "Eighth, an Israeli or U.S. strike on Iran would kill the hopes for rapprochement between Tehran and Washington for decades to come."

Yeah, because we've gotten along so well over the last few decades.

"First, Iran has become the leading country in the Muslim world advocating for an end to nuclear weapons by religiously committing itself against weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The Iranian Supreme Leader issued a Religious Decree, or Fatwa, that forbids the production, stockpiling and use of all WMDs."

Anybody who believes that these guys are adhering to that are naive.

Akmafukinslob has already said he wanted to wipe Isreal off the face of the earth. If you think he isn't trying to develope a nuke to do just that, you're an idiot. He would go down in history as the most holy muslin since Mohammed. Trust me. His pathologically narcissistic ass WANTS that.

Today it's a nuke that they can lob into Isreal. Tommorow it's an ICBM.

These people HATE us, folks. They've hated us for decades. It's in their freakin religion to hate us. They count on the fact that can pursuade us into thinking that they're not up to no good. And when they've lulled the majority of us to sleep, they'll laugh in our faces for being so "naive" as they kill thousands.

You're so out to lunch it is deadly. Iranians do not hate the United States. Their a bit bitter about the restoration of the monarchy, but that's because they had a stable democracy before.

Iran does not want to build nuclear weapons. To think so is to jump into this ongoing narrative that is so tired.

Remeber. Iranians hate their government. They don't hate Israel. Don't confuse the two. The Iranian government is horrible. The average Iranian is not.

You're post is dangerous lunacy.


Well, it's going to be the Iranian government that launches any attack. I doubt any American or Isreali loving Iranian citizens will be able to prevent it. Your post is the one that is dangerous lunacy. You're one of those who are being lulled to sleep.
 
2012-08-24 12:24:15 AM

ontariolightning: cameroncrazy1984: ontariolightning: Eh, the west is turning socialist? Do you even know how dumb that sounds? Do you even know what real socialist countries look like? probably not

Yes, they look like Norway, Finland, Sweden, and to a lesser extent France and the UK.

Those are Social Democracies. Learn the difference between socialist countries and socialist democracies, then get back to me aight?


I'm sure you could enlighten us.
 
2012-08-24 12:25:45 AM

swangoatman: You mean he STOLE our money and infrastructure like a common thief.It's the same thing all DICTATORS do.


It was only fair. You were stealing their oil. ;)
 
2012-08-24 12:32:24 AM

Parmenius: ontariolightning: cameroncrazy1984: ontariolightning: Eh, the west is turning socialist? Do you even know how dumb that sounds? Do you even know what real socialist countries look like? probably not

Yes, they look like Norway, Finland, Sweden, and to a lesser extent France and the UK.

Those are Social Democracies. Learn the difference between socialist countries and socialist democracies, then get back to me aight?

I'm sure you could enlighten us.


You're all free to be wrong. But anyone who knows the subject knows those countries mentioned are not socialist countries. Once again the American media dumbing down its people.
 
2012-08-24 12:35:10 AM

ontariolightning: Parmenius: ontariolightning: cameroncrazy1984: ontariolightning: Eh, the west is turning socialist? Do you even know how dumb that sounds? Do you even know what real socialist countries look like? probably not

Yes, they look like Norway, Finland, Sweden, and to a lesser extent France and the UK.

Those are Social Democracies. Learn the difference between socialist countries and socialist democracies, then get back to me aight?

I'm sure you could enlighten us.

You're all free to be wrong. But anyone who knows the subject knows those countries mentioned are not socialist countries. Once again the American media dumbing down its people.


When the liberal can't answer they always turn to name calling. Go back to sleep twig.
 
2012-08-24 12:40:50 AM

I had Snu Snu: ontariolightning: Quasar: Technically, it is a problem we caused.

Killing Iran's # 1 enemy... Saddam Hussein, which allowed hundreds of suicide groups sympathetic to Iran
to take hold of the region... yeah, you're damn right it's the United States fault. Way to go champ.

Sorry Kiddo, grown ups are talking. When your country actually matters sometimes things aren't so simple, I wouldn't expect you to understand.

Anyways, of course going to war with Iran would be idiotic (especially now) but that article was a godamned joke. We're not going to war with Iran though, not a chance. Obama doesn't have the political capital to pull something like that off and we just can't afford it right now.

 
2012-08-24 12:42:10 AM
God farking dammit. What I meant to post was essentially 'Fark you I had Snu Snu'

Your country would be a goddamn economic mess without Canada. Sure we'd be farked with you, but circle of life. Don't be a jack ass.
 
2012-08-24 12:54:04 AM

Tellingthem:

"While the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear
facilities and LOFs declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement, as Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation, including by not implementing its Additional Protocol, the Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities."

Link



Just out of boredom, prove to me you're not planning to have sex with a child. I'm going to need access to your home, your PC, any wireless devices you own and I'm going to want the ability to come into your home randomly for follow-up questions. You clearly have no problem with this since you've nothing to hide, so I'm going to publicly tell the world I'm investigating you for potential sex with children each and every time I decide to visit. Thanks.
 
2012-08-24 01:20:32 AM

hubiestubert: Gyrfalcon: SandMann: Mugato: consider this: Well except that it is our problem since they're threatening one of our closest allies.

The story of everything we've done in the Mideast for the last 60 years.

No, this is the story of everything we've done in the Mideast for the last 60 years:


[www.oil-price.net image 819x419] 

Until this map substantially changes, Iran will be our problem

Try 100. Since Churchill carved up the Middle East and the world sat around and let him do it.

Let's not forget, that Iran HAD one of the most progressive democracies in the Middle East, and we helped the Brits oust Mohammad Mosaddegh, and set the tone for the Islamic Revolution, and the rise of the theocracy therein. Mossaddegh's crime? He nationalized their oil fields, and the Brits and the US overthrew a civilian government.

Kohmeini and the rest? That is blowback from ousting the most democratic government in the Middle East when it dared to set its own national interest over our own. There is a reason that folks in the region are not fond of us, or the Israelis for that matter, and maybe, just maybe, we should let them sort out their issues on their own, and wait for them to ask us for help, because they've had our "help" before, and what bothers a lot of folks in the West, is that these folks remember all too well how that turned out...


But boy, you say that around here and if the pro-Israel faction doesn't get you, the ultranationalists will.
 
2012-08-24 01:21:33 AM
This is a little explanation of how we keep getting into this crap
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi- p ublications/csi-studies/studies/vol.-56-no.-2/pdfs/McMurdo-The%20Econo mics%20of%20Overthrow.pdf
 
2012-08-24 01:53:35 AM
Iran keeps threatening to destroy America and Israel: Unforgivable.
American politicians keep threatening to destroy Iran: Acceptable, because...?
 
2012-08-24 02:05:56 AM
Let Iran shoot first.

/because they won't.
 
2012-08-24 02:18:39 AM

studebaker hoch: Let Iran shoot first.

/because they won't.


IrHan shot first!
 
2012-08-24 02:23:34 AM

Quasar: Technically, it is a problem we caused.


We caused radical Islam? Seriously? You just removed culpability and free will from a billion Muslims world wide and made everything they do our fault? They only make decisions because of us? They dont have any other interests?

GO back to farking berkely and smoke another one.
 
2012-08-24 02:30:56 AM

Mambo Bananapatch: thisispete: Ahmadinejad's term ends in June next year and his successor will naturally be a less polarising figure...

I'm not up on the line of succession in Iran but why is that a "naturally"?


Downplaying Irans threat is a leftist hobby. Its like a reflex, they cant control it. Any nation that threatens world stability or is trying to destroy a neighbor is only seen by them through a lens that is focused on America and destroying our military capability. So Iran is not a threat. I mean sure they sponsor terrorism world wide, they manufacture and export IED's and suicide vests, but that is just WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST BIG BAD AMERICA.
 
2012-08-24 02:34:47 AM

archichris: radical Islam? Seriously? You just removed culpability and free will from a billion Muslims world wide


A billion Muslims aren't radical. Try again!
 
2012-08-24 02:35:29 AM

archichris: Downplaying Irans threat is a leftist hobby.


Iran has been "a couple years" from a nuclear weapon since 1992. I don't think you can downplay that lack of evidence and progress any more than they already have.
 
2012-08-24 03:00:10 AM

archichris: Quasar: Technically, it is a problem we caused.

We caused radical Islam? Seriously? You just removed culpability and free will from a billion Muslims world wide and made everything they do our fault? They only make decisions because of us? They dont have any other interests?


Yes, because when the US ousted a democratic government and also turned a blind eye to other atrocities in the region, we sent the signal that any two-bit thug and dictator could literally get a way with murder as long as he didn't bite the hand that fed oil to the West. We created the radicals and allowed their existence to continue. They just happen to be Muslims, coincidentally.
 
2012-08-24 03:03:01 AM

consider this: Well except that it is our problem since they're threatening one of our closest allies.


The US has probably 100 or more allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia aren't among them.
 
2012-08-24 03:18:28 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: We shouldn't do it, but if we decide to attack, I hope we at least get some good recipes from the invasion.


And women.....they'd be happy to be here, unlike some of the "whoa is me" "glass ceiling" blah blah blah women here in the US.
 
2012-08-24 03:45:45 AM
Not our problem? Why no, we are not 100% responsible for letting Islamic fundamentalists oust a government friendly to the United States?

Thank you Jimmy Carter, without your wisdom and guidance Iran wouldn't be the terrorist sponsoring hell hole that it's been for the last 20+.
 
2012-08-24 03:56:56 AM

SandMann: danielscissorhands: Reason #21

/made similar pun yesterday

Ok, I finally got that joke. 

[www.danwade.com image 480x360]


heh
 
2012-08-24 04:07:45 AM

randomjsa: Not our problem? Why no, we are not 100% responsible for letting Islamic fundamentalists oust a government friendly to the United States?

Thank you Jimmy Carter, without your wisdom and guidance Iran wouldn't be the terrorist sponsoring hell hole that it's been for the last 20+.


Why just let us think you're ignorant, when you can come here and prove it over and over again, you cock-sucking troll?
 
2012-08-24 04:12:44 AM
Radical Muslim groups are just Tea Partiers with the balls to back up their rhetoric with action.
 
2012-08-24 05:55:48 AM

swangoatman: hubiestubert: He nationalized their oil fields, and the Brits and the US overthrew a civilian government.

You mean he STOLE our money and infrastructure like a common thief.It's the same thing all DICTATORS do.


I'm going to make a deal with the corrupt mayor of your town, and put an oil rig in your back yard...and pay you maybe 1% of the oil revenue.

Don't steal my stuff, now.
 
2012-08-24 07:15:22 AM
if we didn't go over there, Iran could build a nuclear weapon and threaten us for ransom in the area of $11.2 TRILLION
 
2012-08-24 07:52:34 AM

BroncoFan_17: Akmafukinslob has already said he wanted to wipe Isreal off the face of the earth. If you think he isn't trying to develope a nuke to do just that, you're an idiot. He would go down in history as the most holy muslin since Mohammed. Trust me. His pathologically narcissistic ass WANTS that.


You don't know much about Iran aside from what they tell you on Fox News do you?
 
2012-08-24 07:59:24 AM

archichris: Downplaying Irans threat is a leftist hobby.


Every US intelligence agency has issued a report starting that Iran does not have an active nuclear weapons program.....

So we are to believe they are "leftist" because they don't share your worldview?
 
2012-08-24 09:09:50 AM

Gyrfalcon: But boy, you say that around here and if the pro-Israel faction doesn't get you, the ultranationalists will.


Perhaps, but it doesn't change the facts. We helped topple one of the most democratic governments in the Middle East, and then installed the Shah, and were surprised when folks were upset. We have continually been surprised when folks have become upset with Western influence in the Middle East when we meddle with their governments and their way of life. Iran was a turning point, far beyond the creation and support of Israel, and dismantling its government and installing our own pet dictator when Mosaddegh nationalized the oil fields. Yes, the trollios, will contend that Mosaddegh was a dictator--despite his election, and despite being hailed by Time and other publications as the Great Hope for the Middle East peace process, and his reforms--but that doesn't change history. They might willfully ignore it, but it doesn't change the facts. That they choose to ignore them, that says more about them, than me or the issues at hand...
 
2012-08-24 10:19:18 AM
Dhimmitude, this is how it works
 
2012-08-24 10:28:15 AM

limboslam: Got as far as reason number one:

"First, Iran has become the leading country in the Muslim world advocating for an end to nuclear weapons by religiously committing itself against weapons of mass destruction (WMD)"

And realized the author of this article is out of his mind.


This. Left wing troll derp on the front page is getting old.

/can tell it is an election year
 
2012-08-24 10:29:49 AM

LeglessDog: As for the author of this [bullshiat] article--if you'll take the time to read the notation at the bottom, you'll notice:

from 2003 to 2005, he served as spokesman for Iran in its nuclear negotiations with the European Union

//garbage


Liberal wackjobs don't care. Anything that agrees with their moronic non-logic is fine for them. Facts are a nuisance.
 
2012-08-24 10:30:33 AM

Mugato: Well if Romney wins then the whole issue will be moot, because we'll be balls deep in Iran. Probably Syria too. Whatever Israel tells us.


Yes. Mormons have a long history of bowing down to the Jews.


/derp
 
2012-08-24 10:33:35 AM

fusillade762: Second, the IAEA in the past decade, following more than 4,000 inspection hours, frequently and constantly has declared that there is no evidence of diversion in Iranian nuclear activity toward building a weapon.

Third, the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) has maintained that Iran does not have nuclear weapons, has not made the decision to build them and is not on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. The international community also accepts this conclusion.

It amazes my how little attention these two points get in the media. Though after the circus that was the leadup to the Iraq war I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Why question the casus belli when you can just stomp your feet and salute the flag?


The NIE stated that Tehran is rapidly approaching the "immunity zone"-the critical point in time after which the Islamic Republic's nuclear program will no longer be vulnerable to a military strike.

Obviously they will wait for the immunity zone, then weaponize.


Also worth noting that the 2007 NIE report on Iran said that they had been working on a nuke, but stopped four years earlier. I wonder what happened in 2003 that could have convinced them to stop working on a nuke... hmm...
 
2012-08-24 10:38:22 AM

Heraclitus: Is it sad that we have to have an excuse NOT to attack someone?


Do we have to find an excuse not to punish murderers?
 
2012-08-24 10:40:25 AM

00batou: First the writer of this article notes the presence of an Iranian Fatwa against all WMDs, then he says:

"Sixth, a strike would likely neither completely destroy the Iranian nuclear program, nor cause a major delay to the program."

Anyone else find this logic a bit strange?


They don't have any nukes!

But blowing up their nukes means they'd just make more!
 
2012-08-24 10:46:32 AM
Not ever. No way. No way. What is this garbage? Yeah right. Not my chair. Not my problem. That's what I say.
 
2012-08-24 10:53:55 AM
I have just read TFA, and as an average European guy, I can only add one thing: Hossein Mousavian is a pathetic liar.
 
2012-08-24 11:14:02 AM

Acharne: You're so out to lunch it is deadly. Iranians do not hate the United States. Their a bit bitter about the restoration of the monarchy, but that's because they had a stable democracy before.

Iran does not want to build nuclear weapons. To think so is to jump into this ongoing narrative that is so tired.

Remeber. Iranians hate their government. They don't hate Israel. Don't confuse the two. The Iranian government is horrible. The average Iranian is not.

You're post is dangerous lunacy.


0/10
 
2012-08-24 11:29:36 AM

logistic: Tellingthem:

"While the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear
facilities and LOFs declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement, as Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation, including by not implementing its Additional Protocol, the Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities."

Link


Just out of boredom, prove to me you're not planning to have sex with a child. I'm going to need access to your home, your PC, any wireless devices you own and I'm going to want the ability to come into your home randomly for follow-up questions. You clearly have no problem with this since you've nothing to hide, so I'm going to publicly tell the world I'm investigating you for potential sex with children each and every time I decide to visit. Thanks.


Do you really think treaty obligations and individual rights are similar in this case?
 
2012-08-24 11:33:48 AM

Yoyo: archichris: Quasar: Technically, it is a problem we caused.

We caused radical Islam? Seriously? You just removed culpability and free will from a billion Muslims world wide and made everything they do our fault? They only make decisions because of us? They dont have any other interests?

Yes, because when the US ousted a democratic government and also turned a blind eye to other atrocities in the region, we sent the signal that any two-bit thug and dictator could literally get a way with murder as long as he didn't bite the hand that fed oil to the West. We created the radicals and allowed their existence to continue. They just happen to be Muslims, coincidentally.


So their solution to our despotic mistake was to install another despot?
 
2012-08-24 11:48:53 AM

Bullseyed: Heraclitus: Is it sad that we have to have an excuse NOT to attack someone?

Do we have to find an excuse not to punish murderers?


In Liberalville it is always someone else who is to blame . Look at the batman/ joker killer drama and see what i mean.
 
2012-08-24 12:59:17 PM

Bullseyed: Mugato: Well if Romney wins then the whole issue will be moot, because we'll be balls deep in Iran. Probably Syria too. Whatever Israel tells us.

Yes. Mormons have a long history of bowing down to the Jews.


/derp



The Momo's believe that they ARE Jews, and that they have a "special relationship" to Judyism and to Ozrael.

Of course, Jews don't share in this fantasy (snicker), but as always, the Israelis are more than happy to take advantage of useful idiots, even those that they quietly hold in disdain (see bible-thumpin'-Second-Coming-Believing-Bible-Belt-Protestants, for example).

Romney has already demonstrated his fealty to Bibi and the Zio's, and told us all that when he gets his turn, he's going to let Israel dictate US foreign policy in the ME.

Is Romney a Ziobot?

static3.businessinsider.com

/You can bet on it
//Shelly has been
///and he didn't become a billionaire casino magnate by making bad bets.
 
2012-08-24 01:46:49 PM

BgJonson79: So their solution to our despotic mistake was to install another despot?


They being middle east Muslims, not just Persians: Saddam Husein, Mullah Omar. Need I go on? How much longer could these guys have stayed in power if they hadn't pissed off the US?
 
2012-08-24 02:36:34 PM

Bullseyed: Acharne: You're so out to lunch it is deadly. Iranians do not hate the United States. Their a bit bitter about the restoration of the monarchy, but that's because they had a stable democracy before.

Iran does not want to build nuclear weapons. To think so is to jump into this ongoing narrative that is so tired.

Remeber. Iranians hate their government. They don't hate Israel. Don't confuse the two. The Iranian government is horrible. The average Iranian is not.

You're post is dangerous lunacy.

0/10


Goddamnit so much. Thanks for pointing that out. My poor typing certainly isn't evidence of an Iranian bomb though ;)
 
2012-08-24 03:19:17 PM

Bullseyed: Mugato: Well if Romney wins then the whole issue will be moot, because we'll be balls deep in Iran. Probably Syria too. Whatever Israel tells us.

Yes. Mormons have a long history of bowing down to the Jews.


/derp


Um. Romney literally said that he would let Israel dictate our foreign policy. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were being sarcastic and not a complete idiot.
 
2012-08-24 03:44:57 PM

Mugato: Um. Romney literally said that he would let Israel dictate our foreign policy.


Link, control-f "recommended and supported".
 
2012-08-24 03:55:10 PM

Parmenius: Mugato: Um. Romney literally said that he would let Israel dictate our foreign policy.

Link, control-f "recommended and supported".


Well I'm sure that Wikipedia is a bastion of journalistic integrity but Romney's own words kind of carry more weight.
 
2012-08-24 04:14:36 PM

Mugato: Parmenius: Mugato: Um. Romney literally said that he would let Israel dictate our foreign policy.

Link, control-f "recommended and supported".

Well I'm sure that Wikipedia is a bastion of journalistic integrity but Romney's own words kind of carry more weight.


Fine. My bad for not linking the original source.
Original story from interview by Israel Hayom. Control-F "actions recommended".
 
2012-08-24 04:47:47 PM

Parmenius: Mugato: Parmenius: Mugato: Um. Romney literally said that he would let Israel dictate our foreign policy.

Link, control-f "recommended and supported".

Well I'm sure that Wikipedia is a bastion of journalistic integrity but Romney's own words kind of carry more weight.

Fine. My bad for not linking the original source.
Original story from interview by Israel Hayom. Control-F "actions recommended".



From your link:

Q: The transfer of the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem would be a great symbolic aid to Israel. Is that something that you would consider?

ROMNEY: The actions that I will take will be actions recommended and supported by Israeli leaders. I don't seek to take actions independent of what our allies think is best, and if Israel's leaders thought that a move of that nature would be helpful to their efforts, then that's something I'll be inclined to do. But again, that's a decision which I would look to the Israeli leadership to help guide. I don't think America should play the role of the leader of the peace process, instead we should stand by our ally. Again, my inclination is to follow the guidance of our ally Israel, as to where our facilities and embassies would exist.


So as Mugato said, "Romney literally said that he would let Israel dictate our foreign policy." 

Elect him and we'll be dropping nukes on all of Ozrael's enemies (about 4/5 of the world population) by February.
 
2012-08-24 05:41:31 PM
Amos Quito, you are wrong.
 
2012-08-24 05:48:14 PM
That's because it IS our problem.
 
2012-08-24 05:55:31 PM

Porous Horace: Amos Quito, you are wrong.



Oh, Hi Porous Horace!

Wrong about what?


/TIA
 
2012-08-24 07:44:47 PM

Amos Quito: Parmenius: Mugato: Parmenius: Mugato: Um. Romney literally said that he would let Israel dictate our foreign policy.

Link, control-f "recommended and supported".

Well I'm sure that Wikipedia is a bastion of journalistic integrity but Romney's own words kind of carry more weight.

Fine. My bad for not linking the original source.
Original story from interview by Israel Hayom. Control-F "actions recommended".


From your link:

Q: The transfer of the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem would be a great symbolic aid to Israel. Is that something that you would consider?

ROMNEY: The actions that I will take will be actions recommended and supported by Israeli leaders. I don't seek to take actions independent of what our allies think is best, and if Israel's leaders thought that a move of that nature would be helpful to their efforts, then that's something I'll be inclined to do. But again, that's a decision which I would look to the Israeli leadership to help guide. I don't think America should play the role of the leader of the peace process, instead we should stand by our ally. Again, my inclination is to follow the guidance of our ally Israel, as to where our facilities and embassies would exist.


So as Mugato said, "Romney literally said that he would let Israel dictate our foreign policy." 

Elect him and we'll be dropping nukes on all of Ozrael's enemies (about 4/5 of the world population) by February.


Yes, I was trying to support his point... shoulda made that more clear.
 
2012-08-24 08:12:54 PM

Parmenius: Yes, I was trying to support his point... shoulda made that more clear.



And I probably should have read the thread more thoroughly.
 
2012-08-25 12:15:24 AM
My God, This alone is the reason to vote for Ron Freakin' Paul.
 
2012-08-25 02:05:38 AM
Vote Obama. He keeps pissing people off with how smart he is.

/Like Netanyahu.
 
Displayed 157 of 157 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report