Story Comments
Posted by: Dicax_Maximus 1 year, 6 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
Neutral
Dicax_Maximus1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Haven't you been reading the posts from the Libs around here? Iran is only engaged in peaceful nuclear weapons research in response to U.S. imperialism. They don't really intend to nuke Isreal, and they're all evil zionists in any case, so why should we care? We will have to rub their appeasing noses in this one!
Reply-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
but it's okay that they have nukes -- it's fine, and as a matter of fact, it's only fair. After all, WE haven them....
this is nothing to be alarmed about
(since many never seem to get it, please read these lines dripping with sarcasm)
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 6 months ago
-
-
Neutral
GWHayduke1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Lets be pre-emptive and take care of those non-compliant (with OUR mandates)Iranian dogs.
Its proven to be wildly successful in the recent past.
You drive a fine bargain, lib.
Can we expect your best Slim Pickens riding the Big Boy as he drops from the B2B?
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 6 months ago
-
ML2007Comment removed: Retracted by user18 Replies
-
-
Neutral
vor1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
For the hundredth time they cannot do this without assuring their own annihilation. All nukes are for purely defensive reasons. They now what we have in the Gulf, we could bury them with one Trident submarine.
Iran has been under constant threat for decades. First it was Saddam, now it is Cheney and the neocons. But if you believe the mullahs and clerics want to take their chances that they all have 72 virgins waiting on them I 've got some prime swampland to sell you. Show me any Islamic leader that has committed a suicide bombing. They value themselves as too important to spare.
This has nothing to do with Hitler and appeasement. That was an expanding empire. Iran has not attempted to expand its territory since the Iran-Iraq War and that was not the objective of the war. People need to start thinking. Maybe you believe you are making an effort to do so but something is claerly blocking the line.
Reply-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned9 Replies
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Dicax_Maximus1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
V.O.R. - Yup, I read the ENTIRE article, and all the comments posted above.... Now, at the risk of sounding like some fanatic, please could YOU explain WHY anyone should trust a country that neither allows full access to nor full disclosure of, it's own admitted nuclear program ?
If they're "whiter than white", what do they have to hide ?
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
VOR, you're assuming you're dealing with a nation that thinks and functions as yours does. Iran doesn't. They don't fear annihilation. They think they simply get a better heaven. As to the 72 virgins, that's not in the Shia side of Islam. On the suicide of leaders, please note, there hasn't been any. They have to many minions willing to die. That plus I suspect many don't believe in their rhetoric anyway. Like the Nazis or Japan in WW2, you didn't see Hitler or the Emperor leading the Banzai charges. It was their flock of followers listening to the "Do as I say, not as I do.",line of bull.
On appeasement, you don't negotiate with them ever.
Finally, I think once they have a weapon and a capable delivery system, they will strike. I suspect it will be a dirty bomb but they will use it even if they're not provoked.
Reply-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I wish it would be like a cold war type situation. If it was, I could follow along. Iran hasn't shown restraint though. When they come up with a new missile system, it magically ends up in the hands of Hamas. I fear they will hit Israel with a dirty weapon of some sort. That will lead Israel to hit them back only to see other nations taking sides leading to a much larger global conflict. I'm not a dinosaur however, I do reflect on history. Many major wars started over smaller nations or regions drawing larger allies into conflicts.
As to the Soviets, while you couldn't trust them on every treaty, they understood the concept of MAD. Iran has taken shots at the USA since 1979. I think the average Iranian is much like you or I but if his government doesn't share this with them the consequences of using nukes, who knows.
Reply-
Neutral
vor1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't agree completely with what you are saying but you show yourself to be of far superior intelligence as opposed to DropKick and others.
The dirty weapon scenario is interesting. Of course Israel would retaliate on a massive scale. Tehran for instance would no longer exist. Where else would they hit if Hamas was responsible? Damascus? Beirut? They would have to be aware of the danger of radiation close to home. Gaza? What would this trigger on an international scale? Not an easy answer.
Even if the MAD scenario for some reason did not play out there would be massive ecological damage and of course world markets would be thrown into complete chaos as Iranian exports would cease immediately. Millions would die in Iran, a disaster of untold proportions. The Iranians must understand these consequences and I believe they do. Religious fanatacism does not negate the survival instinct among the sane. Their leaders would have to be quite insane to initiate such a scenario.
Reply-
Neutral
Dicax_Maximus1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
V.O.R. & BB64 - It wouldn't be a case of MAD (IMHO) as (deny it as they might) Israel almost certainly has enough nukes to turn ANY & ALL of it's neighbours into glass paved car parks...
MAD = Mutually Assured Destruction
I don't (at this current time) see ANY of Irsaels neighbours with the capability of destroying it.....
If that (my) scenario changes, things could/will get interesting....
Reply-
Neutral
vor1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If israel launced that close to home the environmental effects would make life in the region intolerable and for radiating the majority of the worlds petroleum supply the Israeli's would be even further marginalized. Who knows how the Chinese and Russians would react? How would we react?
It would be a last act, an act of pure desperation and that is why they have never launched and hopefully will not. It would be the end of the state of Israel, all of their hopes and dreams. It is still a MAD world.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"VOR, you're assuming you're dealing with a nation that thinks and functions as yours does. Iran doesn't. They don't fear annihilation. They think they simply get a better heaven."
--But isn't that exactly what you're doing when you suggest that all Iranians are of the same mind?
Reply -
Neutral
wtagg1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ironically, the US is trying to change the mindset of the Iraqi populous, even as we speak, to the current tune of over $500,000,000,000, 4000 dead, tens of thousands of casualties, $4.00 gas, and a battered economy.
Why are we trying to change the way Iraq thinks and functions?
Your assumptions on what Iran will do is strictly conjecture. Iran has not struck at Israel. Considering the two, I see Israel at a considerable advantage, even if Iran were to perchance produce a nuclear weapon. I am not sure that Iran could deliver the device properly and with a high degree of probable success to Israel's borders. On the contrary, I think Israel has an almost 100% ability to deliver a nuclear weapon to Iran.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's not true at all. For the last 20 years they've trained, supplied and provided fighters for a group called Hamas, a terrorist organization with one goal, the destruction of Israel. Most of the missile that strike in Israel's territories have been from Iran too. So Iran it's not a huge stretch to conclude if given the chance, Iran could and would use nukes against Israel. Which would lead to Israel using nukes back. In a nuclear war there are no winners.
Reply-
Neutral
wtagg1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The US has provided funds and support to a group called Al Qaeda. We also provided funds to Iraq. Iraq sent a few scuds into Israel afterward. You could say we could be guilty using your stretches.
Of course, Israel has attacked us in the past also.
I don't know why we seem to feel the need to protect Israel so much. They have proven to be quite capable of their own defense.
I do agree with your analysis that there are no winners in a nuclear war. Unfortunately, it is a world of our own making and again with the irony, we have been the only example of using such weapons of mass destruction. We need to work harder at preventing such a occurrence. I don't see violence as a successful tactic in successful prevention.
The desire for oil is allowing countries like Iran to successfully fund such projects. The real threat is Iran finding other countries to commiserate with and sharing the info, like Venezuela.
Reply-
-
-
-
Neutral
dissent1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
sorry your not trues are not true. first up, al qaeda
"In the nineteen-eighties and the early nineties, the Saudi government offered to subsidize the covert American C.I.A. proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Hundreds of young Saudis were sent into the border areas of Pakistan, where they set up religious schools, training bases, and recruiting facilities. Then, as now, many of the operatives who were paid with Saudi money were Salafis. Among them, of course, were Osama bin Laden and his associates, who founded Al Qaeda, in 1988."
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/0...
Reply-
Neutral
dissent1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
now iraq
Statement by former NSC official Howard Teicher to the U.S.
"the United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required. The United States also provided strategic operational advice to the Iraqis to better use their assets in combat... The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq."
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ir...
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And we sent tons of supplies to the USSR during WW2. AlQeada was on the same side in the war against the USSR in Afghanistan. Was it a good move on our part, I don't think so. But it did help lead to the downfall of the USSR.
The missiles Iran has been working on were short range terrorist type weapons with little practical battlefield uses in modern warfare.
On oil, don't give me that excuse. If this administration was really concerned about oil, we'd see congress and the president drilling in Alaska, off our coasts and real alternative fuels made out of coal. As a Life member of the GOP, I am very disappointed in the direction the party has taken since the Reagan Revolution and Newt's Contract with America. Too many Rhinos.
Reply-
Neutral
wtagg1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My comment about oil was directed at it being the vehicle that allows countries like Iran to financially pursue expensive programs of possible military value, including nuclear. If the US suddenly stopped purchasing oil, the problem would not disappear since it is a worldwide issue at the moment. Drilling in places that the oil industry signed off on years ago will not change that.
My issue with the resources on government (the taxpayer's) land is that we give away these leases. The government should become an equal partner in any resources on our land. It is our land and resources. We, the taxpayers, should reap some reward from that ownership.
What can change it is to develop alternatives that we can export to countries purchasing oil at $130 a barrel. We need to lead the world in developing and marketing alternatives to oil. Currently, we are a follower. I am disheartened that the US is a follower and not a leader in this area.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
During the Gulf War, Israel proved her allegiance to America. In the past had Saddam launched a Skud, they would have hit him with everything. They held back because of President Bush's request. Can't picture that with a President Carter or Obama.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
saneman1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A good ally??? An ally of the U.S., probably so, but a good one? I guess one would need to define what they mean by being "good", because Israel has way more enemies than friends, and bringing loads of trouble to the party doesn't make it good by any stretch of ones imagination.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes they have. Saddam is no longer in power laughing at the free world while gassing and raping his own citizens. Aq is all effed up and is not free to operate and plan attacks. The taliban is living in caves and praying for a good death.
All with less casualties than there were on any given day during the Korean War.
Reply-
Neutral
pcknowledge1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Yes they have..."
No actually with Saddam gone there is a power vacuum in Iraq. The Iraqis won't allow us to fill it, & we don't know who will lead Iraq next. Saddam was of no danger to any other country at the time Bush decided to invade. There is uncertainty about who will lead Iraq next. Iraq's next leader could very well end up being more dangerous then Saddam, who was old & a bit senile.
The Taliban is ruling Afghanistan, all the way into Pakistan. The Taliban leader in Pakistan is Baitullah Mehsud. According to Bush Al Qaaeda is in Iraq, where they did not have any presence prior to the Bush led war.
Reply -
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You forgot to mention that we "only" slaughtered several hundred thousand of their people, made refugees out of a few million more, drew Al Qaeda into their country and introduced them to democracy-friendly parlor games like "Stack The Naked Iraqi Prisoners in a Pyramid."
Reply-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We slaughtered NO ONE!!! I dare you, I effing DARE you to go find a soldier and tell him he slaughtered innocents in Iraq. If you are brave/dumb enough to do this, please have someone film it and submit it to Youtube. I for one would like to see it.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
They don't have nukes yet but they're capable of dirty bombs which I suspect is the reason they're not fully admitting to what they have and don't have. The reason I don't think they have a weapon that is deliverable yet is they haven't used it. The Iranian dictatorship doesn't follow the logic of the current logic of the nuclear powers. Mutual Assured Destruction really prevents them from using them, hopefully. Iran is a nation doesn't follow that fear. They feel that if they die in a fight with an infidel they get a better place in heaven. It's even better if they take some of us with them, innocent right along with military.
I think it's time for the world to come to together on this matter. Either get Iran to disarm completely or be prepared for a devastating first strike on Israel, USA, UK or some other European power. Italy, France, Germany and Spain would be targets Iran might consider.
Reply-
ML2007Comment removed: Retracted by user18 Replies
-
baddad59Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
Neutral
tkyrchncs1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
By what right do the five permanent members of the UN Security Council keep nuclear arms and answer to no one, while Iran, which is threatened by a host of powers, including us, is expected to disclose everything. Does anyone, even in our own government, know the extent of our nuclear arsenal, delivery capabilities, and military research? Give over. Quit bullying people and maybe they won't want nuclear deterrents.
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What a mental gymnast you must be to distort reality to match this claim. So now you are saying that no one should be subject to the U.N. You Libs are going to have to get consistent! Maybe you're right. Isreal has invaded Iran, how many times? Oh that would be none. So why does Iran need nukes again when they continuously threaten Isreal? A few primative nukes are useless against a country like the U.S. which can wipe out Iran's infrastructure with one submarine's missiles.
Reply-
Neutral
vor1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This would have far more to do with US rhetoric than anything to do with Israel. So you think they will just attempt to lob a few old nukes at Israel and then await the consequence? Your reasoning this morning is beyond absurd. The one thing typically programmed into man is survival. We all have that instinct. Only through mental and religious manipulation can that instinct be torn down. Those are the weak minded (by that time brainwashed) and the newly devout who don't understand the catch yet. They will when they pull the detonation cord.
And who exactly has Iran invaded lately? Sure the rhetoric keeps coming but thats all it is. You have Ahmadinejad and his Napoleonic complex crying out in shrill tones. But he is really more of a threat to himself and his own people. We can't occupy Iran, just bomb them and kill any remaining pro-Western sentiment in that country. Pure neocon stupidity.
Reply-
Neutral
fourthtunz1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
{{{{Pure neocon stupidity.}}}}}}
Exactly! They aren't doing their own thinking, they let rush and Billo do it!
These people are either stupid or propagandists, because it there is no logic to their argument. They keep pulling the same tricks though decade after decade, but this one came a little too soon!
Reply -
-
-
ML2007Comment removed: Retracted by user21 Replies
-
Neutral
tkyrchncs1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
On the contrary, I am in agreement with the alien observers who thought us an advanced species because of our nuclear capabilities, but decided they were wrong when they found out our weapons were all targeted at the Earth. I think we should already have had a world government for a century, and everyone should be as subject to it as we currently are to our national government. The current structure of governments and treaties between them has created and maintains all these stupid regional conflicts, and I am ready to quit playing these idiotic games. No nation in the Near East is our ally and none is deserving of the amount of blood and money and time we spend on them. They all sponsor terrorism and they all eat our resources like parasites, which is pretty much what they are.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why do people who want to destroy the planet care if or how many nukes Iran has? Do you think about that when you're shilling for Big Oil and bitching about how the environmentalists won't let you rape,drill and wage war on the planet for oil?
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Mes, what are you talking about? If Iraq was strictly a war for oil, why wouldn't we have taken Canada? They have more oil and far less radicals. This wasn't a war for oil. If you can drop your Bush hate for a few seconds, think big picture. 10 years, stable Iraq, stable Afghanistan, stable Pakistan, stable India. All democracies. How long will the tin-plated dictatorships and corrupt monarchies hold power over their people with freely elected democracies next door? This will bring positive change to that region. Women's rights, free speech, freedom of religion possibly.
On the environment, you're worried about CO2 with the possibility of a nuclear armed Iran? I think the bears can adjust to the ice caps melting easier than they can a nuclear winter.
Reply-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"This wasn't a war for oil. "
Really? What was it a war for, then? Because it's interesting that all the oil contracts are being forced to be put into the hands of American oil companies.
Ten years a stable Iraq and Afghanistan? As Democracies? US Style democracies? No offense but we've been in Iraq nearly ten years already and for the Iraqis it's mostly gone downhill.
Womens rights? Women had more rights under Saddam, even if he was a monsterous dictator, than under the US formed government. Free speech? Not so far, not even close. Even the American troops can't report what they want to back home. Freedom of Religion? They had more freedom of religion under Saddam.
Reply-
Neutral
BB641 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"We've been in Iraq for 10 years?" March 20th, 2003 to May 27th, 2008. That's about 5 years. That plus most of who we're facing isn't Iraqi but insurgents from Syria, Iran and AlQeada.
As to the stability, we're seeing it happen already. The locals have joined our forces in fighting the terrorists and insurgents. The Iraqi army is doing much of the fighting and winning. This isn't going to be a republic like the USA but it will be a nation that is run by the consent of the governed. On the rights of women and free speech, things are changing for the better. It takes time and will take more time. On Saddam and rights, there's no comparison. Rape was common right before execution. Rape and kidnapping was permitted when Ude did it. That isn't the case today.
Reply-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The locals have joined our forces in fighting the terrorists and insurgents. The Iraqi army is doing much of the fighting and winning. "
Have you been there recently? Last time I was there the US was telling the American people that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis had taken over most of the US Army's job when there were less than ten thousand, a tenth of which would desert every time they took on a difficult action.
" Rape was common right before execution. Rape and kidnapping was permitted when Ude did it. That isn't the case today"
It seems like it's permitted within the US troops. One in three women soldiers will be raped by a fellow soldier before they get out of the military. Women are terrified to go to the latrines at night for fear they'll be raped by their own 'brethren.'
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Dio - You never did get round to telling us what planet you came from ??? "
Check the facts. The facts bear out both my statements and none of BB64's assertions. Your smart-ass comments don't address anything other than your self-important assumptions.
Reply
-
-
-
wasntmeComment removed: Abusive
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
--You have a breathtakingly simplistic view of the world, BB. I don't recall implying that Iraq was "strictly" for oil but to answer your question Canada is more widely respected than we are (many countries are, come to think of it) and what I think would happen is that we'd be attacked by several countries at once (including Russia and China), ensuring our own annihilation.
In any event, who says we need to "take" any oil from anyone? Oil is over $130 a gallon. What was it before we illegally waged war on Iraq? How much do speculators jack up prices every time their hero Bush peeps out of his burrow and gives us bad news about Iran? The bottom line is that it *is* a war for oil. It's just not a war for oil for the benefit of the American people.
Reply -
-
baddad59Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"On the environment, you're worried about CO2 with the possibility of a nuclear armed Iran? I think the bears can adjust to the ice caps melting easier than they can a nuclear winter."
--That was essentially the question I posed to you, only in reverse. You're worried about Iran but you support those in power who fight tooth and nail to exploit our planet for a buck. Why, if you really care so much about national security, do you avoid implementing the 9/11 panel's recommendations and allow government regulatory agencies to self-destruct? The answer couldn't be more obvious: warmonger cons almost always stand to benefit financially when we're constantly invading or threatening to invade other countries. You're not concerned about security, you're concerned about keeping the con war engine chugging along so you can make as much money as you can dealing in death and destruction. You know I'm right. ;-(
Reply -
Neutral
pcknowledge1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
BB64
BS. Iraq is in a complete chaos. It was much safer under Saddam.
The Iraq war, in 10 yrs, will lead to a stable India? More BS. India was doing business with Iraq, now the Indian government is forced to purchase oil at twice the market rate. India's economy took a big hit. Halliburton set up profitable offices there. The Iraq war will lead to a "stable Pakistan"? Pakistan is a muslim country, they are completly against the Iraq war. The Iraq war will bring about positive changes? Yeah right. Thousands of civilians dead (more then Saddam killed in his lifetime), a destroyed infrastructure which is not being rebuild. Insurgents who want our military out of their country. As for Iran, the country is ruled by the Mullahs, not Ahmedinejad. I don't believe for even a fraction of a second that they are willing to die. Ahmedinejad, though as crazy as Bush, is not willing to die either.
Iran wants nukes cause we have them. More importantly, because Israel has them.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
fourthtunz1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
DropkickaLib
{{{{{{{Haven't you been reading the posts from the Libs around here? Iran is only engaged in peaceful nuclear weapons research in response to U.S. imperialism. They don't really intend to nuke Isreal, and they're all evil zionists in any case, so why should we care? We will have to rub their appeasing noses in this one!}}}}
You're evidently are a liberal too?? You want to liberally spend money that we don't have to go to war in a country that can't touch us militarily?
Israel has at least 150 nukes so I think they can take of themselves.
In any case why should we spend out taxdollars defending Israel?
Why not let the UN handle this one? We have bigger problems right here.
Reply -
baddad59Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
wasntmeComment removed: Abusive
-
Neutral
injest1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So does this mean Olbermoron was wrong again?
http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/12/07/olb...
Reply
-
loading ...
MacR
jumpmaster
Klarissa
vidman04
nostalgia
normallysilent
injest
tanglang
pc25
tkyrchncs
ML2007
Codi6934
jimdoze
baddad59
rdy2rck
DropkickaLib
wasntme
Dionys
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.