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.

(Fox News)   Israel waits on President Barack Obama to take a tough public position on Iran's nuclear program - and waits and waits and waits some more   (foxnews.com) divider line 209
    More: Obvious, obama, Iran, Israelis, United States, Iranian nuclear program, military intelligences, Israeli attack, Iranian nuclear  
•       •       •

3300 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Sep 2012 at 12:32 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-05 02:50:29 PM

way south: It's an election year, so it's understandable that the incumbent doesn't want to put himself on the record as for or against a war.
But not taking a position is also a position.

He's forming a habit of only going after the targets of his predecessors, and stalling on other situations untill they've practically decided themselves.
That can be interpreted as weakness, and weakness can goad either the Israelis or Iranians into doing something regrettable.

At some point, Obama needs to take the helm because he is still going to get the blame.



So Obama going after bin Laden and Gadaffhi (ya know, actual terroists) doesn't count in your world because they existed before he took office? Makes perfect sense.
 
2012-09-05 02:51:48 PM

Dr Dreidel: There are lots of non-Jewish Israelis, and plenty of non-Israeli Jews. Even within Israel, the diversity of opinion among Jews is HUGE - from crazy Haredim (even those that aren't repressive) to atheist hippies - so I just see calling the actions of the Israeli government "Jewish actions" as being misleading and likely (and needlessly) inflammatory.


Whoa...there's a place for me in Israel. Who knew?
 
2012-09-05 03:02:25 PM
Israel : United States :: North Korea : China
 
2012-09-05 03:04:27 PM
Quite frankly I'm more worried about Russia's nuclear arsenal, which everyone seems to have forgotten about. Scared me as a kid and now even more as an adult.
 
2012-09-05 03:08:00 PM
Obama has launched multiple cyber attacks against Iran, has given the OK for the Mossad to work with the MEK to murder Iranian civilian scientists, his former Chief of Staff (the current mayor of Chicago) was a member of the f-ing IDF for crying out loud.

Obama is and has been Israels biatch since day frigging one.

The same "experts" have been saying that Iran has been 10 years away from a Nuke since the 1980's. At least Iran is a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty. Israel, Pakistan and India have never signed it.

I think there would be some really uncomfortable questions / answers if the Israelis had to discuss where their nukes came from.
 
2012-09-05 03:24:02 PM

maxheck: I'm sorry...

What exactly has "our staunchest ally" in the Middle East EVER farkING DONE BUT MAKE EVERYONE HATE THE US?

About the only benefit you might argue would be saying that : קהילת המודיעין הישראלית feeds us intelligence from the middle east.

I think Dick Cheney's camping out at the DIA and vetting information there tells you how useful that might be.


What do you mean? The Kingdom of Jordan greatly assited the United States in recent years. Their General Intelligence Directorate foiled the planned Millenium Bombings in December 1991 that would have bombed both American and Jordanian hotels. The General Intelligence Directorate also provided information that lead to the capture of Al-Zarkawi.
 
2012-09-05 03:26:07 PM
We spend 2.5 billion a year on israel and another 1.5 billion in tribute to egypt to keep them from attacking israel. Thats roughly 50 bucks for every adult citizen of the US. I don't know about you guys but I would rather have that money in my pocket.

Let these people settle their own differences.
 
2012-09-05 03:28:16 PM
kindms

Obama has launched multiple cyber attacks against Iran
, has given the OK for the Mossad to work with the MEK to murder Iranian civilian scientists, his former Chief of Staff (the current mayor of Chicago) was a member of the f-ing IDF for crying out loud.

Obama is and has been Israels biatch since day frigging one.

The same "experts" have been saying that Iran has been 10 years away from a Nuke since the 1980's. At least Iran is a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty. Israel, Pakistan and India have never signed it.

I think there would be some really uncomfortable questions / answers if the Israelis had to discuss where their nukes came from.



Is there anything this man can't do? Now he is a top-notched computer hacker too! Wow!
 
2012-09-05 03:32:28 PM

MrBallou: Headso: Here's part of a NY Times story from 1995...

Iran is much closer to producing nuclear weapons than previously thought, and could be less than five years away from having an atomic bomb, several senior American and Israeli officials say.

"The date by which Iran will have nuclear weapons is no longer 10 years from now," a senior official said recently, referring to previous estimates.

Even if the did manage to make a bomb, it's not like they're the USSR with thousands of them and ICBMs to put them on. At most they could do 1/10 the damage done in any of the recent conventional wars around there and they have incentive not to. They know they would be hammered into the earth if they ever did. If they even want a bomb, they only want it for dick-waving purposes.

Israel is clearly the bad guy here. I'm more worried about them using their nucs (hypocrisy, anyone?) than Iran.


Your fears and your beliefs don't make it hypocrisy. It makes it speculation from an impartial observer who likely doesn't have any training to make their gesticulations and spasms worth interpreting. That is, of course, unless you've access to some data we don't have access to and/or are actually an intelligence specialist, maybe political scientist, military data analyst, or the likes?

No?

Then, no, that's not hypocrisy. That's just you wetting your pants in public again.
 
2012-09-05 03:44:11 PM

Persnickety: way south: It's an election year, so it's understandable that the incumbent doesn't want to put himself on the record as for or against a war.
But not taking a position is also a position.

He's forming a habit of only going after the targets of his predecessors, and stalling on other situations untill they've practically decided themselves.
That can be interpreted as weakness, and weakness can goad either the Israelis or Iranians into doing something regrettable.

At some point, Obama needs to take the helm because he is still going to get the blame.


So Obama going after bin Laden and Gadaffhi (ya know, actual terroists) doesn't count in your world because they existed before he took office? Makes perfect sense.


I give him his due for permitting a sovereignty bending strike in Nuclear armed Pakistan, but Osama was a long standing target with men assigned to hunt him since previous administrations.
The military and CIA didn't start hunting "real terrorists" under his watch.

The Libyans were begging for months before the Allies got involved. The Syrians are still begging. Half a dozen nations in the region going through their Arab springs were asking for something more palpable than the presidents best wishes.
They wait on Obama, Obama is waits on the UN.

Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter and other past presidents were a bit more forthcoming with their actions. They didn't always make the best decisions, but they didn't have the appearance of sitting idly by and hoping things turn out for the best.

Obama is an Ok president, but I don't think he's much for leadership.
 
2012-09-05 03:53:07 PM

SkunkWerks: Gyrfalcon: Ergo, we're being "nice" to Korea.

The suspicion of this being "sarcasm" is about the only way I can redeem you.

Gyrfalcon: Now get down to Starbucks.

Tastes like plastic. And you're talking to someone who isn't overly fond of coffee in general. Honestly not sure how you drink that stuff.


Don't look at me, I can't stand the stuff. And I can't justify paying a third the national debt for a cup of "coffee" that is entirely whipped cream and chocolate sauce. Get thee to thy favorite food shop, then, and have one on me. Or for me.

Next time I'll be sure to add the quotes, at least first thing in the morning.
 
2012-09-05 03:58:25 PM

Snarfangel: don't you remember


we built this city on rock and roll...
 
2012-09-05 04:05:58 PM

way south: Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter and other past presidents were a bit more forthcoming with their actions. They didn't always make the best decisions, but they didn't have the appearance of sitting idly by and hoping things turn out for the best.


"The right way, the wrong way, and the Max Power way."
"Isn't that just the wrong way?"
"Only faster!"

It's almost like sovereign nations are...sovereign, or something. Erasing or stepping over international borders, while Bush didn't mind it, is a pretty big deal, and should not be done simply because it looks like it should be. America is not the arbiter of international justice. The UN is at least the correct venue for airing grievances (and on days other than 26DEC, too!), and NATO is the appropriate international peacekeeping (soldier-sending) body.

Would you be OK if Canada sent troops to the US to monitor our elections? To take our guns, as we seem to be massacring each other by the tens every week or so?
 
2012-09-05 04:26:44 PM

way south: Persnickety: way south: It's an election year, so it's understandable that the incumbent doesn't want to put himself on the record as for or against a war.
But not taking a position is also a position.

He's forming a habit of only going after the targets of his predecessors, and stalling on other situations untill they've practically decided themselves.
That can be interpreted as weakness, and weakness can goad either the Israelis or Iranians into doing something regrettable.

At some point, Obama needs to take the helm because he is still going to get the blame.


So Obama going after bin Laden and Gadaffhi (ya know, actual terroists) doesn't count in your world because they existed before he took office? Makes perfect sense.

I give him his due for permitting a sovereignty bending strike in Nuclear armed Pakistan, but Osama was a long standing target with men assigned to hunt him since previous administrations.
The military and CIA didn't start hunting "real terrorists" under his watch.


The military and the CIA have limited resources. By ending the $1+ trillion mess called Iraq, significant military and intelligence resources were freed up for use in finding OBL. That's called resource prioritization and it's at the very heart of what constitutes good and effective leadership.


The Libyans were begging for months before the Allies got involved. The Syrians are still begging. Half a dozen nations in the region going through their Arab springs were asking for something more palpable than the presidents best wishes.
They wait on Obama, Obama is waits on the UN.


Frankly, I don't care all that much about the Arab Spring. That is their own affair, not ours. As an American, I know that Gaddafi was an actual terrorist and Obama found a way of getting rid of him without getting mired in another Iraq debacle.


Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter and other past presidents were a bit more forthcoming with their actions. They didn't always make the best decisions, but they didn't have the appearance of sitting idly by and hoping things turn out for the best.

If by "forthcoming", you mean "unthinking" - I agree, with the exception of Bush The Elder who worked painstakingly for months to build an international coalition against Saddam, booted him out of Kuwait and eliminated his offensive threat to his neighbors, and then got the hell out of there. Kudos to Bush I for doing it the right way. Too bad his son was not as wise, squandering the goodwill from 9/11 on something pointless like Iraq.


Obama is an Ok president, but I don't think he's much for leadership.

Yes, except that the fact that his foreign policy has eased tensions with our allies and Muslim world, while at the same time redirecting resources to hunt down and kill actual terrorists, who could call that leadership? A: Everyone but a Republican.
 
2012-09-05 04:35:34 PM

Vodka Zombie: Can we please stop sending money to Israel The Middle East and let them fight their wars alone?


fixed

yes we can
 
2012-09-05 04:35:54 PM

Lunaville: Okay, I thought I'd replied to Cythraul and Generation D. If a comment about Israel turns up in a thread about a deer frolicking in an IHOP, that would be me.

I guess I'll try to remember it.

At risk of sounding like I think my version of Christianity is THE version of Christianity, I suspect some people who identify as fundamentalist Christians are not truly concerned about what is best for Israel. I think they want to sacrifice Israel to a war that they believe will induce the second coming of Christ.



THIS is the part that should be emphasized.

EVANGELICALS WANT TO SACRIFICE ISRAEL. They do not have Israel's best interests at heart, and should not be allowed to make policy decisions for or against this nation.

Israel is full of real, living people. They don't deserve to be someone's sacrificial lamb. No one does.
 
2012-09-05 04:44:44 PM

Thigvald the Big-Balled: Israel : United States :: North Korea : China:: Florida : Texas:

 
2012-09-05 04:46:59 PM
I remember when Israel won its wars with the help of good ol' YHWH Himself. In the apparent absence of Go- er, G-d, I suppose Uncle Sam is the next best thing.
 
2012-09-05 04:51:56 PM

PsiChick: Israel is full of real, living people. They don't deserve to be someone's sacrificial lamb masturbatory apocalyptic fantasy. No one does.


I wonder sometimes what would happen if we got rid of anyone who seriously thought Israel was integral to the end times (well, anyone who believed "the end times" was a real thing should be disqualified, but let's not get crazy).

Would AIPAC be so powerful a lobby if 3/4 of Congress didn't feel religiously compelled to genuflect to Israel? Would foreign aid to Israel be anything other than a footnote in the budget? Would there be a peace treaty absent too many damn cooks with their own homemade recipes?
 
2012-09-05 04:53:04 PM

PsiChick: Lunaville: Okay, I thought I'd replied to Cythraul and Generation D. If a comment about Israel turns up in a thread about a deer frolicking in an IHOP, that would be me.

I guess I'll try to remember it.

At risk of sounding like I think my version of Christianity is THE version of Christianity, I suspect some people who identify as fundamentalist Christians are not truly concerned about what is best for Israel. I think they want to sacrifice Israel to a war that they believe will induce the second coming of Christ.



THIS is the part that should be emphasized.

EVANGELICALS WANT TO SACRIFICE ISRAEL. They do not have Israel's best interests at heart, and should not be allowed to make policy decisions for or against this nation.

Israel is full of real, living people. They don't deserve to be someone's sacrificial lamb. No one does.


It's worth remembering. If Jesus can't come back until there's a final Armageddon in Israel, you can bet those who think he's going to arrive any day now would take any opportunity to hurry it along. So what if Israel and Iran are both smoking radioactive holes in the ground? JEEZUZ IS GONNA RAPTURE US ALL AWAY!!
 
2012-09-05 05:08:35 PM
If I were one of Israels neighbors I would want nukes too.
 
2012-09-05 05:10:00 PM
Popping in to give the opinion of a random person from the European side of the Atlantic.

I like that your president seems to wait for actual evidence that a country is manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, rather than blundering into the first country that looks shifty. Especially since, when any of us over here dared to suggest the last time around that that might not be the smartest plan, we were screamed at for being "undemocratic freedom haters". We're also a hell of a lot more likely to support you in any new conflict, since your current president has done a lot of work to rebuild bridges here that weren't so much burned by the last guy as they were nuked into oblivion.

/I'm not even going to get into the whole Palestine/Israel stuff
//It's a horribly complicated, awful situation that's ten times worse than anything we went through
///And Gods knows we went through enough
 
2012-09-05 05:10:04 PM

Gyrfalcon: PsiChick: Lunaville: Okay, I thought I'd replied to Cythraul and Generation D. If a comment about Israel turns up in a thread about a deer frolicking in an IHOP, that would be me.

I guess I'll try to remember it.

At risk of sounding like I think my version of Christianity is THE version of Christianity, I suspect some people who identify as fundamentalist Christians are not truly concerned about what is best for Israel. I think they want to sacrifice Israel to a war that they believe will induce the second coming of Christ.



THIS is the part that should be emphasized.

EVANGELICALS WANT TO SACRIFICE ISRAEL. They do not have Israel's best interests at heart, and should not be allowed to make policy decisions for or against this nation.

Israel is full of real, living people. They don't deserve to be someone's sacrificial lamb. No one does.

It's worth remembering. If Jesus can't come back until there's a final Armageddon in Israel, you can bet those who think he's going to arrive any day now would take any opportunity to hurry it along. So what if Israel and Iran are both smoking radioactive holes in the ground? JEEZUZ IS GONNA RAPTURE US ALL AWAY!!


And the sickening part is that Jews aren't raptured. Only born-again, Evangelical Xians.

So as a sum total, they're going to manipulate a group into voluntary near-genocide, then abandon said group to Hell so they can go to Heaven.

And they wonder why the rest of us find them disgusting slime.
 
2012-09-05 05:13:09 PM

Headso: The C.I.A. began to warn policy makers nearly a decade ago that Iran was likely to have nuclear weapons around the turn of the century. Now that the new century has arrived, the agency is offering a cautious warning that it can no longer be sure whether Iran has made more progress on its atomic program than previously believed.


My answer is Mexico is likely just 12 to 18 months away from acquiring nuclear weapons. Which is the amount of time it would take them to start from scratch using their current industrial base. Japan is probably about 12-18 days away from having nuclear weapons, since they have Pu239 in stock.

The difference is any country can build nukes and make some rubble out of a city. The US and Russia can make rubble out of any place in the world in 10-20 minutes and glass it over. But the conventional weapons possessed by US, Russia, and Europe are enough to deter any rational power armed with a few fission weapons.
 
2012-09-05 05:39:41 PM
sweetmelissa31

/Obvious Jew hater

www.wearysloth.com
 
2012-09-05 05:53:01 PM

Porous Horace: What I gathered from that article is that Israel wants the US to at least make a firm statement about Iran.

But it's nice to see all the Jew hate, reminds me of why Israel is necessary.



Accurate criticism of Israel, and Americans putting American interests before Israeli interests, isn't Jew hate.

I'd expect Israel to put IT'S interests ahead of OURS...why should we do differently?

We're supposed to be allies, not clones...
 
2012-09-05 05:56:25 PM

way south: It's an election year, so it's understandable that the incumbent doesn't want to put himself on the record as for or against a war.
But not taking a position is also a position.

He's forming a habit of only going after the targets of his predecessors, and stalling on other situations untill they've practically decided themselves.
That can be interpreted as weakness, and weakness can goad either the Israelis or Iranians into doing something regrettable.

At some point, Obama needs to take the helm because he is still going to get the blame.


The only people who will blame him will blame him regardless of what he does, so screw 'em.

Afa not invading every Muslim country between Paris and Beijing, if that's "weakness", well, that's fine by me.

We're kinda broke at the moment, and we're not even halfway through paying for Afghanistan and Iraq.
 
2012-09-05 06:06:10 PM

DesktopHippie: Popping in to give the opinion of a random person from the European side of the Atlantic.

I like that your president seems to wait for actual evidence that a country is manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, rather than blundering into the first country that looks shifty. Especially since, when any of us over here dared to suggest the last time around that that might not be the smartest plan, we were screamed at for being "undemocratic freedom haters". We're also a hell of a lot more likely to support you in any new conflict, since your current president has done a lot of work to rebuild bridges here that weren't so much burned by the last guy as they were nuked into oblivion.

/I'm not even going to get into the whole Palestine/Israel stuff
//It's a horribly complicated, awful situation that's ten times worse than anything we went through
///And Gods knows we went through enough


Yes, that whole "waiting for evidence" thing is pretty novel. And welcome, since there's a LOT of shifty countries out there. And, yes, the wingnuts yelled at those of us here who opposed the Iraq invasion as well.

Nothing quite like being called a traitor by people who, unlike me, have never worn the uniform, and won't ever get within 10,000 miles of a combat zone.

/thanks for helping us in Afghanistan
//you were smart to stay out of Iraq, depending in where in Europe you are
///Trans-Atlantic fistbump
 
2012-09-05 06:08:26 PM

PonceAlyosha: Jurodan: shower_in_my_socks: Iran bombs Israel = our oil prices go up
Israel bombs Iran = our oil prices go up

Sorry, guys. It's kind of lose-lose for us. We already wasted a couple of trillion dollars of our taxpayers' money on two pre-emptive wars in your region. How about you pick up the next one with that fancy military we bought for you?

I'm sorry, two pre-emptive wars? I think we were pretty well justified when it came to Afghanistan, thank you very much.

Not really, given it was Saudi terrorists who attacked us.


The leader of their organization was hiding in Afghanistan. The training camp the terrorists went to was in Afghanistan. What should we have done? Attacked the entire middle east?
 
2012-09-05 06:40:02 PM

Jurodan: PonceAlyosha: Jurodan: shower_in_my_socks: Iran bombs Israel = our oil prices go up
Israel bombs Iran = our oil prices go up

Sorry, guys. It's kind of lose-lose for us. We already wasted a couple of trillion dollars of our taxpayers' money on two pre-emptive wars in your region. How about you pick up the next one with that fancy military we bought for you?

I'm sorry, two pre-emptive wars? I think we were pretty well justified when it came to Afghanistan, thank you very much.

Not really, given it was Saudi terrorists who attacked us.

The leader of their organization was hiding in Afghanistan. The training camp the terrorists went to was in Afghanistan. What should we have done? Attacked the entire middle east?


NEVERMIND ALL THAT IT WAS THE SAUDIS!!!!

Why do you keep injecting rationality into this mess?
 
2012-09-05 07:24:47 PM
PunGent:
Yes, that whole "waiting for evidence" thing is pretty novel. And welcome, since there's a LOT of shifty countries out there. And, yes, the wingnuts yelled at those of us here who opposed the Iraq invasion as well.

Nothing quite like being called a traitor by people who, unlike me, have never worn the uniform, and won't ever get within 10,000 miles of a combat zone.

/thanks for helping us in Afghanistan
//you were smart to stay out of Iraq, depending in where in Europe you are
///Trans-Atlantic fistbump

Ireland. So neutral but sort of involved in that we gave you use of our Shannon airport base to refuel. And have had to ask ourselves some awkward questions about who were on some of those flights and why you were flying away from Iraq towards countries where torturing prisoners is legal.

Other than that, we didn't really help you in either conflict (Sorry!) Not as a country anyway. Those that wanted to get involved more directly joined the Irish regiments in the British army. Despite the somewhat acrimonious history between ourselves and the UK, that's still a fairly common thing for young people here to do.
 
2012-09-05 07:48:43 PM

Porous Horace: What I gathered from that article is that Israel wants the US to at least make a firm statement about Iran.

But it's nice to see all the Jew hate, reminds me of why Israel is necessary.


Oh noes, a free people dare to criticize right-wing manipulation into another unnecessary middle eastern war, ANTI SEMITES. People disapproving of Israels deceitful policies on Iran, unless.for the first time in 30 years they're not lying about Iran's nuclear capabilities, is worse than hitler's ovens! Every time you farking cowards use that tired dog whistle you diminish the true horror and suffering that true victims of anti-semitism have suffered. You should farking be ashamed to look yourself in the mirror you unmitigated pussy.
 
2012-09-05 08:09:11 PM

DesktopHippie: PunGent:
Yes, that whole "waiting for evidence" thing is pretty novel. And welcome, since there's a LOT of shifty countries out there. And, yes, the wingnuts yelled at those of us here who opposed the Iraq invasion as well.

Nothing quite like being called a traitor by people who, unlike me, have never worn the uniform, and won't ever get within 10,000 miles of a combat zone.

/thanks for helping us in Afghanistan
//you were smart to stay out of Iraq, depending in where in Europe you are
///Trans-Atlantic fistbump

Ireland. So neutral but sort of involved in that we gave you use of our Shannon airport base to refuel. And have had to ask ourselves some awkward questions about who were on some of those flights and why you were flying away from Iraq towards countries where torturing prisoners is legal.

Other than that, we didn't really help you in either conflict (Sorry!) Not as a country anyway. Those that wanted to get involved more directly joined the Irish regiments in the British army. Despite the somewhat acrimonious history between ourselves and the UK, that's still a fairly common thing for young people here to do.


Huh...just looked it up, I'd always thought Ireland was part of NATO, the web says no.
 
2012-09-05 08:14:27 PM
Well, you know, after millennia of telling yourself that you're God's chosen people I guess it becomes instinctive to assume that other nations are just there to kiss your ass all the time.
 
2012-09-05 08:21:10 PM
fark the evangelical loonies and let Israel fend for itself. They've already got more nukes and are better-armed than anyone in the region. Let God look after its "chosen".
 
2012-09-05 09:33:39 PM
Everyone keeps missing the point. Yes, US wouldn't have to help Israel to strike Iran, IF (and that's a big IF) it wouldn't push Israel by eny means possible NOT to attack Iran unilaterally while it still could. US has applied tremendous pressure that Israel would not strike, and thus all the window was lost, and now Iran has very strong air defence systems, most of its nuclear sites are too deep underground for Israel to reach with available weapons and damage it can do is not so great. If it could be done a year or two ago - it would cripple Iranian nuclear program - but not anymore. Now US has pushed Israel not to strike, promising that it won't aabndon Israel and won't allow nuclear Iran.

Just saying "OK, deal with it yourselves, we wash our hands" would simply be a betrayal and a shame. What will happen then - nobody in the world would ever believe US promises of help and protection anymore. And US are STILL pushing for Israel to hold its attack until US election. If you do that - keep your promises and heklp with the strike. If you don't want to help - you shouldn't have meddleed in Israel's affairs and kept it from striking unilaterally. It's that simple.
 
2012-09-05 09:41:02 PM

clevershark: Well, you know, after millennia of telling yourself that you're God's chosen people I guess it becomes instinctive to assume that other nations are just there to kiss your ass all the time.


Wait, when did we start talking about China?
 
2012-09-05 09:43:40 PM
For farks sake, I dont know why I'm surprised so many dumbasses dont understand there is more at play than Israel simply wanting the US to get into a war with Iran. Behind closed doors, the entire world wants the US to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons because it will cause a nuclear arms race in the entire region, a region not stable enough for nuclear weapons. Not to mention that little thing called the Nuclear Non-Proliferations Treaty that Iran signed, but that's semantics, I mean, who really takes those international treaties serious?
 
2012-09-05 09:56:56 PM

UnspokenVoice: MrBallou: Headso: Here's part of a NY Times story from 1995...

Iran is much closer to producing nuclear weapons than previously thought, and could be less than five years away from having an atomic bomb, several senior American and Israeli officials say.

"The date by which Iran will have nuclear weapons is no longer 10 years from now," a senior official said recently, referring to previous estimates.

Even if the did manage to make a bomb, it's not like they're the USSR with thousands of them and ICBMs to put them on. At most they could do 1/10 the damage done in any of the recent conventional wars around there and they have incentive not to. They know they would be hammered into the earth if they ever did. If they even want a bomb, they only want it for dick-waving purposes.

Israel is clearly the bad guy here. I'm more worried about them using their nucs (hypocrisy, anyone?) than Iran.

Your fears and your beliefs don't make it hypocrisy. It makes it speculation from an impartial observer who likely doesn't have any training to make their gesticulations and spasms worth interpreting. That is, of course, unless you've access to some data we don't have access to and/or are actually an intelligence specialist, maybe political scientist, military data analyst, or the likes?

No?

Then, no, that's not hypocrisy. That's just you wetting your pants in public again.


Wow, harsh.

I was referring to the idea that one side claims it is ok for them to have the weapon but it is not ok for the other side to have it. If hypocrisy is not the right term, I invite you to supply your own.

My pants are fine, but thanks for your interest.
 
2012-09-05 10:06:27 PM
it sounds pretty rational in here...you bunch of jew haters.

i like rational discussion pertaining to this topic.

afterall...we all poop.

: )
 
2012-09-05 10:23:39 PM

Dinki: As a concerned USA citizen that wants Israel, Iran and all the other middle eastern countries to live in peace and security, let me say this- Israel, go screw yourself. Iran having a nuclear weapon is no more a threat to you than Pakistan having one. The Iranians know that should they ever attack Israel with a nuke, the Israelis would wipe out every Iranian city. Iran may be a lot of things, but they aren't suicidal.


It's not like Iran having to send children into Iraq's minefields, just so they didn't lose a tank.

Oh, I'm sorry, you said Suicidal, not homicidal.

Nah, those filthy islamist don't care about lives.
 
2012-09-05 10:30:41 PM

DesktopHippie: Popping in to give the opinion of a random person from the European side of the Atlantic.

I like that your president seems to wait for actual evidence that a country is manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, rather than blundering into the first country that looks shifty. Especially since, when any of us over here dared to suggest the last time around that that might not be the smartest plan, we were screamed at for being "undemocratic freedom haters". We're also a hell of a lot more likely to support you in any new conflict, since your current president has done a lot of work to rebuild bridges here that weren't so much burned by the last guy as they were nuked into oblivion.

/I'm not even going to get into the whole Palestine/Israel stuff
//It's a horribly complicated, awful situation that's ten times worse than anything we went through
///And Gods knows we went through enough


Oh Sweet Babby Geebus, you're an filthy limey.

Please, tell us of your hardships. No, don't. Don't care, DIAF.

As if Britain has any standing in the world anymore, just another beggar, maybe a nicer hat in hand than most, but still a beggar.
 
2012-09-05 10:36:27 PM

Gyrfalcon: Jurodan: PonceAlyosha: Jurodan: shower_in_my_socks: Iran bombs Israel = our oil prices go up
Israel bombs Iran = our oil prices go up

Sorry, guys. It's kind of lose-lose for us. We already wasted a couple of trillion dollars of our taxpayers' money on two pre-emptive wars in your region. How about you pick up the next one with that fancy military we bought for you?

I'm sorry, two pre-emptive wars? I think we were pretty well justified when it came to Afghanistan, thank you very much.

Not really, given it was Saudi terrorists who attacked us.

The leader of their organization was hiding in Afghanistan. The training camp the terrorists went to was in Afghanistan. What should we have done? Attacked the entire middle east?

NEVERMIND ALL THAT IT WAS THE SAUDIS!!!!

Why do you keep injecting rationality into this mess?


It's the easiest way to troll the threat.
 
2012-09-05 11:30:37 PM

Gdalescrboz: For farks sake, I dont know why I'm surprised so many dumbasses dont understand there is more at play than Israel simply wanting the US to get into a war with Iran. Behind closed doors, the entire world wants the US to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons because it will cause a nuclear arms race in the entire region, a region not stable enough for nuclear weapons. Not to mention that little thing called the Nuclear Non-Proliferations Treaty that Iran signed, but that's semantics, I mean, who really takes those international treaties serious?


Sorry, everyone's too busy hating Jews to care.

/criticism of Israel doesn't make them anti-semitic
//criticism of Israel based on blood libels and outright lies is what makes them anti-semitic
 
2012-09-05 11:50:34 PM

Tatterdemalian: Gdalescrboz: For farks sake, I dont know why I'm surprised so many dumbasses dont understand there is more at play than Israel simply wanting the US to get into a war with Iran. Behind closed doors, the entire world wants the US to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons because it will cause a nuclear arms race in the entire region, a region not stable enough for nuclear weapons. Not to mention that little thing called the Nuclear Non-Proliferations Treaty that Iran signed, but that's semantics, I mean, who really takes those international treaties serious?

Sorry, everyone's too busy hating Jews to care.

/criticism of Israel doesn't make them anti-semitic
//criticism of Israel based on blood libels and outright lies is what makes them anti-semitic


The most notorious guys around here, and I think everyone knows who I'm talking about, always begin with making a somewhat plausible case, and then tip their hand almost immediately by using quote mining of Zionists, and then move right on to "well if the Jews weren't such douchebags then why was everybody always trying to kick their asses?" Bonus points go to minimizing the Holocaust and then saying either the Jews brought it on themselves and/or it was part of their nefarious plan to snatch Palestine.

I don't see them in this thread, though.
 
2012-09-06 12:44:43 AM
and behind it all...is ufo secrecy.

it's all bullshiat.
 
2012-09-06 12:56:38 AM
Israel - shmizrael.
 
2012-09-06 03:49:22 AM
You know, Bush repeatedly "took a tough public position" on Iran, but that's all he seemed to do, talk tough. Eventually all his macho bluster with no concrete way to back it up just made us look weak and ineffective.

Obama on the other had doesn't seem to feel the need to pop off and try to look tough. Instead, he's quietly working against their nuclear program in subtle, yet effective ways, like having sophisticated computer viruses created to attack their centrifuges, and whacking their nuclear scientists.

You actually can wage war without resorting to battle tanks and countless billions spent. It's a shame Bush never understood this.
 
2012-09-06 06:16:30 AM

Dr Dreidel: PsiChick: Israel is full of real, living people. They don't deserve to be someone's sacrificial lamb masturbatory apocalyptic fantasy. No one does.

I wonder sometimes what would happen if we got rid of anyone who seriously thought Israel was integral to the end times (well, anyone who believed "the end times" was a real thing should be disqualified, but let's not get crazy).

Would AIPAC be so powerful a lobby if 3/4 of Congress didn't feel religiously compelled to genuflect to Israel? Would foreign aid to Israel be anything other than a footnote in the budget? Would there be a peace treaty absent too many damn cooks with their own homemade recipes?


You know, even if you take this line of religious reasoning seriously, what exactly do they think is going to happen if the "holy land" isn't held by Jews and Christians when Judgement rolls around?

Apocalypse canceled on account of Muhammadan?

Even God's afraid of brown people now?
 
2012-09-06 06:20:56 AM

JustTheTip: You know, Bush repeatedly "took a tough public position" on Iran, but that's all he seemed to do, talk tough. Eventually all his macho bluster with no concrete way to back it up just made us look weak and ineffective.


He also missed a giant opportunity to settle matters diplomatically shortly after we took out Iran's biggest enemy in the region. Dinner Jacket wasn't in the equation yet, and there was a good chance even the "Axis of Evil speech" hatchet could have been buried at that point.

But he had to double-down on that derp.
 
Displayed 50 of 209 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report