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 65
    More: Interesting, Islamic Republic, Tehran, Iranians, Islamic, diplomats, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, hostage crisis, Fars News Agency  
•       •       •

2189 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»



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


Archived thread
2012-09-08 01:25:14 AM  
8 votes:

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 02:28:04 AM  
5 votes:
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 12:02:57 AM  
5 votes:
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 02:51:58 AM  
4 votes:

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 12:14:22 AM  
4 votes:
Just how desperate is Israel to start World War Three!?
2012-09-08 12:48:07 AM  
3 votes:
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 12:18:30 AM  
3 votes:

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 08:22:40 AM  
2 votes:
We need to start seeing a lot more of these: 

i.imgur.com
2012-09-08 04:31:02 AM  
2 votes:
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 03:27:10 AM  
2 votes:

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 01:55:26 AM  
2 votes:
2012-09-08 01:51:47 AM  
2 votes:
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 01:05:50 AM  
2 votes:
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 01:03:39 AM  
2 votes:
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 12:55:38 AM  
2 votes:
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 12:54:02 AM  
2 votes:
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 12:53:30 AM  
2 votes:

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 12:36:21 AM  
2 votes:

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 12:17:30 AM  
2 votes:

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 12:15:46 AM  
2 votes:

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 12:13:23 AM  
2 votes:

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 12:10:57 AM  
2 votes:

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 12:08:58 AM  
2 votes:

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


So, no change?
2012-09-08 02:00:14 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:37:33 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:09:01 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:34:47 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:27:07 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:27:19 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:24:29 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:16:44 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:55:14 AM  
1 votes:
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 08:40:41 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:29:37 AM  
1 votes:

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 07:10:47 AM  
1 votes:

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 06:54:07 AM  
1 votes:
Canada closed their Tehran embassy?

Where are US nationals going to hide next time the Iranian "students" get crazy?
2012-09-08 05:34:11 AM  
1 votes:

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 05:03:58 AM  
1 votes:
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 04:40:19 AM  
1 votes:
I certainly don't trust any claims about danger from Iran. We've heard similar stories before.
2012-09-08 02:58:18 AM  
1 votes:
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 02:49:15 AM  
1 votes:
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 02:22:08 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:13:58 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:42:26 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:39:12 AM  
1 votes:
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 01:38:53 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:32:55 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:25:49 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:19:51 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:11:05 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:56:37 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:52:05 AM  
1 votes:
It's 1979 all over again.
2012-09-08 12:46:16 AM  
1 votes:
Goddammit Canada, you guys usually have your shiat together. Are you just bored and acting out for attention?
2012-09-08 12:45:39 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:40:17 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:40:01 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:29:01 AM  
1 votes:
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 12:28:04 AM  
1 votes:
Oh good, the Junior Republicans are getting involved. Thanks Canada.
2012-09-08 12:25:29 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:21:03 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:15:59 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:12:31 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:10:30 AM  
1 votes:
Canada to Iran:

www.tailofthesnake.com
2012-09-08 12:09:49 AM  
1 votes:
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 12:01:17 AM  
1 votes:
october surprise
 
Displayed 65 of 65 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report