Comments for Iran 'withholds nuclear details' »
Posted By monte-g 1 year, 7 months ago in NewsThe UN nuclear watchdog has said it believes Iran is still withholding information on its nuclear programme.
Read Full Story at news.bbc.co.uk »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 267 of 295 Comments
-
Neutral
Dicax_Maximus1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 7 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, 7 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, 7 months ago
-
-
Neutral
GWHayduke1 year, 7 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, 7 months ago
-
ML2007Comment removed: Retracted by user18 Replies
-
-
Neutral
vor1 year, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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, 7 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
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No! You're wrong! It's only a matter of supply and demand!!! If you far left extremist America-hating, tree-hugging, libbies would just let us drill for oil "in our own back yard," (says a lot about what we think of Alaska, huh?), we would stop invading other countries on a whim to protect our "interests" (*cough* oil) and ExxonMobil CEOs would agree to charge us less ('cause, ya know, they're just charitable that way) and accept a couple million dollars less in retirement and pension.
Reply -
Neutral
TheRealizer1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No, I don't. Been to war. Didn't much care for it. That being said, I think it should be made very clear to Iran that a nuclear strike by them or any of their terror network partners would mean the destruction of their entire nation. I don't think it will stop them, if they get a weapon they'll use it, but it makes it clear what will happen. Russia, China, France, Germany and the rest of our "friends" can't claim they don't understand. All have helped arm Iran over the years and all may have to answer for selling restricted materials to Iran. Especially if the UN, which means the US and UK are forced to stop them.
I pray for peace but for some reason the leaders of Iran seem bent on creating nukes. I don't get it. No one is challenging them. No one is moving armies in to strike them. If they claim the US is, that would be wrong, we're seeing a constant draw down in Iraq. It's small but it's continuing to happen. Iran doesn't play by normal rules.
Reply-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"That being said, I think it should be made very clear to Iran that a nuclear strike by them or any of their terror network partners would mean the destruction of their entire nation."
--I don't understand this argument. Israel is armed to the teeth and we've set up camp in Iraq for the last 5 years.
Reply-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think s/he's trying to argue that Iran doesn't already realize that any attack on Israel would be met by atomic weapons from Israel. Which seems kind of silly seeing as how Israel made plans a few years back to make pre-emptive tactical *nuclear* strikes in Iran and word got out. Somehow I don't think Iran's missing that point.
Then again if we look at the history of aggressive invasions on a large scale and the seizing of territory (imperialism), Israel and the US seem to be in the lead.
Reply-
Neutral
Mutainia1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Didn't old Amadinnerjacket say he was willing to sacrifice most of Iran to eliminate Israel off the map? By the way, O "I'm not a Muslim", you say "if we look at the history of invasions on a large scale and the seizing of territory (imperialism) Israel and the US seem to be in the lead." Oh really? Give some examples, or, I'll think you are taqqiyaing. Israel was attacked, it took the territory it was attacked from, but, it's returned a lot of it, and, got missiles and rockets fired into it's neighborhoods FROM territory it traded for peace (Gaza).
Reply-
-
-
-
Neutral
Mutainia1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I wish I could believe Dionys, hyper, muhairi (where ever he now is), Daylight, etc., etc., but, they follow a book that says they are cut off from Allah if they are friends of Christians and Jews and can only ACT like they are friend of Christians and Jews (see Quran 3:28), which makes EVERYthing they say hard to be trusted. SORRY, O Jihadists of the Pen, the problem doesn't point to you, it points to that satanically evil book that you follow, the Qu'ran.
Reply-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Christians and Jews and can only ACT like they are friend of Christians and Jews (see Quran 3:28), which makes EVERYthing they say hard to be trusted. SORRY, O Jihadists of the Pen, the problem doesn't point to you, it points to that satanically evil book that you follow, the Qu'ran."
Please do read Qur'an Surah 3:28 so that you can see for yourself it doesn't say anything Mutainia claims. When you read it, it will be apparent that she has never read it but depends on the hateful, ignorant words of some anti-Muslim preacher.
As for what book I follow, it's certainly not the Qur'an. But then the Qur'an isn't a satanically evil book, either, so who knows what you're referring to.
Reply-
Neutral
Mutainia1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Please do read Qur'an Surah 3:28 so that you can see for yourself it doesn't say anything Mutainia claims. When you read it, it will be apparent that she has never read it but depends on the hateful, ignorant words of some anti-Muslim preacher."
Mutainia: Anti-Islam NOT anti-Muslim, folks. His name is "investigateislam", and, I posted this video in my response to wasntme when he lied about saying he tried to engage me many times in debate. IF interested, you can click on it there, or, go to by submissions and see it there.
"As for what book I follow, it's certainly not the Qur'an. But then the Qur'an isn't a satanically evil book, either, so who knows what you're referring to." HOW come you feel it's not a satanically evil book when it has 9:1-5 in it ALONG with 3:28 and 16:106?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
BB641 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Armed to the teeth compared to whom? They are equipped to handle themselves very well for a defensive war but I don't think they have the capabilities for a sustained offensive war against Islam. Even to strike Iran's nuke plants would be a major stretch for their air force. They have sub with some sort of cruise missiles but again I don't think they have the resources to maintain a long campaign. Would the USA support Israel's strikes on Iran, right now, probably. After the next election, probably not. With an Obama presidency, I really see uncertainty for Israel and Iraq.
Reply
-
-
ML2007Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
fourthtunz1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
BB64 Send Message
{{{{{{No, I don't. Been to war. Didn't much care for it. That being said, I think it should be made very clear to Iran that a nuclear strike by them or any of their terror network partners would mean the destruction of their entire nation. I don't think it will stop them, if they get a weapon they'll use it, but it makes it clear what will happen. }}}}}
You are being sold this war the same way they sold the Iraq war. Israel has 150 nukes so if Israel doesn't get them we will. Why can't the UN handle this one?
This is being sold as an urgent threat to keep the War Money machine going.
Reply-
baddad59Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Mutainia1 year, 7 months ago
-
wasntmeComment removed: Abusive32 Replies
-
Neutral
Mutainia1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You mean the leader of Iran DOESN'T believe in the 12th Imam who supposedly disappeared down a well? DOESN'T want to sacrifice most of Iran to eliminate Israel? Then again, since you are a Muslim who, no doubt, believes you can lie to spread Islam (thanks to surahs 3:28 and 16:106), EVERYthing you say is hard to believe. Sorry. NOT your fault, wasntme, Quran's fault.
Reply-
Neutral
Mutainia1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You mean the leader of Iran DOESN'T believe in the 12th Imam who supposedly disappeared down a well? DOESN'T want to sacrifice most of Iran to eliminate Israel? Then again, since you are a Muslim who, no doubt, believes you can lie to spread Islam (thanks to surahs 3:28 and 16:106), EVERYthing you say is hard to believe. Sorry. NOT your fault, wasntme, Quran's fault.
Reply-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Then again, since you are a Muslim who, no doubt, believes you can lie to spread Islam (thanks to surahs 3:28 and 16:106), EVERYthing you say is hard to believe. Sorry. NOT your fault, wasntme, Quran's fault."
Everyone who disagrees with Mutainia's a Muslim. That must get really tiresome after a while.
Try reading Surah 3:28 or 16:106 to see that she gets her hateful comments and 'knowledge' directly from the sputum of some anti-Muslim preacher.
Reply-
Neutral
Mutainia1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Try reading Surah 3:28 or 16:106 to see that she gets her hateful comments and 'knowledge' directly from the sputum of some anti-Muslim preacher." An ant-ISLAM preacher, O "I'm not a Muslim". And anti-ISLam preacher. Big difference. But, yes, people, READ those surahs. Better yet, I'll post the YouTube video OF this "anti-Muslim preacher", Dionys calls him, and, you can decide for yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvXB2ftBlXs
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Mutainia1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You mean the leader of Iran DOESN'T believe in the 12th Imam who supposedly disappeared down a well? DOESN'T want to sacrifice most of Iran to eliminate Israel? Then again, since you are a Muslim who, no doubt, believes you can lie to spread Islam (thanks to surahs 3:28 and 16:106), EVERYthing you say is hard to believe. Sorry. NOT your fault, wasntme, Quran's fault.
Reply-
Neutral
Mutainia1 year, 7 months ago
-
-
-
Neutral
Mutainia1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And, you prove it again, that you don't read ANYthing I write, since you think I'm still a Mormon. But, as a Muslim, you HAVE to not study where I'm coming from, because, if you start doubting Islam, hell awaits you, from what I've discovered about Islam.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
HannibalBarca1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
PNAC explains a lot, more than some of the comments here, and that was what 1992, and look who got the control of the WH....PNAC.
Only trouble is Iraq, which was to be over in 2-3 months threw a hook into that gambit, didn't it.
Yes it is about oil. not so much to get it to N America but more to keep it from China, your next opponent.
Remember the Chinese sub and the Kitty Hawk a few months back? it was a message, also look at their navy yards and what they are building; with steel from Pittsburgh no less.
Hell ya, anything for a buck, the American dream.
Reply -
Neutral
THOMNH621 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
so lets just throw out a thought, if Iran gets the bomb and nukes Israel what will the liberals course of action be. Lets just have an honest debate here, the left thinks we have why should we prevent Iran from having them, so for DISCUSSION sake lets say the get them and they stay true to their promise to NUKE Israel, what then.
Reply-
-
ML2007Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If, say, Tel Aviv was leveled by an unprovoked nuclear strike, the US would certainly and justifiably respond with force. I'd imagine the response would still largely be of a conventional nature and avoid civilian targets as much as possible. I really doubt ANY US administration would choose the 'black glass' retaliation option. The risk of involving Russia and China in an all-out exchange is far too great.
Most likely, Israel responds on her own and turns Iran into a parking lot. If she did, well, bye bye Big Blue Marble!
Reply -
Neutral
fourthtunz1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
THOMNH62 {{{{{so lets just throw out a thought, if Iran gets the bomb and nukes Israel what will the liberals course of action be. Lets just have an honest debate here, the left thinks we have why should we prevent Iran from having them, so for DISCUSSION sake lets say the get them and they stay true to their promise to NUKE Israel, what then.}}}}}
You must be making alot of money from Haliburton or the oil boom to keep spreading crap like this. As others have said Israel has plenty of nukes.
Why is it our job to protect the world? Why not the UN? This has nothing to do with liberals and you know it, this has to do with you believing the tv propaganda machine. Try doing your own thinking for once, your argument makes no sense,
Reply -
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
'', if Iran gets the bomb and nukes Israel what will the liberals course of action be. ''
conjecture is fun but it gets boring after awhile
I guess in the wrong hands conjecture, or 'imagination' if you will, can be dangerous too
'What if'?
What if something bad happens? 'Let's make sure nothing bad happens by making something bad happen' Let's get Americans killed to keep Americans from getting killed[they probably WOULD just kill us here anyway, after all]
What if Saddam gets a nuclear weapon? {he got yellow cake, we swear]
What if Iran gets a nuclear weapon?
Who would be next?
where is the next place 'what if' 'may' 'could' and 'would' will lead us?
coulda woulda shoulda
conjecture is just tiresome after a while
Reply
-
-
Neutral
ChefEOD1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The rulers of Iran are on record stating that even the loss of 200 million Muslims would be a price worth paying if Israel & the US were destroyed in the process. All streams of Islam believe in a divine savior, known as the Mahdi, who will appear at the End of Days during chaos and apocalyptic times to bring the world under Islamic domain. Iran's leaders are ardent believers in the teachings if the Mahdi. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad personally believes it is his destiny to bring about the return of the Mahdi by creating the conditions necessary, which is world wide chaos; he feels that he is the John the Baptist for the Mahdi. The teachings basicaly say that when the world is in chaos (through whatever means) the Mahdi will return, bring peace (Islamic rule) and justice, and heal the planet. Think about that. Ahmadinejad must usher in world-wide chaos and war before he can fulfill his destiny.
Reply-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And the Israeli's believe that god chose them to have a racially pure religious state, and are ethnically cleansing their region, with the help of billions a month from the US for nukes, and the psy ops zionist american media, and the christian evangelical zionists crusaders, and the dual citizenship presidential advisers, you remember the neoconservatives, founded by the orthodox professor Kraus, perpetuated by his diciples in the neocon think tanks, and manifest in the war in Iraq?
Remember neocons republicans, liberal democracys will lead to the next holacaust. Good to know you control the 4th leg of this US two party "democracy."
How many nukes have the Saudi's bought? 300? How many have we given them?
You remember the Saudi's, the ones who planned, fiananced and executed 911?
Reply -
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ahmadinejhad and his ilk are falling increasingly out of favor with the Iranian populace.
While a dirty bomb is well within the capability of just about ANY 'rogue nation', Iran is at least 7 years away from having a deployable tactical nuke.
As I see it, talk of 'preemption' against Iran suffers the same short-sightedness as Iraq. Iraq was the most secular of ME societies and its populace may have even been turned ever more pro-West if we hadn't caused such enormous suffering through cruel sanctions that did more to harm the people than hurt the regime. In the same vein, the people of Iran are increasingly embracing Western culture which may lead to a sea change in the regime. The next leader of Iran will almost assuredly be more moderate.
Reply-
Neutral
ChefEOD1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Seems to me that on one had what you are saying about Ahmadinejad & his ilk is the same about what we here about President Bush & US "neocons" - falling/fallen out of favor, etc. Yet what we also hear in the US is how Bush has and is setting things up to assume a dictatorship, but Ahmadinejad and his ilk will just fade away? Don't you think that logic is a bit bassaackwards? And about the next leader being more moderate, that's what was said about Khomeini and his fellow Mullahs, and now we have Ahmadinejad. What we hear periodically about his falling out of favor is nothing more than a good PR machine at work.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Seems like it's news that Iran is withholding info,
but what about N. Korea, Israel, Pakistan, and all the other lovely states?
When the enemies of Israel make news, the US news machine, owned by Zionists, set their propaganda machine in high gear.
Reply -
Neutral
ChefEOD1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When Ahmadinejad was elected in 2005, he told Iran that the world would be ending in two or three years. Tehran, Iran, Jan. 12; Speaking to a crowd in the southern city of Roudan, Hormozgan province, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that "the Islamic Republic's 1979 Islamic revolution was a great movement and a stepping stone to a final "great event" in the world. The Islamic Republic is the continuation of the path of the prophets which came to begin a great movement and the final occurrence. The Islamic revolution was a great leap in leading the people and reaching the climax of history".
Reply-
-
Neutral
bluetexasvalley1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Chief, you did it again.
"The Islamic Republic [Christian movement] is the continuation of the path of the prophets which came to begin a great movement and the final occurrence [rapture]. The Islamic revolution [Evangelical movement]was a great leap in leading the people and reaching the climax of history [end times]".
See?
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Let's see...Which country's leader has been prominent the media, including accusations of collaboration with terrorist agencies? Does that country happen to have a large oil reserve?
If you guessed 'Venezuela', congratulations! You can pick your prize from this basket of brightly-colored 'My Pretty Pony' stickers!
Reply
-
-
Neutral
ChefEOD1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A common rumor - denied by the government but widely believed in Iran - is that Mr. Ahmadinejad and his cabinet have signed a "contract" pledging themselves to work for the return of the Mahdi and sent it to Jamkaran. Speaking at a government-sponsored conference on the subject one month into his administration he said, "The government from now renounces its economic development policies that were based on materialism and secular liberalism. Instead, there will be an effort to raise expectations at the coming of the Mahdi, and all domestic and foreign policy will work in that direction, this is the mission of the government."
Reply -
Neutral
ChefEOD1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
At Ahmadinejad's international debut, his speech to the United Nations, World leaders had expected a conciliatory proposal to defuse the nuclear crisis after Teheran had restarted another part of its nuclear program that August. Instead, they heard the president speak in apocalyptic terms of Iran struggling against an evil West. The speech ended with the messianic appeal to God to "hasten the emergence of your last repository, the Promised One, (the Mahdi) that perfect and pure human being, the one that will fill this world with justice and peace". Justice & peace in the form of a world-wide Caliphate enforced by Islamic Law.
Reply -
Neutral
ChefEOD1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In a video distributed by an Iranian web site, Ahmadinejad described how one of his Iranian colleagues had claimed to have seen a glow of light around the president as he began his speech to the UN. "I felt it myself too," Ahmadinejad recounts. "I felt that all of a sudden the atmosphere changed there. And for 27-28 minutes all the leaders did not blink, It's not an exaggeration, because I was looking. They were astonished, as if a hand held them there and made them sit. It had opened their eyes and ears for the message of the Islamic Republic."
Reply -
Neutral
ChefEOD1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ahmadinejad is so convinced that he can speed up the Mahdi's arrival by creating the world chaos that must occur before the Mahdi's return that he has ordered everyone in Tehran to make the city ready for the Mahdi's return. That means getting rid of anyone who refuses to obey Sharia Law. The result has been wholesale hangings, beheadings, and stonings. Construction cranes in Iran are used more as mobile gallows than they are in construction. Women are stoned daily for the most trivial violations. There are no homosexuals in Iran because they kill them.
Reply -
Neutral
ChefEOD1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Now, here's the kicker. Ahmadinejad is convinced that the alliance between the United States and Israel is the evil that he must destroy before the Mahdi will return. He even calls us the "Great Satan"
Benjamin Netanyahu was once asked what the Holocaust had taught him. His answered, "When someone says he wants to kill you, believe him."
"A just fear of an imminent danger, though there be no blow given, is a lawful cause of war."
Sir Francis Bacon
Reply-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, chef, sounds like you should see if the Israeli airforce will let you sign up, assuming you aren't already signed up there for the Mausad, you sound like your ready to die for the cause. Good for you. What is the Israeli version of Heaven?
Don't worry, the RJC has things well in hand, you won't have to die when the americans are quiet willing to fight your wars for you, with their lives and treasure.
Reply -
-
Neutral
pcknowledge1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Benjamin Netanyahu also said:
"Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories."
-- Benyamin Netanyahu, then Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, former Prime Minister of Israel, speaking to students at Bar Ilan University, from the Israeli journal Hotam, November 24, 1989.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
THOMNH621 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ML@))&, hey dill weed, it was a question not a theory and I see it still impossible to have a two sided debate here at libscape. I wasn't fear mongering you douche bag just throwing a hypothetical for discussion glad to see you libs never let me down. No possibility for honest debate just glib rhetoric from the left, go Hillary.
Reply -
Neutral
mr-breaker1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
HAHAHAHA I though The war on Terror was supposed to prevent this. Fools you cant hold back technology just slow it down. Now we are ar war with Countries that posed no nuclear threat and Korea And Iran HAve Nukes Pointed at US. MAN someone needed to crash a plane into Bush's Daughter's wedding and wake his ass up!
Reply
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.