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.

(Yahoo)   Bombs Away: Canada shut its embassy in Tehran on Friday, severed diplomatic relations and ordered Iranian diplomats to leave, accusing the Islamic Republic of being the most significant threat to world peace, eh   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 174
    More: Interesting, Islamic Republic, Tehran, Iranians, Islamic, diplomats, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, hostage crisis, Fars News Agency  
•       •       •

2185 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Sep 2012 at 12:05 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-07 11:24:40 PM  
wtf?
 
2012-09-08 12:01:17 AM  
october surprise
 
2012-09-08 12:02:57 AM  
I've been concerned lately (not in the troll way) that Israel is going to launch a major offensive in the next couple of months against Iran. Obama will have 3 choices as I see it:

1. Pull a Romney and offer material assistance to Israel, backing up their stance and activities.

2. Decline to help, but offer neither condemnation nor aid.

3. Condemn any actions against Iranian civilians and stay out of the fray.

None of those helps him in November. Netanyahu would be pleased with the first, and this is certainly the Romney course. The latter two place him on the defensive politically for nutjob evangelicals.

I don't see how it could end positive for him politically. I really, really hop Israel can keep in in their pants for a couple of months.
 
2012-09-08 12:06:51 AM  
Totally didn't expect the new government to be this pro-Israel.
 
2012-09-08 12:08:58 AM  

MacEnvy: The latter two place him on the defensive politically for nutjob evangelicals.


So, no change?
 
2012-09-08 12:09:49 AM  
They still had an Iranian Embassy? I thought the West learned their lesson on that 30 years ago. That said, this really isn't a big deal
 
2012-09-08 12:10:30 AM  
Canada to Iran:

www.tailofthesnake.com
 
2012-09-08 12:10:57 AM  

MacEnvy: I've been concerned lately (not in the troll way) that Israel is going to launch a major offensive in the next couple of months against Iran. Obama will have 3 choices as I see it:

1. Pull a Romney and offer material assistance to Israel, backing up their stance and activities.

2. Decline to help, but offer neither condemnation nor aid.

3. Condemn any actions against Iranian civilians and stay out of the fray.

None of those helps him in November. Netanyahu would be pleased with the first, and this is certainly the Romney course. The latter two place him on the defensive politically for nutjob evangelicals.

I don't see how it could end positive for him politically. I really, really hop Israel can keep in in their pants for a couple of months.


I haven't seen any polls regarding popular support for American military action in Iran. I can't believe a majority of us can stomach getting involved in another conflict? Except for the 30 percenters...
 
2012-09-08 12:12:31 AM  

MacEnvy: I've been concerned lately (not in the troll way) that Israel is going to launch a major offensive in the next couple of months against Iran. Obama will have 3 choices as I see it:

1. Pull a Romney and offer material assistance to Israel, backing up their stance and activities.

2. Decline to help, but offer neither condemnation nor aid.

3. Condemn any actions against Iranian civilians and stay out of the fray.

None of those helps him in November. Netanyahu would be pleased with the first, and this is certainly the Romney course. The latter two place him on the defensive politically for nutjob evangelicals.

I don't see how it could end positive for him politically. I really, really hop Israel can keep in in their pants for a couple of months.


or he could say. you know we've spent a lot of lives and treasure trying to bring stability to this region and this attack could undo a lot of it and endanger our people in Iraq and Afghanistan. All because Israel doesn't want Iran to have what it has.
 
2012-09-08 12:13:23 AM  

Cuthbert Allgood: I haven't seen any polls regarding popular support for American military action in Iran. I can't believe a majority of us can stomach getting involved in another conflict? Except for the 30 percenters...


Not even Israel wants to launch a preemptive strike against Iran without the US.
 
2012-09-08 12:14:22 AM  
Just how desperate is Israel to start World War Three!?
 
2012-09-08 12:15:46 AM  

MacEnvy: None of those helps him in November. Netanyahu would be pleased with the first, and this is certainly the Romney course. The latter two place him on the defensive politically for nutjob evangelicals.


Nutjob evangelicals aren't, and would never, support Obama in the first place. They'd rather see the world burn than do it. Obama needs to shore up and maintain his support with his own base, since Romney has decided to make it a battle of the bases opposed to reaching out to the middle.

That means not giving Netanyahu a great big, slobbery one. Moderates may be somewhat low-information on the subject of Israel, but on the other hand liberals aren't and see Israel as an apartheid state that most definitely should not have the material support of the United States, at the very least. Obama already has an enthusiasm gap among the left wing, since they see Obama as not having been remotely aggressive enough in seeking to push his agenda, and moreover milquetoast on the really tough partisan issues like Israel. If Obama decides to back Israel were this to happen, he can kiss his base -- and the election -- goodbye.

Of course, the moderates being who and what they are, aren't going to respond well if Obama 180s and pulls all material and geopolitical support from Israel. Door #2 is the best-available option.
 
2012-09-08 12:15:59 AM  

Fart_Machine: Cuthbert Allgood: I haven't seen any polls regarding popular support for American military action in Iran. I can't believe a majority of us can stomach getting involved in another conflict? Except for the 30 percenters...

Not even Israel wants to launch a preemptive strike against Iran without the US.


The people, no. The leaders of Israel, however, are not that rational. They believe that they can do anything, and the US will kowtow.
 
2012-09-08 12:17:30 AM  

MacEnvy: I've been concerned lately (not in the troll way) that Israel is going to launch a major offensive in the next couple of months against Iran. Obama will have 3 choices as I see it:

1. Pull a Romney and offer material assistance to Israel, backing up their stance and activities.

2. Decline to help, but offer neither condemnation nor aid.

3. Condemn any actions against Iranian civilians and stay out of the fray.

None of those helps him in November. Netanyahu would be pleased with the first, and this is certainly the Romney course. The latter two place him on the defensive politically for nutjob evangelicals.

I don't see how it could end positive for him politically. I really, really hop Israel can keep in in their pants for a couple of months.


UN will step in as Peace Keepers, and the US will support that mission.
 
2012-09-08 12:18:30 AM  

Hobodeluxe: MacEnvy: I've been concerned lately (not in the troll way) that Israel is going to launch a major offensive in the next couple of months against Iran. Obama will have 3 choices as I see it:

1. Pull a Romney and offer material assistance to Israel, backing up their stance and activities.

2. Decline to help, but offer neither condemnation nor aid.

3. Condemn any actions against Iranian civilians and stay out of the fray.

None of those helps him in November. Netanyahu would be pleased with the first, and this is certainly the Romney course. The latter two place him on the defensive politically for nutjob evangelicals.

I don't see how it could end positive for him politically. I really, really hop Israel can keep in in their pants for a couple of months.

or he could say. you know we've spent a lot of lives and treasure trying to bring stability to this region and this attack could undo a lot of it and endanger our people in Iraq and Afghanistan. All because Israel doesn't want Iran to have what it has.


Making things even more mind-boggling is the fact that the thing which Iran has that Israel does not want them to have is 70-year-old technology.

Seriously, Iran has access to tech older than the AK47, touch-tone phones and color televisions, and Israel is butthurt over it.
 
2012-09-08 12:21:03 AM  

MacEnvy: I've been concerned lately (not in the troll way) that Israel is going to launch a major offensive in the next couple of months against Iran. Obama will have 3 choices as I see it:

1. Pull a Romney and offer material assistance to Israel, backing up their stance and activities.

2. Decline to help, but offer neither condemnation nor aid.

3. Condemn any actions against Iranian civilians and stay out of the fray.

None of those helps him in November. Netanyahu would be pleased with the first, and this is certainly the Romney course. The latter two place him on the defensive politically for nutjob evangelicals.

I don't see how it could end positive for him politically. I really, really hop Israel can keep in in their pants for a couple of months.


there is a possible fourth option,that he somehow manages to throw a monkey wrench in Israel's plans somehow (without appearing to the world at large).
I'd have no idea HOW, but its possible.
 
2012-09-08 12:25:29 AM  

King Something: Seriously, Iran has access to tech older than the AK47, touch-tone phones and color televisions, and Israel is butthurt over it.


...not to mention Iran has, and has had for over three decades, capability to build and stockpile chemical, biological, and radiological weapons, not to mention the capability to deploy these weapons directly or through sponsored terror groups...all with the additional caveat RBC weapons are all easier, cheaper, and faster to produce and stockpile, with dramatically less chance of getting caught doing it by the international community before it's too late.

And, somehow this doesn't seem to be a problem. Nor has Iran actually attempted to use its already existing WMD capability as pro-Israel folks would say they would do at the drop of a hat.
 
2012-09-08 12:26:51 AM  

saintstryfe: They believe that they can do anything, and the US will kowtow.


Sadly I don't think they're wrong.
 
2012-09-08 12:28:04 AM  
Oh good, the Junior Republicans are getting involved. Thanks Canada.
 
2012-09-08 12:29:01 AM  
OK, cool conspiracy moment...

Maybe Stevie-boy knows an attack is coming and doesn't want to be picked as the intermediary between Iran and the US. I know the Iranian Mullahs have no reason to love us (wait, weren't there more people in the embassy a moment ago?), but I think they probably trust us to play it straight.

I'm not sayin' he knows something...

End conspiracy

Cheers.
 
2012-09-08 12:32:23 AM  
It's abooooot time!
 
2012-09-08 12:34:22 AM  
Please just say Iran. We don't want people knowing Islam breeds violence.
 
2012-09-08 12:36:21 AM  

that bosnian sniper: King Something: Seriously, Iran has access to tech older than the AK47, touch-tone phones and color televisions, and Israel is butthurt over it.

...not to mention Iran has, and has had for over three decades, capability to build and stockpile chemical, biological, and radiological weapons, not to mention the capability to deploy these weapons directly or through sponsored terror groups...all with the additional caveat RBC weapons are all easier, cheaper, and faster to produce and stockpile, with dramatically less chance of getting caught doing it by the international community before it's too late.

And, somehow this doesn't seem to be a problem. Nor has Iran actually attempted to use its already existing WMD capability as pro-Israel folks would say they would do at the drop of a hat.


What the hell is a "radiological weapon?" A dirty bomb? A nuke? Or just some fancy scary word politicians like to use when the country in question doesn't have real nukes but they want some kind of support for a war nobody wants?
 
2012-09-08 12:36:29 AM  

SilentStrider: MacEnvy: I've been concerned lately (not in the troll way) that Israel is going to launch a major offensive in the next couple of months against Iran. Obama will have 3 choices as I see it:

1. Pull a Romney and offer material assistance to Israel, backing up their stance and activities.

2. Decline to help, but offer neither condemnation nor aid.

3. Condemn any actions against Iranian civilians and stay out of the fray.

None of those helps him in November. Netanyahu would be pleased with the first, and this is certainly the Romney course. The latter two place him on the defensive politically for nutjob evangelicals.

I don't see how it could end positive for him politically. I really, really hop Israel can keep in in their pants for a couple of months.

there is a possible fourth option,that he somehow manages to throw a monkey wrench in Israel's plans somehow (without appearing to the world at large).
I'd have no idea HOW, but its possible.


Given the pragmatism (for better or for worse) of Obama, I don't anticipate any sort o "monkey wrench" scenario should Israel bomb suspected Iranian nuclear facilities. I mean honestly, from a geopolitical standpoint it's not the worst thing that could happen. But I worry about any civilian toll.
 
2012-09-08 12:40:01 AM  

Brian_of_Nazareth: OK, cool conspiracy moment...

Maybe Stevie-boy knows an attack is coming and doesn't want to be picked as the intermediary between Iran and the US. I know the Iranian Mullahs have no reason to love us (wait, weren't there more people in the embassy a moment ago?), but I think they probably trust us to play it straight.

I'm not sayin' he knows something...

End conspiracy

Cheers.


Actually, NPR news reported on this today, and it also has to do with attacks on diplomats in Iran recently.
Link
 
2012-09-08 12:40:17 AM  

Lost Thought 00: UN will step in as Peace Keepers, and the US will support that mission.


Unlikely. How are UN peacekeepers supposed to keep Israel and Iran from bombing each other? Stand in Iraq and yell really loud?


Cuthbert Allgood: King Something: Cuthbert Allgood: Also, where is ta***ma?

Shabbat. He isn't gonna post until sundown tomorrow night.

/also, please don't call out farkers by name in any thread in which they have not yet posted

Um, ok?

//not sure if serious


Serious. I've gotten the banhammer for doing just that.  Though it is a Friday, the mods may be too drunk to notice.
 
2012-09-08 12:45:39 AM  

MacEnvy: I've been concerned lately (not in the troll way) that Israel is going to launch a major offensive in the next couple of months against Iran. Obama will have 3 choices as I see it:

1. Pull a Romney and offer material assistance to Israel, backing up their stance and activities.

2. Decline to help, but offer neither condemnation nor aid.

3. Condemn any actions against Iranian civilians and stay out of the fray.

None of those helps him in November. Netanyahu would be pleased with the first, and this is certainly the Romney course. The latter two place him on the defensive politically for nutjob evangelicals.

I don't see how it could end positive for him politically. I really, really hop Israel can keep in in their pants for a couple of months.


4. Bomb the fark out of Iranian military and nuclear facilities.

That would be the politically correct thing to do in a close election, he would draw moderate support from the right, he's not going to lose the left over a well executed military exercise - recall that killing bin Laden in by invading Pakistan without capture and trial is now a good and heroic accomplishment for the left, he didn't get the left to boot out his nomination over still being in A-stan, so politically his best bet is to kick Iran in the butt and do it swiftly and effectively, install a permanent military base and reseat the government which stole the elections in the first place, or does anybody remember that any longer.

and it's materiel, if by support you mean providing things like military equipment.
 
2012-09-08 12:46:16 AM  
Goddammit Canada, you guys usually have your shiat together. Are you just bored and acting out for attention?
 
2012-09-08 12:48:07 AM  
Meh, broker a deal where Canada provides backing for Israel. Canada has a better economy. They can afford a war. It's a win/win/win. The US is seen as a strong manager of world security because we broker the deal. Canada gets respect for its fine military. Israel has back-up, but not so much backup that it can rush heedlessly into a war for shiats and giggles.
 
2012-09-08 12:48:20 AM  
The U.N. needs to write multiple strongly worded letters to Iran. That will surely fix the problem.
 
2012-09-08 12:48:36 AM  
1000words1000days.com
 
2012-09-08 12:50:26 AM  
The US is seen as a strong manager of world security...

Uh...by who?
 
2012-09-08 12:52:05 AM  
It's 1979 all over again.
 
2012-09-08 12:53:30 AM  

MacEnvy: SilentStrider: MacEnvy: I've been concerned lately (not in the troll way) that Israel is going to launch a major offensive in the next couple of months against Iran. Obama will have 3 choices as I see it:

1. Pull a Romney and offer material assistance to Israel, backing up their stance and activities.

2. Decline to help, but offer neither condemnation nor aid.

3. Condemn any actions against Iranian civilians and stay out of the fray.

None of those helps him in November. Netanyahu would be pleased with the first, and this is certainly the Romney course. The latter two place him on the defensive politically for nutjob evangelicals.

I don't see how it could end positive for him politically. I really, really hop Israel can keep in in their pants for a couple of months.

there is a possible fourth option,that he somehow manages to throw a monkey wrench in Israel's plans somehow (without appearing to the world at large).
I'd have no idea HOW, but its possible.

Given the pragmatism (for better or for worse) of Obama, I don't anticipate any sort o "monkey wrench" scenario should Israel bomb suspected Iranian nuclear facilities. I mean honestly, from a geopolitical standpoint it's not the worst thing that could happen. But I worry about any civilian toll.


I worry about Iran deciding to retaliate on some oil tankers in the Persian Gulf and turning the entire Middle East into a warzone, not to mention sending oil prices into the stratosphere.

The most cynical side of me says that this is Netanyahu's October Surprise for Obama. $6+ gas will destroy the American economy and give Bibi's friend Mitt the help he needs to get elected.
 
2012-09-08 12:54:02 AM  
Keep in mind Netanyahu and Romney are friends who go way back. (Source) Combine that with the fact its long been rumored that Netanyahu doesn't like Obama, and Romney's biggest backer is a super pro-Israel jew who is has stated he would be willing to spend up to $100 million of his own money to get Romney elected.

I hate to break out my tin foil hat, but if Israel does attack Iran before the November election, I wouldn't be surprised if the timing, at least in part, was done to make Obama look bad.

No matter how Obama responds to it, its going to give the Romney camp plenty of ammunition to make Obama look bad, and might be enough to tip enough battleground states to Romney for him to win the election.
 
2012-09-08 12:55:38 AM  
so if there is no Israeli state, therefor the apocalypse will not come, therefor we all live forever.

/Christian/Jewish Religion dictates that there must be an Israel in order for the end of the world to come and for christians to enjoy their eternal jihad against them awful brownish people.
// If Israel fires off its own nuclear missiles, I'll have to put off my vacation to Dubai.
///60 years ago, the CIA overthrew Irans legitimate government.
//Israel refuses nuclear inspectors in their State.

/Breaking news:: : :: Canada intends to launch them thar cruise missiles in 8-7-6-3-2-9-56-3-2-99999999-errorrorororororrrrrr,,, missile command system says this is not Russia, eerrerrrerererrrerporororrrorrr
 
2012-09-08 12:56:37 AM  

Gyrfalcon: What the hell is a "radiological weapon?" A dirty bomb? A nuke? Or just some fancy scary word politicians like to use when the country in question doesn't have real nukes but they want some kind of support for a war nobody wants?


Yeah, more or less. The distinction's drawn around whether the weapon's primary method of dealing damage derived from nuclear reactions, or not. Nuclear weapons do, but radiological weapons do not. Dirty bombs would be the most common radiological weapon, though there are weapon designs that use nuclear reactions to spread lots and lots of fallout, that would also qualify as radiological weapons.
 
2012-09-08 12:56:46 AM  
Back in love again.
 
2012-09-08 12:58:32 AM  

Aye Carumba: That would be the politically correct thing to do in a close election, he would draw moderate support from the right, he's not going to lose the left over a well executed military exercise...


...you missed the part of the DNC last week when the delegates damn near staged a walkout after the "Jerusalem" plank was re-added to the Democrats' platform, didn't you.
 
2012-09-08 01:03:39 AM  
Israel won't move until after the US election. They have about a 30% chance of having the Neocon Chicken Hawk Brigade back in power, led by Mitt "The Human Windsock" Romney. Monetarily and militarily it makes more since to see how much support they can get from the US before they strike.

I also find it hard to believe that Israel will act unilaterally unless they feel they've run out of options -- like if Obama wins and refuses to go in halvies with them on WWIII.
 
2012-09-08 01:04:47 AM  

doctor wu: The US is seen as a strong manager of world security...

Uh...by who?


Everyone who ships anything by air or sea?
 
2012-09-08 01:05:50 AM  
Israel has to go it alone. I'm tired of my country being it's 'big brother' when it comes to bullying by their Muslim neighbors, if Israel wants to continue to exist then it's going to have to develop the kind of statesmanship skills which allow it to partner up with its neighbors and live in peace. If a war happens the Israelis should have to fight it by themselves without our help, good luck and shalom.
 
2012-09-08 01:07:01 AM  
Pretty sure our treaty is a defensive pact only...

Naturally the Evangelicals would turn it into a big issue... but frankly fark them if they start it
 
2012-09-08 01:11:05 AM  

KellyX: Naturally the Evangelicals would turn it into a big issue... but frankly fark them if they start it

 

The Republicans will try to scare old Florida Jews into thinking that Obama hates Israel because he would rather side with his fellow muslins instead of fight with Israel
 
2012-09-08 01:18:43 AM  

MacEnvy: I've been concerned lately (not in the troll way) that Israel is going to launch a major offensive in the next couple of months against Iran.


Every assessment of their military capabilities I've seen suggests that it would be a next to impossible mission. They'd have to get permission from Jordan and Iraq to fly their planes to Iran. Then, they'd have to fly deep into Iranian territory to bomb multiple sites across the country, and their not even sure their 5,000 bunker busters are good enough to do the job. It's a huge logistical nightmare with the number of refueling planes, support planes, bombers, etc. And the chances of it ending with the Israeli planes getting shot down by some SAMs or Iranian fighters is just too risky.

If they had a good way to bomb the sites, they would have. But they really need the US to get on-board with this for it to happen.
 
2012-09-08 01:19:51 AM  

TommyDeuce: Brian_of_Nazareth: OK, cool conspiracy moment...

Maybe Stevie-boy knows an attack is coming and doesn't want to be picked as the intermediary between Iran and the US. I know the Iranian Mullahs have no reason to love us (wait, weren't there more people in the embassy a moment ago?), but I think they probably trust us to play it straight.

I'm not sayin' he knows something...

End conspiracy

Cheers.

Actually, NPR news reported on this today, and it also has to do with attacks on diplomats in Iran recently.
Link


Yep, sadly watch this space. because there is absolutely no reason for Israel to attack ( Why Iran isn't enriching a lot just now ) since there are apparently better ways. People will justify it none the less and Israel might even try it.

Cheers.
 
2012-09-08 01:21:24 AM  

King Something: Just how desperate is Israel to start World War Three!?


They aren't. They're just scared shiatless that they'll find out about Iran's first successful nuclear weapons test when Tel Aviv turns into a big glowing cloud.
 
2012-09-08 01:25:14 AM  

give me doughnuts: They aren't. They're just scared shiatless that they'll find out about Iran's first successful nuclear weapons test when Tel Aviv turns into a big glowing cloud.



BFD. We lived with that kind of fear in the US for decades. No more pre-emptive wars. If the neocons and hard-right Israelis wanted war with Iran, they shouldn't have blown their load with Iraq. Their credibility is zero, with their "the smoking gun may be a mushroom cloud" panic-inducing propaganda.
 
2012-09-08 01:25:49 AM  

that bosnian sniper: Aye Carumba: That would be the politically correct thing to do in a close election, he would draw moderate support from the right, he's not going to lose the left over a well executed military exercise...

...you missed the part of the DNC last week when the delegates damn near staged a walkout after the "Jerusalem" plank was re-added to the Democrats' platform, didn't you.


I caught the Bin Laden is dead over and over, thanks. And in the end, the delegates cast their nomination, Jerusalem or not, O is the candidate.

And candidate or not, Jerusalem will be nuked as a direct result of our inaction, so who cares who owns what street, as if the delegates really cared.

And by nuked, I mean widespread mass killings of civilians in a metropolitan city like Jerusalem with extreme disregard for humanity as opposed to nuking a nuclear nuke factory that would have produced that nuke, deep under a mountain if you could somehow penetrate all the rock, which is the kind of nuking that O should have on his options table at this stage of the hypothetical prenuclear war.
 
2012-09-08 01:26:30 AM  

fusillade762: Lost Thought 00: UN will step in as Peace Keepers, and the US will support that mission.

Unlikely. How are UN peacekeepers supposed to keep Israel and Iran from bombing each other? Stand in Iraq and yell really loud?


Cuthbert Allgood: King Something: Cuthbert Allgood: Also, where is ta***ma?

Shabbat. He isn't gonna post until sundown tomorrow night.

/also, please don't call out farkers by name in any thread in which they have not yet posted

Um, ok?

//not sure if serious

Serious. I've gotten the banhammer for doing just that.  Though it is a Friday, the mods may be too drunk to notice.


Mentioning Drew's real name will get you banned for a week.
 
Displayed 50 of 174 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