America 'Poised to Strike at Iran's Nuclear Sites' from Bases in Bulgaria and Romania »

This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed

Comments: 514

• 
  Avg rating: (+2/-1 1)

  mcgrievysr

  Jan. 29, 2007, 6:02 a.m.

  "Whether the Bulgarian news report is a tactical feint or a strategic event is hard to gauge at this stage."

  Well, once again, if this report about our build-up is accurate, and if we intend to bomb before the end of April, our president will have flown in the face of the ISG, the American people, and our allies. If there is such a thing as a benevolent dictator, that's one thing. It appears more and more that in addition to being a dictator, our president may be a madman also. He does NOT represent who we are as a nation in my opinion.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  nativestorm

  Jan. 29, 2007, 6:56 a.m.

  every back door they can find or invent, this administration seems hellbent to use to start a war with Iran.
• 
  Avg rating: (+5/-0 5)

  Spadecaller

  Jan. 29, 2007, 9:06 a.m.

  Those of us who are more concerned about our nation, about the lives of our troops, and about the lives of Iraqis, Jordanians, Palistinians, Iranians, and Isrealis want Bush's power revoked so that he can do no more harm.

  Bush's militiristic profiteering is too obvious for this nation to maintain credibility at home or in the world. It is not a partisan issue; it is an American dilemma, a governmental crisis, an urgent threat to democracy, and a menace to peace throughout the world.

  Our greatest threat to our nation is upon us. Terrorism is better prevented then fought; but if we lose what defines us as a free people, we will have nothing of merit to defend. We will be only mirror images of the evil that we had once perceived in our enemies. We are at this crossroad now.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  flyrod

  Jan. 29, 2007, 9:07 a.m.

  Don't get your hemrroids in a knot. Yes, we are probably planning air attacks on those sites. Will we execute those plans? Probably not. Now, lets talk about the training sites for shia militia inside Iran. Those are legitimate targets for cruise missles.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  Amazing1

  Jan. 29, 2007, 9:27 a.m.

  We, as citizens must do everything in our power to stop any plan to widen this conflict. Write, protest, call your representatives. Put any pressure you can on our lawmakers to stop this madness.

  If this is a real plan, we need to impeach these people ASAP. They do not represent us. They represent the big oil companies and others such as Helliburton (intentional spelling). They seem to be in love with the idea of continual war and the people pay while the military industrial complex profits.
• 
  Avg rating: (+29/-8 21)

  Spadecaller

  Jan. 29, 2007, 9:30 a.m.

  Ageed Amazing1 ...

  Those of us who are more concerned about our nation, about the lives of our troops, and about the lives of Iraqis, Jordanians, Palistinians, Iranians, and Isrealis want Bush's power revoked so that he can do no more harm.

  Bush's cover-up is too obvious for this nation to maintain credibility at home or in the world. It is not a partisan issue; it is an American dilemma, a governmental crisis, an urgent threat to democracy, and a menace to peace throughout the world.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  Tango57

  Jan. 29, 2007, 9:54 a.m.

  I don't know about this article. It could possibly be a tactic to get Iran's attention. There is a more serious threat greater than Iran. China has already started testing some of their defense systems as well as the US and Russia. Let's say this article is fact and we do go into Iran. China would attack us before we could get the first missile launched. Why? Because Iran is their primary source of oil, and they will protect their interests.

  What I do find interesting is how all of the worlds countries with missile defense system are now testing them and claiming test success, interesting..including Israel.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  WMPENN

  Jan. 29, 2007, 9:55 a.m.

  I wonder just how stupid people can be???

  This kind of news would not be available to the general public at any time .
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  Bkumm

  Jan. 29, 2007, 9:57 a.m.

  Before everyone gets all jingoistic, let's look into this in more detail.

  Are our national interests helped or harmed by a nuclear Iran? Is China really a viable threat?

  What is the one thing that we can do, as quickly as we can, to eliminate Iran and China as a threat, if indeed they are?
• 
  Avg rating: (+10/-0 10)

  jumpmaster

  Jan. 29, 2007, 9:58 a.m.

  We all had a bad experience with Iraq.

  So in order to not hurt anybody else's feelings we should just let Iran continue with their nuke program. They would like us a whole lot more if we left them alone to them make nuclear weapons. It wouldn't be a problem until they used one and that would probably be used somewhere in Europe. And you know how the Europeans don't want us meddling in their affairs so we could let them sort things out with the Iranians.

  It is unlikely that Iran would have a weapon delivery system that could reach the US so why should we worry about it? After all, the problem is not immediately in our own backyards so why should we be concerned about it?

  Let the Europeans and the Iranians work things out.
• 
  Avg rating: (+10/-0 10)

  jumpmaster

  Jan. 29, 2007, 10 a.m.

  China won't attack us. We are too important to them as a trading partner.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  Star_Poet

  Jan. 29, 2007, 10:10 a.m.

  As a soverign nation, the U.S. has every right to take out missle sites of those nations that intend to do harm to us or our allies, including nuclear facilities in 3rd world countries.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  Tango57

  Jan. 29, 2007, 10:11 a.m.

  If we attack any of the oil properties, you can kiss Alaska good-bye! They will go after the pipeline and the bearing straights.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  Spadecaller

  Jan. 29, 2007, 10:16 a.m.

  There is a lot of speculation going on here on this thread.

  Yet,there are some facts: naval build-up in the gulf, build up in Bulgaria, and recent aggressive ploys towards Iranians who have been in Iraq for nearly 2years.

  It is a known fact that Iran is running out of oil. Bush and Cheney have occupied Iraq for oil, as well. The oil companies, Halliburton, and the corporotists want Iran completely taken out of the picture. Mickey Mouse can put the dots together on this one.
• 
  Avg rating: (+10/-0 10)

  joeblowe

  Jan. 29, 2007, 10:18 a.m.

  A quick google reveals an odd similarity between this story and one that was going around in April 2006. Some detail has been added about airbases in Romania, etc - but still, a big scare about the U.S. bombing targets in Iran. If nothing else, this illustrates that by April 2007 the "crisis" with Iran and nukes will have been a hot topic for over a year -- and no diplomatic solution has been reached. These things take time, but at some point, your time is up; here come the bombs.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  simonsez

  Jan. 29, 2007, 10:54 a.m.

  This is today's scare story from a far left website with an agenda.

  New chance to bash bush.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  Pyramids2Projects

  Jan. 29, 2007, 11:50 a.m.

  So If the the premier of China disagrees with the way Bush and family killed 3k Americans in 911 biased on half story's and fake truths, your happy to have your neighbourhood to be destroyed, schools, hospitals, cities etc laid waste for the foreseeable future? To teach your leader a lesson. Is that what you agree with? !Child!
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  Natureboy

  Jan. 29, 2007, 12:06 p.m.

  By that logic, since the leader of the USA is a sociopath, it is simple prudence for Iran to militarize. There is a certain symmetry there.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  jumpmaster

  Jan. 29, 2007, 11:36 a.m.

  "Iran has proven reserves totaling 132 billion barrels of oil and it is doubtful that they will "run out" any time soon."

  So what is the big rush to develop nuclear energy?

  Hmmm. Unless they really aren't interested in nuclear power plants and maybe they want nuclear weapons. Maybe they bought some cool nuclear firing triggers at a garage sale and didn't have anywhere to use them so they needed to build a few bombs for the triggers. Maybe that is it.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  Pyramids2Projects

  Jan. 29, 2007, 11:38 a.m.

  It's the same as South Africa when the whites were in power the world thought it was them to have 4 dozen nuks to protect themselves from other African countries (which don't even have an Air force)?. But as soon as the ANC won the election GW senior requested the UN to remove the nuclear capabilities from such an "unstable" country. Black government with nuclear may prove a treat to western nations and the UN Security council agreed. BAISED ON WHAT? We have no right to tell a sovereign government what to do!

  Israel has nukes, while most of the counties it "needs them for" have military weaponry 30 yrs out of date. So why do we not seize there weapons?

  Foolish double standard. Give me a break America! How long will we all stand for this Murderous global dictatorship???
• 
  Avg rating: (+1/-2 -1)

  neuroticus

  Jan. 29, 2007, 11:57 a.m.

  If a nation wants to develop a nuclear program, that's their prerogative. What should be made clear to budding nuclear powers is this: "Although we will NOT attack you without forceful provocation, we WILL sever all trade with you. We will also look very unkindly on the states that DO open trade with you."

  We can ethically prevent a nation from pursuing nuclear weaponry without aiming a gun at them.
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  jumpmaster

  Jan. 29, 2007, 11:58 a.m.

  Isn't anyone worried about suicide crazy society having a nuke?
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  kobaum

  Jan. 29, 2007, 12:01 p.m.

  Let me ask all of you a question. If active threats are made against your country. Threats involving pre-emptive bombing, troop invasions, detaining and even executing your citizens outside of your country. Do you have the right to strike first? But is that prerogative only the U.S.'s?? With all of the threats against him, does Ahmeninejad have a right to strike first, or must he wait until the U.S. bombs him?
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  jumpmaster

  Jan. 29, 2007, 12:02 p.m.

  "Iran currently imports gasoline because they have no refinery capacity"

  Then why don't they build refineries? Nobody would have a problem with that and that would solve their stated problem.

  Do I have to figure out everything? :-)
• 
  Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)

  paulzimmerman

  Jan. 29, 2007, 12:05 p.m.

  Well, I just hope that everyone that voted for Bush and Cheney

  in the last election is "happy" now.... :>)

  Now is the time for all americans to call / e-mail your senators and congress persons and let them know what you think, whatever, that is.

The first 279 comments are shown. Show all 514 comments »