Story Comments
Posted by: DropkickaLib 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
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 -
-
-
-
loading ...
MacR
vidman04
nostalgia
PatrioticAmerican
injest
tanglang
pc25
saintetienne
Dicax_Maximus
juvel
Dionys
dissent
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.