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 26
    More: Obvious, Iran, NPT, states with nuclear weapons, Iranian nuclear, Cairo speech, own resources, fatwas, National Intelligence Estimate  
•       •       •

7788 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»



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


Archived thread
2012-08-23 08:55:32 PM  
4 votes:
If you're going to attack Iran, you have to destroy the source:


i74.photobucket.com
2012-08-23 09:24:25 PM  
3 votes:
Because their arrows will blot out the sun?
2012-08-23 09:04:38 PM  
3 votes:
Read TFA. Sounds like they had one good reason and then copied it in Photoshop 19 times.
2012-08-23 08:56:17 PM  
2 votes:
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 08:56:03 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?"
2012-08-23 08:55:52 PM  
2 votes:
Israel will fight to the last dead American?
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 04:12:44 AM  
1 votes:
Radical Muslim groups are just Tea Partiers with the balls to back up their rhetoric with action.
2012-08-24 02:23:34 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:53:35 AM  
1 votes:
Iran keeps threatening to destroy America and Israel: Unforgivable.
American politicians keep threatening to destroy Iran: Acceptable, because...?
2012-08-23 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 09:11:27 PM  
1 votes:
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 09:09:56 PM  
1 votes:
Because we're not batshiat insane?
2012-08-23 09:09:27 PM  
1 votes:
Number 1 reason:

tundratabloids.com
2012-08-23 09:08:21 PM  
1 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 09:03:16 PM  
1 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 08:54:23 PM  
1 votes:
If we were to declare war on Iran, it would make the Saudis happy. Therefore, I'm against it.
2012-08-23 08:39:17 PM  
1 votes:
Technically, it is a problem we caused.
 
Displayed 26 of 26 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report