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
 
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.
 
2012-09-08 01:32:51 AM  

Aye Carumba: 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.


www.democraticunderground.com
 
2012-09-08 01:32:55 AM  

Aye Carumba: 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 as I said, Iran's had biological and chemical weapons for decades. If they really wanted Jerusalem off the map, come hell of high water, it already would be.
 
2012-09-08 01:35:09 AM  
OMG! Calling out notorious alt-trolls! Why am I still here after a decade of 200+ greenlights? Get phuked Drew!
 
2012-09-08 01:36:07 AM  

Lost Thought 00: 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.


UN Peacekeepers in Israel? That doesn't sound like fun.
 
2012-09-08 01:37:32 AM  
My Facebook is blowing up, after the guitarist from Forbidden posted an Alex Jones piece of craptasticness that The President and the Queen of England told Israel to go ahead and bomb Iran. With the claim that the head of the joint chiefs announced it.

The hilarious part is his starting off with "I don't normally 'like' Alex Jones, but this sounds credible".

Over 100 comments with no one saying "uh. how about the proof that the joint chiefs are okaying this?"

It's funny to watch "fans" just swallow shiat without question.
 
2012-09-08 01:38:53 AM  

give me doughnuts: 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.


Yes, just like North Korea dropped the bomb on South Korea. And Pakistan dropped the bomb on India.

farking fear mongering. Always a safe bet with the easily frightened.
 
2012-09-08 01:39:12 AM  
Allowing an attack on Iran would be the single quickest way to set back freedom/democracy movements there for decades. Funny how having the US as a shared enemy causes everyone in a country to come together.
 
2012-09-08 01:42:26 AM  

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


Is that the New World Order Black Helicopter Illuminati Freemason Trilateral Commission UN, or the Strongly Worded Letter Gang That Can't Shoot Straight UN?
 
2012-09-08 01:44:08 AM  

Aye Carumba: 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.


*facepalm*

You do know that Jerusalem is a holy city to the Scary Mooselimbs, don't you? They might as well nuke Mecca as Jerusalem.
 
2012-09-08 01:51:47 AM  
We lived in fear of being nuked for most of the second-half of the 20th Century. We chose to avoid WWIII. Now it's Irsael's turn to do the same.
 
2012-09-08 01:52:22 AM  

give me doughnuts: 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.


bullshiat Israel wants to go to war so bad, just not by themselves, they want daddy to come hold their hand, so that's why they're going to start it before November to force Obama to help or not get re-elected
 
2012-09-08 01:55:26 AM  
 
2012-09-08 01:58:56 AM  

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


Which changes nothing. They're not going to vote for him anyway.
 
2012-09-08 02:13:58 AM  

give me doughnuts: 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.


Big deal. I'm old enough to have had to dive under my desk twice a month in air-raid drills in school as a child. I've always lived in either state capitals, large shipping ports, or near US Air Force bases. Each and every one of them in the sites of multiple Soviet nuclear missiles. Pardon me if I don't feel any sympathy for Israel.
 
2012-09-08 02:14:19 AM  
c3.cduniverse.ws
Bombs away but we're OK!
 
2012-09-08 02:22:08 AM  

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


Wait till you see the look on their faces when they find out what's supposed to happen to them after Armageddon.
 
2012-09-08 02:24:10 AM  
i.ebayimg.com
 
2012-09-08 02:28:04 AM  
I had a thought.

We should totally troll Israel.

If they start a war with Iran, we should take Iran's side.

No, seriously, I know we have numerous treaties with them and all, but I am just tired of our nation getting played and patted down for cash by Israel. Why should we give a flying fark what happens in that shiatty ass part of the world.
 
2012-09-08 02:31:55 AM  

that bosnian sniper: Aye Carumba: 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 as I said, Iran's had biological and chemical weapons for decades. If they really wanted Jerusalem off the map, come hell of high water, it already would be.


Plenty of disincentives for them to do that for decades, retaliatory action that any US president since has at his disposal and would have used. By softening the line, the deterrent doesn't work as well.
 
2012-09-08 02:49:13 AM  
Any thoughts on if the USA did the same?
 
2012-09-08 02:49:15 AM  
Who know, here's a brilliant idea that I think really ought to be tried. Instead of breathing down Iran's neck, how about we offer to co-op a thorium nuclear plant venture, that way they get their nuclear reactor, and they can't make a nuke out of it. At the very least, if they refuse, we would actually have evidence they are up to something.
 
2012-09-08 02:51:26 AM  
I believe that if Israel attacks Iran, Obama will support them. He'll support them not because it's politically convenient to do so -- frankly, I think the people who'd normally be impressed with his support for Israel would still be voting against him due to his skin color; the smart move would be standing up to Israel -- but because he personally believes it is the right thing to do.

I find this disappointing on a number of levels.
 
2012-09-08 02:51:58 AM  

MacEnvy: Netanyahu would be pleased with the first, and this is certainly the Romney course.


Would Israel seriously do that? Could they see Romney as the more favorable candidate so they start a pre-emptive war to force Obama to play his hand, which would hurt him politically, and possibly cost him the election? .....Can Israel single-handedly decide the next President of the United States?

If so, then America is lockstep with Israel into another war. Can America afford one? ...of course not. Still haven't paid for Bush's three wars.

If the warhawks start saber-rattling, I would love it if Obama stood before Congress and said flat out: "You want to fight Iran? ....fine, effective immediately, all assets of anyone worth over $1 billion are to be seized, and the top marginal tax rate is 90%. Proscription, motherfarkers: You cannot keep fighting wars while continuing to not pay for them. In the past, we have always raised taxes to pay for wars. Our current fiscal mess stems from the naive notion that we were able to fight war without paying for it. That ends now."
 
2012-09-08 02:58:18 AM  
War with Iran could sink our economy for another decade. I think we'd be lucky if, one month after the bombs start flying, gas remained at only 5 or 6 dollars a gallon.

Iran has the strategic and military capacity (and likely the political will) to disrupt the flow of oil out of the mideast. This would grind our recovery to a standstill. And let's not forget the 1/2 a trillion dollars we likely would commit to fighting the war. Where the f*** is that money coming from? I think it is very unlikely the Iranians would respond to a Israeli/US strike on Iranian targets with the same cravenness that Saddam did. They will strike back.

Gah, would Americans really be so dumb as to support another mid east quagmire so soon after we got out of the debacle that was Iraq?
 
2012-09-08 03:22:08 AM  

sprawl15: Drew's real name


I tried to look up what you meant and ended up on the wiki article for Drew....I had no idea Drew was dang near FIFTY!
 
2012-09-08 03:27:10 AM  

LoneWolf343: Who know, here's a brilliant idea that I think really ought to be tried. Instead of breathing down Iran's neck, how about we offer to co-op a thorium nuclear plant venture, that way they get their nuclear reactor, and they can't make a nuke out of it. At the very least, if they refuse, we would actually have evidence they are up to something.


The fact that they are working their asses off to refine uranium to weapons-grade is pretty much all the evidence that's needed.

Hate on Israel all you want, but when your next-door neighbor, who continuously spews rhetoric regarding your annihilation, doubles down on their nuclear refinement capability when they already have more than enough fossil fuel to exist eternally, ya gotta wonder wtf it's all for. Sure, Israel has its own sins, but for the most part, they're confined to a few square miles that have been fought over for a few thousand years. In that particular conflict, everyone's an asshole, and always will be.

Iran, however, is doing what it's doing either A) to foment chaos and increase oil prices, or B) because they want nukes. There really is no other rational explanation.

Neither scenario is particularly friendly. No one in their right minds can try to claim that Iran is trying to be a force for good in the world.

Israel is in a tough spot. You can maybe ignore your neighbor flipping you off every morning on the way to work. Maybe you can take the high road when he starts mooning your wife. But when you see him at the local Walmart loading up on ammo while he's telling the cashier he wants you dead, it really doesn't matter anymore if he's just blustering.

I agree with you - it would be a great plan, if Iran was in fact trying to solve an internal energy crisis through nuclear tech. But they're not. They're trying to create a world oil crisis, at best, and at worst, they're jockeying for war.

In my opinion, someone needs to tell them they aren't Afghans, who possess not only the stomach for war, but the eternal hunger for it. They much more closely resemble Iraqis - when society starts falling apart, the people will not support the regime that brought them low. Iranians are fed up with the hardliners.

If there is ANY beacon of hope in regards to preventing WWIII, it's the fact that the youth of the world today have the Internet, and that there is information available to counter the spoon-fed lies that dictatorial regimes (and yes, even democracies) feed their people. One can only hope that humanity's innate hunger for destruction is outpaced by its renewed hunger for enlightenment.
 
2012-09-08 03:48:57 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.


If they did anything it would be AFTER Obama got reelected. I don't think Israel would be too find of a Romney presidency considering how stupid he looked overseas already. I think Iran just wants to have a penis showing contest and when it came down to it they wouldn't go through with anything....and I think if their citizens KNEW that they were going to get turned into a lake, they'd revolt and have their own Arab Spring.
 
2012-09-08 04:28:19 AM  

that bosnian sniper: 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.


Ah. So, a fancy word for a dirty bomb. I love military strategists.
 
2012-09-08 04:31:02 AM  
I'm 32 years old. For almost all of my lifetime, the US has either being involved in a military action or threatening to get involved in military action. One of my earliest memories was watching news coverage about the marines in Lebanon in the very early '80s. Another early memory was discussing Gaddafi with friends, never mind that we were in kindergarten or first grade at the time. Grenada, Panama, Gulf War I, Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Gulf War II, Electric Boogaloo, we've been pin balling from one part of the world to another for far too long. We've been in a perpetual state of war for so long that we don't even know what peace is anymore.
 
2012-09-08 04:40:19 AM  
I certainly don't trust any claims about danger from Iran. We've heard similar stories before.
 
2012-09-08 05:03:58 AM  
Here's a couple good recent columns by Uri Averny (check out his wiki if you are unfamiliar with him). If you want to cut through some of the derp and extremism on both sides of the Iran/Israel issue and restore your faith in humanity, I highly recommend his weekly columns. It's sad how the peaceful majority always seems to get drowned out by the extremists on both sides.

Link

Link
 
2012-09-08 05:04:57 AM  

The Dog Ate The Constitution: Please just say Iran. We don't want people knowing Islam theocracy breeds violence.


FTFY. If nothing else had changed, but Christianity had taken hold in Iran rather than Islam, nothing would change. Just look at the Christian countries in Africa, and the European Christian theocracies in the past.
 
2012-09-08 05:18:06 AM  
upload.wikimedia.org

It's always the quiet ones.
 
2012-09-08 05:23:12 AM  

cc_rider: Here's a couple good recent columns by Uri Averny (check out his wiki if you are unfamiliar with him). If you want to cut through some of the derp and extremism on both sides of the Iran/Israel issue and restore your faith in humanity, I highly recommend his weekly columns. It's sad how the peaceful majority always seems to get drowned out by the extremists on both sides.

Link

Link


Just finished the first one. Very interesting.
 
2012-09-08 05:34:11 AM  

The Dog Ate The Constitution: The U.N. needs to write multiple strongly worded letters to Iran. That will surely fix the problem.


Like the ones they sent Libya?
 
2012-09-08 05:59:03 AM  

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

Sadly I don't think they're wrong.


This is the first step to solving an addiction. First we have to admit Israel has a problem. Then, we have to let them hit rock bottom, before we can offer them help.
 
2012-09-08 06:06:34 AM  

rynthetyn: I'm 32 years old. For almost all of my lifetime, the US has either being involved in a military action or threatening to get involved in military action. One of my earliest memories was watching news coverage about the marines in Lebanon in the very early '80s. Another early memory was discussing Gaddafi with friends, never mind that we were in kindergarten or first grade at the time. Grenada, Panama, Gulf War I, Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Gulf War II, Electric Boogaloo, we've been pin balling from one part of the world to another for far too long. We've been in a perpetual state of war for so long that we don't even know what peace is anymore.


Just give war a chance, eh
 
2012-09-08 06:40:11 AM  

shower_in_my_socks: 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.


difference is that in israel, half the country lives in tel aviv area, and the surrounding air space which is friendly is much smaller. your example is akin to "when i was a kid i was irrationally afraid of swimming in the pool with a lifeguard, so that is no reason not to go deep sea diving without a boat to come back to"
 
2012-09-08 06:54:07 AM  
Canada closed their Tehran embassy?

Where are US nationals going to hide next time the Iranian "students" get crazy?
 
2012-09-08 07:07:02 AM  
Nobody has cried about jews zionists running Canada?

Too bad I wanted to mock them over the implications this has for the strategic Maple Syrup supply.



sheep snorter: /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.-You might want to read up on End of days myth from Muslims, particularly the twelvers who run Iran
// If Israel fires off its own nuclear missiles, I'll have to put off my vacation to Dubai. -Why the fark would vacationin Dubai? There are better places for russian whores and anything you can do there you can do elsewhere wihtout risk of being arrested for kissing in public.
//Israel refuses nuclear inspectors in their State. -Israel is not party to any treaty that requires them to, unlike Iran.

 
2012-09-08 07:10:47 AM  

that bosnian sniper: 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.


A battle of the bases wouldn't be fair to President Obama since members of his cabinet called the base "farking retards" with "nowhere else to go" that "should be drug tested".
 
2012-09-08 07:57:09 AM  
You guys don't see the strategy?

Canada severs ties with Iran. Other countries see one of the G8 do this and follow suit. Iran, the #4 oil producer, doesn't sell oil to these countries. Canada, the #3 producer, does. More money.

People don't want Canada's oil. Decide to switch to nuclear. Canada, the #1 producer of uranium, sells them uranium. More money.

It's all about the Bordens.
 
2012-09-08 07:58:23 AM  

give me doughnuts: 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.


Yeah, we wouldn't want The Smoking Gun to be a mushroom cloud, right?

(rolls eyes)
 
2012-09-08 08:22:40 AM  
We need to start seeing a lot more of these: 

i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-08 08:29:37 AM  

Therion: give me doughnuts: 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.

Yeah, we wouldn't want The Smoking Gun to be a mushroom cloud, right?

(rolls eyes)


On the other hand, Jerusalem getting nuked could be a good thing. What are all Jews, Muslims, and Christians going to fight over when the city is a pile of radioactive rubble? Not to mention the entire nation of Iran would be vaporized shortly afterwards. Two birds with one stone.
 
2012-09-08 08:40:41 AM  

James F. Campbell: I believe that if Israel attacks Iran, Obama will support them. He'll support them not because it's politically convenient to do so -- frankly, I think the people who'd normally be impressed with his support for Israel would still be voting against him due to his skin color; the smart move would be standing up to Israel -- but because he personally believes it is the right thing to do. I find this disappointing on a number of levels.


Really? I might be wrong, but I've never gotten that vibe from Obama. His military decisions up until now have been more defensive than offensive, reasoned, direct and successful; why would he throw such a sterling reputation away for the sake of the playground bully who runs to his daddy the first time the other kids fight back?

/I don't like Israel, but I don't like Iran or Palestine either.
//They all need to grow the fark up.
 
2012-09-08 08:55:14 AM  
The Canadian government is more pro-Israel than the Israeli government.

We are governed by an evangelical whack-job here and look to be under his rule for another 5-10 years, given the weak opposition.

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-09-08 09:15:32 AM  
And thus the silly lie that Canadians are such nice, polite people died.
 
2012-09-08 09:32:38 AM  
I wonder what it'd be like to be alive when the U.S. isn't involved in a war, I'm 29 and I've yet to see it.
 
2012-09-08 09:50:22 AM  

shower_in_my_socks: 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.


Except that the war in Iraq was really just an attempt to surround Iran with US vassal states. Iran has been the target all along.
 
2012-09-08 10:07:26 AM  

Zeno-25: What are all Jews, Muslims, and Christians going to fight over when the city is a pile of radioactive rubble?


They'll find something.

In the meantime, I'd rather go with a less-severe option - the "We Are Sick Of Your Shiat, So Grow The Fark Up And Play Nice Or We Kill You All And Take Your Stuff" Doctrine.

It works like this:

All sides concerned have until 9/11 of my first term as President for Life to lay down their weapons and figure out a way to co-exist in peace.

In the meantime, any imam, grand mufti, jihadi-wannabe, priest, bishop, cardinal, rabbi, rebbe or whatever who so much as farts in our general direction in protest can consider themselves targeted for assassination and their houses of worship seized and converted into bars, gay bars, outrageously flaming gay bars with ladyboys dressed as Abraham, Jesus and Mohammed dancing in cages, strip joints, bordellos, sex-toy emporiums, or shrines devoted to bacon and pork products in general.
 
2012-09-08 10:14:18 AM  

Alphax: UN Peacekeepers in Israel? That doesn't sound like fun.


The UN has a history of letting people who REALLY want to fight, fight. When Egypt wanted to re-militarize the Sinai in May of '67, the UN simply pulled out, despite the '56 peace terms required consultation with Israel and, iirc, a vote in the UN. I'm not confident that they would be an effective barrier.
 
2012-09-08 10:16:28 AM  

sprawl15: Mentioning Drew's real name will get you banned for a week.


Well, Abd al Rahman bin Louisvilleabad (aka "Drew") can sit on it and spin, IMO.
 
2012-09-08 10:16:43 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. 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.


Does anyone else think the only way Obama can smooth his way out of this is to preemptively and publicly observe that Netanyahu and Romney are IRL buddies and to find any major offensives launched by Israel between now and then to be rather suspect in motivation? Well, maybe have someone acting as Obama's proxy actually say it?
 
2012-09-08 10:16:44 AM  

mediablitz: My Facebook is blowing up, after the guitarist from Forbidden posted an Alex Jones piece of craptasticness that The President and the Queen of England told Israel to go ahead and bomb Iran. With the claim that the head of the joint chiefs announced it.

The hilarious part is his starting off with "I don't normally 'like' Alex Jones, but this sounds credible".

Over 100 comments with no one saying "uh. how about the proof that the joint chiefs are okaying this?"

It's funny to watch "fans" just swallow shiat without question.


Alex Jones will say some version of this every few months, perhaps with different actors ("The Bilderbergs have given Israel the green light...") because there's a good chance that, should Israel (or the US) strike, he'll have just said it recently, and being right once will wipe out being wrong for a decade. It's the Ron Paul strategy. And their supporters eat it up.
 
2012-09-08 10:18:13 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.


You must have missed the most recent American re-write of that bit of History. It turns out it was the CIA that got the hostages out. The Canadians were meerly stooges on the sidelines, doing what the big bad CIA guys told them to.

America realy has become rather pathetic of late.
 
2012-09-08 10:18:45 AM  

mediablitz: give me doughnuts: 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.

Yes, just like North Korea dropped the bomb on South Korea. And Pakistan dropped the bomb on India.

farking fear mongering. Always a safe bet with the easily frightened.


One can construct a rationale for Iran to nuke Israel that doesn't make sense for NK, although some sense for a possible future Pakistan, because Pakistan isn't run by the extremists yet.
 
2012-09-08 10:22:38 AM  

falcon176: give me doughnuts: 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.

bullshiat Israel wants to go to war so bad, just not by themselves, they want daddy to come hold their hand, so that's why they're going to start it before November to force Obama to help or not get re-elected


It's more complicated than that. Israel kind of needs our help to do it to begin with. Mostly our diplomatic help. Because they're not going to violate Iranian or Iraqi or Turkish airspace to do it. It's not that they would be afraid of being shot down by those guys, but because the diplomatic fall-out is the thing that prevents them from doing it already.

So they can't just do it and hope Obama helps militarily, because then it's too late, they've lost the diplomatic battle.
 
2012-09-08 10:24:29 AM  

Gyrfalcon: 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?


Radiological weapons spread radioactive material around a populated area (thus rendering it uninhabitable and causing a farkload of medical issues for those who happen to be in the affected area) without triggering the nuclear chain reaction associated with atomic or modern nuclear weapons. It is an actual technology that thankfully hasn't been used much.

Dirty bombs are designed to induce a nuclear chain reaction and still leave quite the elevated radioactive fallout in the area it is used, straddling the line between "respectable" nuclear weapons (designed solely to create a bigass explosion but minimize the fallout people experienced at Nagasaki and Hiroshima) and straight up radiological devices.
 
2012-09-08 10:25:26 AM  
No one is going to launch anything. The cost of an invasion and war with Iran would easily be 10x what we spent on Iraq. It is all posturing.
 
2012-09-08 10:26:44 AM  
I should not that basically anyone with access to nuclear material and explosives, even without benefit of any real understanding of nuclear chain reactions, can create a radiological device. It does take some skill to construct even a "dirty bomb".
 
2012-09-08 10:27:19 AM  

Gyrfalcon: that bosnian sniper: 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.

Ah. So, a fancy word for a dirty bomb. I love military strategists.


In the part of the defense community of which I was a member, "dirty bomb" meant a weapon that didn't have a nuclear reaction but was intended to spread highly radioactive shiat around.

It's a more complex clean-up scenario, but really not any more damaging than the bomb to begin with. The threat is almost entirely psychological.
 
2012-09-08 10:31:26 AM  

rynthetyn: I'm 32 years old. For almost all of my lifetime, the US has either being involved in a military action or threatening to get involved in military action. One of my earliest memories was watching news coverage about the marines in Lebanon in the very early '80s. Another early memory was discussing Gaddafi with friends, never mind that we were in kindergarten or first grade at the time. Grenada, Panama, Gulf War I, Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Gulf War II, Electric Boogaloo, we've been pin balling from one part of the world to another for far too long. We've been in a perpetual state of war for so long that we don't even know what peace is anymore.


Don't make the mistake of thinking there's a binary state. There's peace, there's war with no civilian engagement, and then there's REAL war, where civilians feel the results. What we have now has been referred to "peace" by most historians for the Pax Brittanica and Pax Romana and so on.
 
2012-09-08 10:32:43 AM  

Aye Carumba: 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.


Don't forget that Israel also is a democracy and that those who supported Netanyahu and his party essentially would be choosing this fate, or should have realized this on their own Election Day.
 
2012-09-08 10:33:09 AM  

Girion47: I wonder what it'd be like to be alive when the U.S. isn't involved in a war, I'm 29 and I've yet to see it.

 
2012-09-08 10:36:21 AM  

Girion47: I wonder what it'd be like to be alive when the U.S. isn't involved in a war, I'm 29 and I've yet to see it.


It would depend upon your own meaning of "involved in a war" but by my meaning you have not been paying attention.
 
2012-09-08 10:36:26 AM  

Gulper Eel: Zeno-25: What are all Jews, Muslims, and Christians going to fight over when the city is a pile of radioactive rubble?

They'll find something.

In the meantime, I'd rather go with a less-severe option - the "We Are Sick Of Your Shiat, So Grow The Fark Up And Play Nice Or We Kill You All And Take Your Stuff" Doctrine.

It works like this:

All sides concerned have until 9/11 of my first term as President for Life to lay down their weapons and figure out a way to co-exist in peace.

In the meantime, any imam, grand mufti, jihadi-wannabe, priest, bishop, cardinal, rabbi, rebbe or whatever who so much as farts in our general direction in protest can consider themselves targeted for assassination and their houses of worship seized and converted into bars, gay bars, outrageously flaming gay bars with ladyboys dressed as Abraham, Jesus and Mohammed dancing in cages, strip joints, bordellos, sex-toy emporiums, or shrines devoted to bacon and pork products in general.


I have a friend who said that we should make it clear that if anyone does anything like 9/11 again, we will invade Mecca, take it apart brick by brick, transport it to Las Vegas, and reassemble it as a brothel/casino.
 
2012-09-08 10:39:12 AM  

chuckufarlie: Girion47: I wonder what it'd be like to be alive when the U.S. isn't involved in a war, I'm 29 and I've yet to see it.

It would depend upon your own meaning of "involved in a war" but by my meaning you have not been paying attention.


Pragmatistic bazinga!
 
2012-09-08 10:41:17 AM  

chuckufarlie: Girion47: I wonder what it'd be like to be alive when the U.S. isn't involved in a war, I'm 29 and I've yet to see it.


Well, I'm almost 39, and let me tell you youngsters - gather 'round now - back in the day we used to read in Orwell's 1984 about Oceania continuously alternating between fighting Eastasia and Eurasia, and think it was completely implausible. Today, you can drop in any of the "*stans", Iraq or Iran into the story, and it seems bizarrely prescient.

At least we're allied with Turkey, and we always will be.
 
2012-09-08 10:41:26 AM  

Ricardo Klement: Gulper Eel: Zeno-25: What are all Jews, Muslims, and Christians going to fight over when the city is a pile of radioactive rubble?

They'll find something.

In the meantime, I'd rather go with a less-severe option - the "We Are Sick Of Your Shiat, So Grow The Fark Up And Play Nice Or We Kill You All And Take Your Stuff" Doctrine.

It works like this:

All sides concerned have until 9/11 of my first term as President for Life to lay down their weapons and figure out a way to co-exist in peace.

In the meantime, any imam, grand mufti, jihadi-wannabe, priest, bishop, cardinal, rabbi, rebbe or whatever who so much as farts in our general direction in protest can consider themselves targeted for assassination and their houses of worship seized and converted into bars, gay bars, outrageously flaming gay bars with ladyboys dressed as Abraham, Jesus and Mohammed dancing in cages, strip joints, bordellos, sex-toy emporiums, or shrines devoted to bacon and pork products in general.

I have a friend who said that we should make it clear that if anyone does anything like 9/11 again, we will invade Mecca, take it apart brick by brick, transport it to Las Vegas, and reassemble it as a brothel/casino.


Your friend should stop smoking Meth.
 
2012-09-08 10:44:52 AM  

wippit: You guys don't see the strategy?

Canada severs ties with Iran. Other countries see one of the G8 do this and follow suit. Iran, the #4 oil producer, doesn't sell oil to these countries. Canada, the #3 producer, does. More money.

People don't want Canada's oil. Decide to switch to nuclear. Canada, the #1 producer of uranium, sells them uranium. More money.

It's all about the Bordens.


Added bonus, those new Bordens are made of oil-based plastic


We Canuckistanis are a crafty lot
 
2012-09-08 10:51:45 AM  

Crotchrocket Slim: Ricardo Klement: Gulper Eel: Zeno-25: What are all Jews, Muslims, and Christians going to fight over when the city is a pile of radioactive rubble?

They'll find something.

In the meantime, I'd rather go with a less-severe option - the "We Are Sick Of Your Shiat, So Grow The Fark Up And Play Nice Or We Kill You All And Take Your Stuff" Doctrine.

It works like this:

All sides concerned have until 9/11 of my first term as President for Life to lay down their weapons and figure out a way to co-exist in peace.

In the meantime, any imam, grand mufti, jihadi-wannabe, priest, bishop, cardinal, rabbi, rebbe or whatever who so much as farts in our general direction in protest can consider themselves targeted for assassination and their houses of worship seized and converted into bars, gay bars, outrageously flaming gay bars with ladyboys dressed as Abraham, Jesus and Mohammed dancing in cages, strip joints, bordellos, sex-toy emporiums, or shrines devoted to bacon and pork products in general.

I have a friend who said that we should make it clear that if anyone does anything like 9/11 again, we will invade Mecca, take it apart brick by brick, transport it to Las Vegas, and reassemble it as a brothel/casino.

Your friend should stop smoking Meth.


Why? Because it sure sounds doable.
 
2012-09-08 10:52:15 AM  

Aye Carumba: Plenty of disincentives for them to do that for decades, retaliatory action that any US president since has at his disposal and would have used. By softening the line, the deterrent doesn't work as well.


...but I thought Iran was a rogue state ran by zealots, for which no amount of sanctions, embargoes, and determent would work if Iran got access to WMD's!
 
2012-09-08 10:54:34 AM  

that bosnian sniper: ...but I thought Iran was a rogue state ran by zealots, for which no amount of sanctions, embargoes, and determent would work if Iran got access to WMD's!


...deterrence. Derp. Me needs coffee.
 
2012-09-08 10:55:38 AM  

Fuggin Bizzy: chuckufarlie: Girion47: I wonder what it'd be like to be alive when the U.S. isn't involved in a war, I'm 29 and I've yet to see it.

Well, I'm almost 39, and let me tell you youngsters - gather 'round now - back in the day we used to read in Orwell's 1984 about Oceania continuously alternating between fighting Eastasia and Eurasia, and think it was completely implausible. Today, you can drop in any of the "*stans", Iraq or Iran into the story, and it seems bizarrely prescient.

At least we're allied with Turkey, and we always will be.


sorry, young man, but your comparison of Orwell's book and fighting the "stans" is completely wrong. Orwell was talking of massive world wars, not a war against a "stan" or two. Eastasia was basically one half of the world and Eurasia was the other half.
 
2012-09-08 10:55:55 AM  

Ricardo Klement: Crotchrocket Slim: Ricardo Klement: ...

I have a friend who said that we should make it clear that if anyone does anything like 9/11 again, we will invade Mecca, take it apart brick by brick, transport it to Las Vegas, and reassemble it as a brothel/casino.

Your friend should stop smoking Meth.

Why? Because it sure sounds doable.


That's why.
 
2012-09-08 10:57:37 AM  
As a Canuck, this worries me. The timing is strange, and it's Israel that's beating the war drums, not Iran.

This smells fishy.
 
2012-09-08 10:59:53 AM  

chuckufarlie: sorry, young man, but your comparison of Orwell's book and fighting the "stans" is completely wrong. Orwell was talking of massive world wars, not a war against a "stan" or two. Eastasia was basically one half of the world and Eurasia was the other half.


No, we just fight concepts like "Cawmewnersms" and "Turr", with Interchangeable Rogue State (i.e. a "-stan") playing the role of Emmanuel Goldstein.
 
2012-09-08 11:04:55 AM  

chuckufarlie: Eastasia was basically one half of the world and Eurasia was the other half.


Sorry, you're completely wrong. If Eastasia was one half of the world, and Eurasia was the other half, what the hell was Oceania? What the hell was Oceania, Bart?

This really wasn't supposed to be in-depth analysis of classic literature. It's FARK on a Saturday morning. I was sort of making a joke (you know, referring to a 29-year-old as a youngster when I'm only ten years older), and casually pointing out some parallels I see between current events and 1984. I disagree I'm "completely wrong" - war was a constant underlying theme of that book, and the U.S. finds itself today in a "war forevermore" mindset. The war drums never stop anymore.

But...I've already written too much on the topic, for FARK on a Saturday morning.
 
2012-09-08 11:09:35 AM  

Fuggin Bizzy: Ricardo Klement: Crotchrocket Slim: Ricardo Klement: ...

I have a friend who said that we should make it clear that if anyone does anything like 9/11 again, we will invade Mecca, take it apart brick by brick, transport it to Las Vegas, and reassemble it as a brothel/casino.

Your friend should stop smoking Meth.

Why? Because it sure sounds doable.

That's why.


So the threat has the virtue of credibility. That's the best kind of threat.
 
2012-09-08 11:10:26 AM  

falcon176: give me doughnuts: 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.

bullshiat Israel wants to go to war so bad, just not by themselves, they want daddy to come hold their hand, so that's why they're going to start it before November to force Obama to help or not get re-elected


Nobody in Israel wants war.

Best case, they force Iran to delay nuclear weapons, but they woudl also cement the fanatical leaderhip for the netx fifty or so years, never mind uniting Shia and Sunni's against them even more strongly.

How does that help them in the long run?
 
2012-09-08 11:12:06 AM  

starsrift: As a Canuck, this worries me. The timing is strange, and it's Israel that's beating the war drums, not Iran.

This smells fishy.


When has Isreal not been beating the war drums?
 
2012-09-08 11:20:43 AM  

Fuggin Bizzy: chuckufarlie: Eastasia was basically one half of the world and Eurasia was the other half.

Sorry, you're completely wrong. If Eastasia was one half of the world, and Eurasia was the other half, what the hell was Oceania? What the hell was Oceania, Bart?

This really wasn't supposed to be in-depth analysis of classic literature. It's FARK on a Saturday morning. I was sort of making a joke (you know, referring to a 29-year-old as a youngster when I'm only ten years older), and casually pointing out some parallels I see between current events and 1984. I disagree I'm "completely wrong" - war was a constant underlying theme of that book, and the U.S. finds itself today in a "war forevermore" mindset. The war drums never stop anymore.

But...I've already written too much on the topic, for FARK on a Saturday morning.


What part of the word "basically" do you not understand? At any rate, the war in the book was on a much larger scale than what is going on now.
 
2012-09-08 11:20:46 AM  

Ricardo Klement: So the threat has the virtue of credibility.


No. This is me mocking you.
 
2012-09-08 11:24:41 AM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: starsrift: As a Canuck, this worries me. The timing is strange, and it's Israel that's beating the war drums, not Iran.

This smells fishy.

When has Isreal not been beating the war drums?


That wasn't exactly my point, which was: Harper's pointing the finger at Iran, when it's Israel that's the cause for concern.
 
2012-09-08 11:25:00 AM  

that bosnian sniper: chuckufarlie: sorry, young man, but your comparison of Orwell's book and fighting the "stans" is completely wrong. Orwell was talking of massive world wars, not a war against a "stan" or two. Eastasia was basically one half of the world and Eurasia was the other half.

No, we just fight concepts like "Cawmewnersms" and "Turr", with Interchangeable Rogue State (i.e. a "-stan") playing the role of Emmanuel Goldstein.


Just because some right wing politician screams for wars all over the place does not mean that we are going to war all over the place. There have always been people screaming for wars against countries that they perceive as a threat, it has rarely resulted in a war.
 
2012-09-08 11:26:05 AM  

Ricardo Klement: Crotchrocket Slim: Ricardo Klement: Gulper Eel: Zeno-25: What are all Jews, Muslims, and Christians going to fight over when the city is a pile of radioactive rubble?

They'll find something.

In the meantime, I'd rather go with a less-severe option - the "We Are Sick Of Your Shiat, So Grow The Fark Up And Play Nice Or We Kill You All And Take Your Stuff" Doctrine.

It works like this:

All sides concerned have until 9/11 of my first term as President for Life to lay down their weapons and figure out a way to co-exist in peace.

In the meantime, any imam, grand mufti, jihadi-wannabe, priest, bishop, cardinal, rabbi, rebbe or whatever who so much as farts in our general direction in protest can consider themselves targeted for assassination and their houses of worship seized and converted into bars, gay bars, outrageously flaming gay bars with ladyboys dressed as Abraham, Jesus and Mohammed dancing in cages, strip joints, bordellos, sex-toy emporiums, or shrines devoted to bacon and pork products in general.

I have a friend who said that we should make it clear that if anyone does anything like 9/11 again, we will invade Mecca, take it apart brick by brick, transport it to Las Vegas, and reassemble it as a brothel/casino.

Your friend should stop smoking Meth.

Why? Because it sure sounds doable.


Only if you're a methhead. It's a farking retarded idea, one that would cause more problems than resolve. Even suggesting this is tantamount to declaring war on Islam.
 
2012-09-08 11:26:34 AM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: starsrift: As a Canuck, this worries me. The timing is strange, and it's Israel that's beating the war drums, not Iran.

This smells fishy.

When has Isreal not been beating the war drums?


The government of Israel (notice the spelling) has not always been beating the war drums. And talking about war (or beating the drums) is not the same as actual war.
 
2012-09-08 11:27:07 AM  

liam76: Nobody in Israel wants war.


Netanyahu and the Likud government's been banging the war drums and rattling its sabres against Iran since it took the Knesset. This was part of its platform in 2009. Its coalition includes Shas and Yisrael Beiteinu, which are also both right-wing parties that are extremely hawkish, particularly against Iran.

These people were voted for in a free and fair election.

Don't give me that "nobody in Israel wants war" crap, because if nobody in Israel wanted war we'd have seen a Kadima/Labor coalition, instead of Likud/Shas/YB.
 
2012-09-08 11:28:28 AM  

Crotchrocket Slim: Ricardo Klement: Crotchrocket Slim: Ricardo Klement: Gulper Eel: Zeno-25: What are all Jews, Muslims, and Christians going to fight over when the city is a pile of radioactive rubble?

They'll find something.

In the meantime, I'd rather go with a less-severe option - the "We Are Sick Of Your Shiat, So Grow The Fark Up And Play Nice Or We Kill You All And Take Your Stuff" Doctrine.

It works like this:

All sides concerned have until 9/11 of my first term as President for Life to lay down their weapons and figure out a way to co-exist in peace.

In the meantime, any imam, grand mufti, jihadi-wannabe, priest, bishop, cardinal, rabbi, rebbe or whatever who so much as farts in our general direction in protest can consider themselves targeted for assassination and their houses of worship seized and converted into bars, gay bars, outrageously flaming gay bars with ladyboys dressed as Abraham, Jesus and Mohammed dancing in cages, strip joints, bordellos, sex-toy emporiums, or shrines devoted to bacon and pork products in general.

I have a friend who said that we should make it clear that if anyone does anything like 9/11 again, we will invade Mecca, take it apart brick by brick, transport it to Las Vegas, and reassemble it as a brothel/casino.

Your friend should stop smoking Meth.

Why? Because it sure sounds doable.

Only if you're a methhead. It's a farking retarded idea, one that would cause more problems than resolve. Even suggesting this is tantamount to declaring war on Islam.


no, it is not tantamount to declaring war on Islam. It was a statement by ONE person on a website. It was not the statement of an official government official.
 
2012-09-08 11:31:12 AM  

chuckufarlie: Crotchrocket Slim: Ricardo Klement: Crotchrocket Slim: Ricardo Klement: Gulper Eel: Zeno-25: What are all Jews, Muslims, and Christians going to fight over when the city is a pile of radioactive rubble?

They'll find something.

In the meantime, I'd rather go with a less-severe option - the "We Are Sick Of Your Shiat, So Grow The Fark Up And Play Nice Or We Kill You All And Take Your Stuff" Doctrine.

It works like this:

All sides concerned have until 9/11 of my first term as President for Life to lay down their weapons and figure out a way to co-exist in peace.

In the meantime, any imam, grand mufti, jihadi-wannabe, priest, bishop, cardinal, rabbi, rebbe or whatever who so much as farts in our general direction in protest can consider themselves targeted for assassination and their houses of worship seized and converted into bars, gay bars, outrageously flaming gay bars with ladyboys dressed as Abraham, Jesus and Mohammed dancing in cages, strip joints, bordellos, sex-toy emporiums, or shrines devoted to bacon and pork products in general.

I have a friend who said that we should make it clear that if anyone does anything like 9/11 again, we will invade Mecca, take it apart brick by brick, transport it to Las Vegas, and reassemble it as a brothel/casino.

Your friend should stop smoking Meth.

Why? Because it sure sounds doable.

Only if you're a methhead. It's a farking retarded idea, one that would cause more problems than resolve. Even suggesting this is tantamount to declaring war on Islam.

no, it is not tantamount to declaring war on Islam. It was a statement by ONE person on a website. It was not the statement of an official government official.


Ricardo Klement is suggesting that the US etc. levy this threat; if this became the official stance of anyone that would most definitely stir up a bee's nest of unpleasantness that is utterly unnecessary. Otherwise the threat has no teeth and is just the ramblings of the uninformed on Fark on a Saturday morning (in which case all the more reason to flame him and his idiotic friend).
 
2012-09-08 11:33:07 AM  
Okay if Ricardo Klement was bringing up his friend's idea as one that is utterly retarded I withdraw my flames
 
2012-09-08 11:34:02 AM  

Fuggin Bizzy: Ricardo Klement: So the threat has the virtue of credibility.

No. This is me mocking you.


That's mature.
 
2012-09-08 11:34:47 AM  

that bosnian sniper: Don't give me that "nobody in Israel wants war" crap, because if nobody in Israel wanted war we'd have seen a Kadima/Labor coalition, instead of Likud/Shas/YB.


Hell, for that matter now that I think of it, if nobody in Israel wanted war don't you think any one of Kadima's several no-confidence votes against Netanyahu specifically over Iran policy would have gained traction?
 
2012-09-08 11:35:12 AM  

Crotchrocket Slim: Okay if Ricardo Klement was bringing up his friend's idea as one that is utterly retarded I withdraw my flames


I was bringing it up because it was amusing. I don't think anyone seriously suggests the action or even the threat is wise.
 
2012-09-08 11:36:59 AM  

Ricardo Klement: Crotchrocket Slim: Okay if Ricardo Klement was bringing up his friend's idea as one that is utterly retarded I withdraw my flames

I was bringing it up because it was amusing. I don't think anyone seriously suggests the action or even the threat is wise.


Gotcha and my apologies. I've seen a few too many people unironically making such suggestions online, mea culpa.
 
2012-09-08 11:42:17 AM  

chuckufarlie: What part of the word "basically" do you not understand? At any rate, the war in the book was on a much larger scale than what is going on now.


Nothing's obscure on FARK, but everything's obscure to you, I guess. Why do think I called you "Bart" just now? Because I'm farking around. That's the kind of thing I do on FARK on a Saturday morning. You're taking this way too seriously.

/Remember the time he ate my goldfish, and you lied to me and said I never had any goldfish? Then why did I have the bowl Bart? Why did I have the bowl? ~Milhouse
 
2012-09-08 11:47:39 AM  

chuckufarlie: that bosnian sniper: chuckufarlie: sorry, young man, but your comparison of Orwell's book and fighting the "stans" is completely wrong. Orwell was talking of massive world wars, not a war against a "stan" or two. Eastasia was basically one half of the world and Eurasia was the other half.

No, we just fight concepts like "Cawmewnersms" and "Turr", with Interchangeable Rogue State (i.e. a "-stan") playing the role of Emmanuel Goldstein.

Just because some right wing politician screams for wars all over the place does not mean that we are going to war all over the place. There have always been people screaming for wars against countries that they perceive as a threat, it has rarely resulted in a war.


It's not like you actually SEE any war in 1984, and it's not like any of the people in the book see or hear about the war in specific detail. They just know they're in a STATE of war.

Similarly, we're always at war with terror. Or communism in the past. Or -stan.
 
2012-09-08 11:47:53 AM  

Crotchrocket Slim: Ricardo Klement: Crotchrocket Slim: Okay if Ricardo Klement was bringing up his friend's idea as one that is utterly retarded I withdraw my flames

I was bringing it up because it was amusing. I don't think anyone seriously suggests the action or even the threat is wise.

Gotcha and my apologies. I've seen a few too many people unironically making such suggestions online, mea culpa.


I blame Poe's Law.
 
2012-09-08 11:48:20 AM  

that bosnian sniper: Aye Carumba: Plenty of disincentives for them to do that for decades, retaliatory action that any US president since has at his disposal and would have used. By softening the line, the deterrent doesn't work as well.

...but I thought Iran was a rogue state ran by zealots, for which no amount of sanctions, embargoes, and determent would work if Iran got access to WMD's!


It is. The deterrent works in that Allah would be greatly upset if Iran failed to destroy Israel completely and were subsequently destroyed, no virgins for you.

Chemical agents are bad, but there is no certainty of complete annihilation. With an arsenal of nukes, that completely changes the equation, at which point a first strike is imperative regardless if it results in self-destruction.
 
2012-09-08 11:50:51 AM  
Step 1) Pull out of the Middle East completely
Step 2) Nuke the Middle East from orbit
Step 3) Wait 50 years
Step 4) Buy high quality, low priced goods from the Tehran Walmart
 
2012-09-08 11:57:34 AM  

liam76: //Israel refuses nuclear inspectors in their State. -Israel is not party to any treaty that requires them to, unlike Iran.


You still have one nation with undeclared actual nukes biatching about another countries potential nukes making them global hypocrites regardless of any political niceties or technicalities.

The only reason Israel hasn't gone to town on Iran the same way they did on Iraq's nuclear program is because Iraq had one location above ground and Iran has several all deep underground. In order to take that out they would require much heavier bombs than they currently possess and the US who does have said bombs won't give them to Israel. Even Dumbya said no when push came to shove over this issue earlier.

Pretty sure Iran's rush to build a bomb has been accelerated by what happened in Iraq and how North Korea is treated with kid gloves and bribes after their successful nuclear testing.

PM McSweatervest shutting down the Canadian Tehran embassy sends a strong message to the less-than-legitimate Iranian regime that the west is seriously considering all options.

It might not be a bluff this time. I don't think he came up with idea all by himself either.
 
2012-09-08 12:09:01 PM  

quatchi: PM McSweatervest shutting down the Canadian Tehran embassy sends a strong message to the less-than-legitimate Iranian regime that the west is seriously considering all options.

It might not be a bluff this time. I don't think he came up with idea all by himself either.


That's the part that smells fishy, to me. The timing is all wrong, there's nothing happening there that's new.
 
2012-09-08 12:36:38 PM  
The leadership in Iran wants Israel and the USA to attack. The Iranian leadership is extremely unpopular with the Iranian people and can only keep them in line with regular beatings. If/when Israel/USA bombs the mother-loving fark out of their nuclear facilities the Iranian government gets to whine about being the victim and gets more excuses to beat down on the Iranian people.

And yes, the Israeli leadership wants small terrorist attacks on the Israel for much the same reasons. If Israel had peace with their neighbors then there would be no need or desire for hawkish leadership and the dominant leaders and parties would lose power.
 
2012-09-08 12:37:33 PM  

LoneWolf343: Who know, here's a brilliant idea that I think really ought to be tried. Instead of breathing down Iran's neck, how about we offer to co-op a thorium nuclear plant venture, that way they get their nuclear reactor, and they can't make a nuke out of it. At the very least, if they refuse, we would actually have evidence they are up to something.


The only thing Iran wants is a place at the table during real negotiations in the UN and other organizations. India got a nuke, and the world stopped pissing on them, gave them aid, treated them as a potential ally and let them contribute to world economic policy. Same with Pakistan. Same for anyone who gets atomic power.

Israel wants control of the West's votes on Middle Eastern policy. That's Israel's worry: that Iran will become significant. It has nothing to do with actually using weapons. It is all about actually using diplomacy. If Iran gets a chip, they will come to the table and talk like the rest of the big nations.
 
2012-09-08 12:48:15 PM  

chuckufarlie: Fuggin Bizzy: chuckufarlie: Eastasia was basically one half of the world and Eurasia was the other half.

Sorry, you're completely wrong. If Eastasia was one half of the world, and Eurasia was the other half, what the hell was Oceania? What the hell was Oceania, Bart?

This really wasn't supposed to be in-depth analysis of classic literature. It's FARK on a Saturday morning. I was sort of making a joke (you know, referring to a 29-year-old as a youngster when I'm only ten years older), and casually pointing out some parallels I see between current events and 1984. I disagree I'm "completely wrong" - war was a constant underlying theme of that book, and the U.S. finds itself today in a "war forevermore" mindset. The war drums never stop anymore.

But...I've already written too much on the topic, for FARK on a Saturday morning.

What part of the word "basically" do you not understand? At any rate, the war in the book was on a much larger scale than what is going on now.


You want to help me out here then, cap? Because for the life of me, I can't find a definition of "basically" anywhere that says it means "give or take a third."
 
2012-09-08 12:59:28 PM  

LoneWolf343: Who know, here's a brilliant idea that I think really ought to be tried. Instead of breathing down Iran's neck, how about we offer to co-op a thorium nuclear plant venture, that way they get their nuclear reactor, and they can't make a nuke out of it. At the very least, if they refuse, we would actually have evidence they are up to something.


Take into account that the main objective of the Iranian government is not the well being of the Iranian people. Their main goal is to remain in power. The Iranian government is deeply unpopular with the Iranian people and maintain their hold on power over the Iranian people through oppression. The actions of the Iranian government are designed to provoke external actors and the reactions from these external actors are the meat and potatoes for keeping the Iranian people under boot.

/Substitute Iranian for North Korean and re-read.
 
2012-09-08 01:25:07 PM  

Mentat: Oh good, the Junior Republicans are getting involved. Thanks Canada.


SIncerest apologies from Canuckistan, we only voted for Mini Bush because the left was in complete shambles.
 
2012-09-08 01:51:21 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: James F. Campbell: I believe that if Israel attacks Iran, Obama will support them. He'll support them not because it's politically convenient to do so -- frankly, I think the people who'd normally be impressed with his support for Israel would still be voting against him due to his skin color; the smart move would be standing up to Israel -- but because he personally believes it is the right thing to do. I find this disappointing on a number of levels.

Really? I might be wrong, but I've never gotten that vibe from Obama. His military decisions up until now have been more defensive than offensive, reasoned, direct and successful; why would he throw such a sterling reputation away for the sake of the playground bully who runs to his daddy the first time the other kids fight back?

/I don't like Israel, but I don't like Iran or Palestine either.
//They all need to grow the fark up.


From what I understand, Obama was the one who directed that Israel be put back into the Democratic party platform.
 
2012-09-08 02:00:14 PM  

gadian: Goddammit Canada, you guys usually have your shiat together. Are you just bored and acting out for attention?


Our politics has caught The American Disease.
 
2012-09-08 02:21:24 PM  

that bosnian sniper: liam76: Nobody in Israel wants war.

Netanyahu and the Likud government's been banging the war drums and rattling its sabres against Iran since it took the Knesset. This was part of its platform in 2009. Its coalition includes Shas and Yisrael Beiteinu, which are also both right-wing parties that are extremely hawkish, particularly against Iran.

These people were voted for in a free and fair election.

Don't give me that "nobody in Israel wants war" crap, because if nobody in Israel wanted war we'd have seen a Kadima/Labor coalition, instead of Likud/Shas/YB.


They are not the most pro war party.

You also ignore the best case outcome.

You also ignore that they may be doing just saber rattling. They have no religious drive for a final showdown nor is a war good for them long term.
 
2012-09-08 02:23:37 PM  

Phil Moskowitz: gadian: Goddammit Canada, you guys usually have your shiat together. Are you just bored and acting out for attention?

Our politics has caught The American Disease.


Good, if we both go down, I can at least do it with your polite hotties.
 
2012-09-08 02:34:29 PM  

Aye Carumba: Chemical agents are bad, but there is no certainty of complete annihilation.


"Iran hasn't attacked yet because the WMD's it has aren't destructive enough!" Well, that's certainly a new one.

Especially, you know, considering that chemical and biological weapons are cheaper and easier to obtain, cheaper and easier to smuggle, cheaper and easier to use in a large-scale asymmetric attack, and cheaper and easier to use in a large-scale symmetric attack. Not to mention more subtle, easier to disperse over a larger area, and without damaging or destroying land, territory, infrastructure, or buildings...because, you know, blowing a giant crater in the middle of your Holy Land, that also happens to sit on the minority of arable land and potable water in the entire region, when you otherwise have the option to not do that sounds like a pretty decent idea.

Especially for the fact Invisible Islam would have Chair Allah vewwy, vewwy angry if Iran didn't use anything and absolutely, positively everything in its power to eradicate Israel but, you know, preserve the farking holy ground on which the state of Israel sits just like a biological or chemical attack would accomplish, as soon and as vehemently as possible.
 
2012-09-08 02:42:15 PM  
Aw, does that mean that Iran will stop sending us textbooks?
 
2012-09-08 03:22:19 PM  
USA, Jr!
 
2012-09-08 03:29:59 PM  

Aye Carumba: Plenty of disincentives for them to do that for decades, retaliatory action that any US president since has at his disposal and would have used. By softening the line, the deterrent doesn't work as well.


Are you suggesting the line has been "softened"?
 
2012-09-08 05:04:50 PM  
Hell, everyone pull out of the Middle East and let them deal with their own problems. If they can't solve their little spats after 2,000 years, nothing anyone else can do will change anything.
 
2012-09-08 05:59:21 PM  
Canada severs diplomatic ties with Iran = minor blip on the radar.

Stephan Harper goes to Iran and pulls Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's underwear over his head in an atomic wedgie = NOW I'm paying attention!

Maybe someone told Canada that they were going to pull some shiat on Iran and Canada decided just to play it safe. After all, Canada hasn't had the BEST relationship with that armpit of a nation. I bet Iran still remember the CIA was using the Canadian embassy to smuggle American diplomats out of Iran. Link

And we still remember Zahra Kazemi.
 
2012-09-08 06:58:31 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Aye Carumba: Chemical agents are bad, but there is no certainty of complete annihilation.

"Iran hasn't attacked yet because the WMD's it has aren't destructive enough!" Well, that's certainly a new one.


Not a new concept, it's called not bringing a knife to a gun fight. You want to take away the gun, so they have to fight vs. calling it another day. You want to give a gun to the knifer so they have to fight, vs. calling it another day.


Especially, you know, considering that chemical and biological weapons are cheaper and easier to obtain, cheaper and easier to smuggle, cheaper and easier to use in a large-scale asymmetric attack, and cheaper and easier to use in a large-scale symmetric attack. Not to mention more subtle, easier to disperse over a larger area, and without damaging or destroying land, territory, infrastructure, or buildings...because, you know, blowing a giant crater in the middle of your Holy Land, that also happens to sit on the minority of arable land and potable water in the entire region, when you otherwise have the option to not do that sounds like a pretty decent idea.

Especially for the fact Invisible Islam would have Chair Allah vewwy, vewwy angry if Iran didn't use anything and absolutely, positively everything in its power to eradicate Israel but, you know, preserve the farking holy ground on which the state of Israel sits just like a biological or chemical attack would accomplish, as soon and as vehemently as possible.


Easier to put on a mask which everyone has, affected by coastal weather patterns, won't assure 100% kill, will result in retaliation before the final solution can be implemented, no virgins.

No mask for nuke last I checked. Retaliation so far is still assured but ok because virgins. Allah would not be pissed at all, it's His land right, and if he commands Iran to nuke it to ashes then so it is.
 
2012-09-08 08:37:51 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: BFD. We lived with that kind of fear in the US for decades.


'cause JFK totally let the Soviets deliver nuclear missiles to Cuba.

/America refusing to let Cuba be armed is more comparable to Israel refusing to let Iran be armed.
 
2012-09-08 08:41:34 PM  
Certainly an improvement on helping Iran make their bunkers bunkerbuster-proof.

http://www.economist.com/node/21548918

For this reason, Iranian civil engineers are interested in using it in structures as diverse as dams and sewage pipes and are working on improving it. Mahmoud Nili of Bu-Ali Sina University in Hamadan for example, is using polypropylene fibres and quartz flour, known as fume, in his mix. It has the flexibility to absorb far heavier blows than regular concrete. Rouhollah Alizadeh may do better still. Dr Alizadeh, a graduate of the University of Tehran, is currently working at Ottawa University in Canada on the molecular structure of cement. Once again, this research is for civilian purposes and could pave the way for a new generation of UHPC with precisely engineered properties and outstanding performance.
 
2012-09-09 12:46:25 AM  

Blairr: UHPC


Ultra Hard Penis Concrete
 
2012-09-09 09:27:32 AM  

bootman: LoneWolf343: Who know, here's a brilliant idea that I think really ought to be tried. Instead of breathing down Iran's neck, how about we offer to co-op a thorium nuclear plant venture, that way they get their nuclear reactor, and they can't make a nuke out of it. At the very least, if they refuse, we would actually have evidence they are up to something.

Take into account that the main objective of the Iranian government is not the well being of the Iranian people. Their main goal is to remain in power. The Iranian government is deeply unpopular with the Iranian people and maintain their hold on power over the Iranian people through oppression. The actions of the Iranian government are designed to provoke external actors and the reactions from these external actors are the meat and potatoes for keeping the Iranian people under boot.

/Substitute Iranian for North Korean and re-read.


Oh, I know that. I just don't see why we have to be willing parties to the charade.
 
2012-09-09 04:43:48 PM  

Blairr: Certainly an improvement on helping Iran make their bunkers bunkerbuster-proof.

http://www.economist.com/node/21548918

For this reason, Iranian civil engineers are interested in using it in structures as diverse as dams and sewage pipes and are working on improving it. Mahmoud Nili of Bu-Ali Sina University in Hamadan for example, is using polypropylene fibres and quartz flour, known as fume, in his mix. It has the flexibility to absorb far heavier blows than regular concrete. Rouhollah Alizadeh may do better still. Dr Alizadeh, a graduate of the University of Tehran, is currently working at Ottawa University in Canada on the molecular structure of cement. Once again, this research is for civilian purposes and could pave the way for a new generation of UHPC with precisely engineered properties and outstanding performance.


;its funn cause pratt & Whitney in Cananda just got in trouble for selling dual use tech to China. O! Canada!

Canada: Home of Beavers, Hot women, EA (Electronic Arts), Terrorist researchers and maple flavored ham
 
Displayed 174 of 174 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report