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 39
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-08-23 08:55:52 PM
8 votes:
Israel will fight to the last dead American?
2012-08-23 08:54:23 PM
7 votes:
If we were to declare war on Iran, it would make the Saudis happy. Therefore, I'm against it.
2012-08-23 09:03:16 PM
4 votes:
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 11:35:39 PM
3 votes:

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 09:08:21 PM
3 votes:
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 08:39:17 PM
3 votes:
Technically, it is a problem we caused.
2012-08-23 09:33:57 PM
2 votes:
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 09:09:27 PM
2 votes:
Number 1 reason:

tundratabloids.com
2012-08-23 08:56:03 PM
2 votes:
Is "ground wars in Asia seldom end well for the invaders" on the list?

How about "it would start World War 3?"
2012-08-24 11:14:02 AM
1 votes:

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 10:40:25 AM
1 votes:

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 10:38:22 AM
1 votes:

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 10:33:35 AM
1 votes:

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 10:30:33 AM
1 votes:

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 10:29:49 AM
1 votes:

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 10:28:15 AM
1 votes:

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 09:09:50 AM
1 votes:

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 07:59:24 AM
1 votes:

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 02:34:47 AM
1 votes:

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 02:05:56 AM
1 votes:
Let Iran shoot first.

/because they won't.
2012-08-24 01:53:35 AM
1 votes:
Iran keeps threatening to destroy America and Israel: Unforgivable.
American politicians keep threatening to destroy Iran: Acceptable, because...?
2012-08-24 12:05:24 AM
1 votes:

ComicBookGuy: Israel will fight to the last dead American?


If necessary, yes.
2012-08-23 10:23:07 PM
1 votes:
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 10:09:27 PM
1 votes:

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 10:01:28 PM
1 votes:

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 09:53:45 PM
1 votes:
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 09:49:45 PM
1 votes:

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 09:39:02 PM
1 votes:
"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 09:35:17 PM
1 votes:
Whoever wants to attack Iran, get your sorry chicken hawk neocon ass in a uniform and enlist.
2012-08-23 09:30:32 PM
1 votes:
Is it sad that we have to have an excuse NOT to attack someone?
2012-08-23 09:25:39 PM
1 votes:

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 09:20:37 PM
1 votes:

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 09:16:31 PM
1 votes:

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 09:13:22 PM
1 votes:
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 09:10:40 PM
1 votes:

Mantour: Number 1 reason:


Gotta go with this one.
2012-08-23 09:08:16 PM
1 votes:
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 09:06:09 PM
1 votes:
Is "because it's completely unnecessary" on the list?

/in before derp Amhdinnerjacket wipe izreal offder mapz
2012-08-23 09:04:38 PM
1 votes:
Read TFA. Sounds like they had one good reason and then copied it in Photoshop 19 times.
2012-08-23 08:12:06 PM
1 votes:
By Hossein Mousavian. Hmm. Hmm. Do I have a point? Hmm.
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report