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  
•       •       •

7785 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Aug 2012 at 8:48 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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
 
Displayed 50 of 157 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