Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The Drums Of War Have Begun Again And There Isn't A Damn Thing We Can Do About It.

Posted 8 years ago on Dec. 9, 2011, 1:12 a.m. EST by puff6962 (4052)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The retrieval of the RX-170 drone by the Iranians has confirmed my worst fears. It is reminiscent of the shooting down of Francis Gary Powers U-2 spyplane over the Soviet Union in 1960. Back then, we knew the Russians had the bomb and we knew they had missiles to deliver them. But, we didn't know how many and where they were hidden. So, off we went spying.

The Iranians have been working with missiles since the 1980's, when the world refused to sell them their latest warplanes and other armaments. So, they went native all the while branching out into international terrorism.

Now, it makes no sense to have a system of cruise missiles and IRBM's if all you are going to do is pack them with conventional weapons. The German V-1's and V-2's taught us that these things were, poorly guided, little more than nuisances

For 30 years the West has watched as the Iranians gradually accumulated the knowledge and technologies necessary to throw a payload a thousand miles.....and we did nothing. America had Bin Laden to deal with. We got sidetracked with Saddam. There was that little insurgency. And, then the election of 2008.

I think, of all the Presidents I have studied, Mr. Obama will go down with Lincoln as having been dealt the worst hand upon entry into office. Two wars, an economic depression, reactionary Republicans, Fox news, and talk radio all placed on the shoulders of a brilliant speaker, but political novice.

Yet, he has persevered and his successes have been largely underplayed in our national conscience, while his failures have been bellowed about by the Right wing machine.

So, that brings us back to Iran. The crazies in our Republican Presidential lineup have this year made it a habit of out-crazying each other. They have ramped up rhetoric and provided cannon fodder to every enemy you could imagine. All the while, these same candidates have offered up only simplistic, red-meat, strategies for our foreign policy.

George Bush said as early as 2004 that Iran simply could not be allowed to possess a nuclear weapon. This means, of course, that the administration knew the Iranians were moving rapidly towards obtaining one. The phrase would reappear periodically in Bush's speeches, yet no action was undertaken. The Iranians, ever monitoring our President's attempts at the English language, reacted by hardening their production sites and dispersing enrichment locations.

The Result? Our country, and the Israelis, watched as our limited Iranian intelligence sources dried up and we were blinded....at about the same time our country had failed to find WMD's in another nation. Thank's again, Mr. Bush....you were already in your second term, an incredibly unpopular President, and you had nothing to lose by doing what was truly necessary.

But, was that purposeful....was it a political calculation? The prior administration realized that the issue of Iranian nukes would brand the next president as a warmonger....and therefore just as bad as Bush....or as a pacifist.....and weak on terrorism. The trap was set and the outcome will benefit Republican candidates for a generation.

Mr. Obama understands the twisted hand he was dealt. His options are mutually bad and his solution will be, in his typical fashion, one that "splits the difference."

Obama will attempt to emulate the Clinton successes in Serbia and Bosnia where a great deal of American muscle was flexed with no forces ever being placed on the ground. Bombing....that will be the answer. Targets will focus upon suspected nuclear sites.

However, we have no cruise missiles that are capable of "bunker busting." So, aircraft will be used and this means destroying all Iranian ground-to-air missile installations and the obliteration of the Iranian air force. Not a minor feat, but certainly one we can achieve.

The competing strategy would have been to use F-22 and B-2 Stealth Bombers that can pass through Iranian air defenses. But, with the loss of a "stealth" drone, and it's retrieval intact, the United States will not risk further embarrassment, or the trove of technology that could be gleaned, from a downed fighter plane or bomber.

And, that is where I am leading with all of this. We had the option, for 10 years, of utilizing our intelligence and stealth capabilities in order to surgically strike the central locations of the Iranian nuclear program.....but we failed to act. After 9-11, no power on earth would have raised a finger if we had taken the "clean house" approach and neutered the Iranians. But that is not what occurred. This goodwill was wasted, instead, upon the invasion of Iraq.

So, we must accept the world's first nuclear armed terrorist state or act soon with overwhelming firepower in order to draw a line in the nuclear sand. There is no longer an intermediate option available.

No President, Democrat or Republican, wishes for Iran to go nuclear on his watch. It's a gigantic hot potato in the room. Obama, mindful of Republican leaders use of the word "appeasement," has been pushed into a corner with only one way out.....and he will choose it. This trap will mean war. It will mean future reprisals and distrust of the United States. And, it means that other roguish nuclear powers will act more erratically.

The world is about to become a more dangerous place and it appears there isn't a damn thing we can do about it. History has already been written and the downing of the RX-170 was the final line of the introduction.

So, when does this war begin? After the election, of course.

460 Comments

460 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by klmcelroy (15) 8 years ago

Article incorrectly states that Iran would be the first terrorist state to posses nuclear weapons. I believe that Israel holds that dubious distinction.

[-] 3 points by Evolution001 (100) from Vancouver, BC 8 years ago

The first nuclear terrorist state was the good old USA. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese corpses vouch for that.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

@ Evol001 : '1 2 C' in 2O|2 with : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30111.htm ; "Iran - Another False Enemy", by Stephen Merril !! Hpy Nw Yr ! ~{:-)

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

You see no moral distinction between terrorism and war waged against the people who attacked us and committed the Rape of Nanking with 300,000 casualties and 80,000 rapes ? As for our use of nuclear weapons, would you be more comfortable had we simply firebombed more cities ? More people were killed in the March 10 1945 firebombing of Tokyo than in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

[-] 1 points by Evolution001 (100) from Vancouver, BC 8 years ago

There is no country on earth in whose name more genocidal massacres have been committed than USA. From its very foundation with ethnic cleansing of millions of Native Americans, to the murderous African slave trade and the subsequent horrific oppression of the slaves and Jim Crow Apartheid up to at least the middle of the last century, to the genocial wars against the Mexicans, Cubans, Phillipinos at the turn of the 20th century escalating to the most efficient killing machine in the world implicated in practically all major genocides in the last 1/2 century. With over 900 military bases in over 150 countries around the world the US killing machine is an instrument of global capital protecting the interests of aristocratic gangster bankster capitalists and their corporate clients.

I see no moral distinction between the winning fascists and their losing Japanese, German, and Italian counterparts. WWII, as well as WWI, the cold war, etc. were all preventable. However, the big captalists (especially the banksters who funded both sides of most of these wars) needed them to enrich themselves and extend their domination. That is what is happening as we speak as they prepare for another World War faced with their economic dysfunctions and the growing unrest among the global working masses that they need to squash before it gets out of hand. They have done this many times before especially during economic downturns, e.g., pre-WWII Depression, and during the 60's-70's Vietnam War era.

US entry into WWII was initiated by its ruling class and its global bankster financiers. They set up the Pearl Harbor just as they set up the sinking of Lucetenia for WWI, the sinking of the Maine in the Spanish-American War, and later the Gulf of Tonkin incident, etc. etc. US ruling class should never have attacked Japan despite the Japanese ruling class vicious fascist attacks on China and elsewhere pursuing its imperialist ambitions but then the US imperialist ruling class had its own ambitions and would top the Japanese ruling class atrocities by a long margin. In this light it is absurd to talk of the casualties suffered by the Chinese and others as if the US ruling class cared about such acts of genocide. This was made clear not just during WWII but during many even more deadly wars fought around the world afterwards solidifying the US ruling class as the "top dog" global fascist imperialists e.g., China, Korea, Vietnam / Cambodia / Laos / Thailand, Indonesia, Phillipines, Palestine, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc., etc., etc., etc.

With your mentality I suppose the Japanese should be thankful for the mercy shown on them by using the nuclear bomb. What if someone bombed your house to make you submit claiming they could have just as easily killed you? Will you be thankful? You should consider that next time someone abuses you. There are many routes to hell. There are endless ways of destruction and few ways of meaningful construction. USA has long been dead along with most other "nation states" after the gangster banksters did a finacial coup and took over around 100 years ago (by setting up the Fed and selecting Wilson to do their bidding). Talk of any "national interest" and "flag waving" since then only serves the interests of the real owners, the global aristocratic families of gangster banksters et. al.(e.g., Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan, Warburg, British Crown, Catholic Church Theocracy). You might as well talk about restoring God's kingdom on earth.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

I don't buy this whole thread of America the "Great Satan." I will cede that we are not the "Great Savior" either. On balance, however, the world is for better off with us than without.

Did we claim Japan, Iraq, or Afghanistan as US Colonies or did we rebuild, stabilize, and leave ? There goes Imperialism. How many eastern Europeans were freed from oppression when we brought the Iron Curtain down? Who is typically first on scene in a large natural disaster even half way around the world ? What nation's citizens give more in charity to the rest of the world ? I know you'll twist all this to sound like evil, because that appears to be your agenda, but the fact is, America has on balance been a force for good.

I never said I approved of being toasted in a fireball whether nuclear or incendiary. I mentioned the firebombing deaths only to illustrate there is no ethical difference between what was already being done and the nuclear strikes. There is, however, a big difference between them in terms of strategic consequence; firebombing required literally hundreds of aircraft, and the defense forces had some good chance of minimizing the damage by shooting down a number of aircraft. They still had hope. With nuclear weapons, however, only one plane need survive. This is what removed hope for victory and lead to surrender. The best way to stop the killing was to stop the war, and the nuclear strikes did that.

Folks that see the dark hand of the bankers everywhere aren't very persuasive in their arguments. They never provide any hard verifiable proof, they just wish it were true and try to convince others through continual repetition. They ascribe all evil in the world to Capitalism but never once pause to mention the good it has produced. I don't buy it. Never have, never will.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

There is an isolationist streak going through the nation today that makes the Neutrality Acts of the 1930's look like warmongering.

Iraq was a horrible mistake, but Iran is the real deal.

The problem with the scenario is that a strike on Iran DOES make sense.

Let's hope that sanctions work.

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

Exactly. I don't like this isolationism. Whether we like it or not, we are the biggest kid on the playground, and that comes with a moral imperative to act when the smaller kids are being bullied. War will continue to happen as long as there are bullies, and the isolationists would have us walk away saying, "it's none of my business." How pathetic.

As for whether a strike on Iran makes sense I can't say. None of us have access to the intelligence, and we can't make policy without it. There does appear to be sufficient causes for concern, however (i.e. not Vietnam), and I trust the folks with access to the facts. Even in Iraq, what we did makes sense to me given what I already know, though I don't think we will fully understand the decisions until after the intelligence is declassified and we gain historical perspective.

I can assure you the kids like my own who are today's military hope the sanctions work. I think we all hope sanctions work.

[-] 0 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

"As for whether a strike on Iran makes sense I can't say. None of us have access to the intelligence," : After Afghanistan and Iraq, you still trust "The Intelligence" do you ?! Oh, look you do !! ie "I trust the folks with access to the facts." Oy f-ckin' Vey (slaps forehead with palm) !!

At what point do you begin to question The Empire and the Imperial 'raison d'etres' ; rationales and motivations ? When d'you start to ask that critical question "Cui Bono" ?!

Or is it (as it seems to be) a case of U$A uber alles and "My Empire ; Right or Wrong" ?!!

ad iudicium ...

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

So, where do you get your information from, Internet blogs and everyday folks people who share your views ? What intelligence networks do they have ?

P.S. Spouting latin as you so often do doesn't make anyone think you're smarter.

[-] 0 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

Sod the latin, have you got any substantive response to :

a) "At what point do you begin to question The Empire and the Imperial 'raison d'etres' ; rationales and motivations ? When d'you start to ask that critical question "Cui Bono" (ie. Who gains ?!) +

b) "Or is it (as it seems to be) a case of U$A uber alles and "My Empire ; Right or Wrong" ?!!

Chew on some Greek if you wish ...

Gnothi Seauton !!!

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

Πρέπει να παίζουμε με τις γλώσσες

a) When I see more people dying in Nation on Nation violence and more people suffering starvation than before the USA came on the scene. Both are down.

b) See a) above

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

"Efkharistoh" for that but language is not just for play !

Re. the rest of your post : O.M.G. !!

Your "U$A Uber-Alles" hubris is frankly more than I can take and to be honest, I regret engaging with you ;-( Have a nice life and please consider that Iranians love their children too !!!

respice ; adspice ; prospice ...

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

Know the US military tries very hard minimize civilian deaths. To the best of our ability, we try to contain the damage to the military forces. We then aid in rebuilding, help establish stable institutions, encourage the rights of the citizens (including women), and leave. What follows depends on the people.

Iran has a very long and rich culture, and her people are strong. I have no fear they will blossom once freed from oppression. The cost of their freedom will be paid by American soldiers who gain nothing from their sacrifice but the knowledge they have freed a great people.

Salaam to the noble people of Iran seeking freedom. Curses to their oppressors.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

O.M.G. !!! I'm speechless ...

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

I didn't make it past the first paragraph above when I initially replied !

Now having read the rest, I can't help but be further alarmed by the thought that anyone would think Iranians are desperate for WAR to be visited upon them so that they can somehow 'be liberated' !!

George Orwell had a name for such proaganda : "NEWSPEAK" !!!

ad iudicium ...

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

"Iraq was a horrible mistake, but Iran is the real deal." ?! There you go again !

a) What "Real deal" and for Who ?!

b) D'you think that this ancient country of over 75 million people has a collective death wish ?!

c) Or quite the opposite, in that self-preservation is their primary concern ?!

d) Is it remotely conceivable that Iran is out to attack anyone, knowing that her own annihilation would be guaranteed ?!

e) Why are you so eager for WAR with Iran & Cui Bono ?!

I don't trust you 'puff' because you speak with a forked tongue ...

anguis in herba !!

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

Imagine that 9-11, Afghanistan, and Iraq had never happened and here we are in 2011.

Under that prescript, the concept that Iran should be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons would be debated by thoughtful leaders and our citizens. Without hesitation, their conclusion would be that military action....everything short of invasion.....should be authorized.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

Why ? Do you think the present bellicosity is REALLY to do with just nukes OR Hydro-carbons AND who gets access to them ?! (and don't confuse your 'rationale' with your Government's !) ad iudicium ...

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

Iran with a nuke places the world in an oil driven Cuban Missile Crisis.

It makes one of the most unpredictable regimes in our world untouchable.

It makes subversive efforts within the country lose foreign support....provided that the ruling regime appears to control and protect it's nuclear weapons and technology.

In other words, it weakens all leverage that we have in that part of the world, places the world's economy upon even shakier sands, and dramatically weakens our influence throughout the world.

Twelve years ago, we would have already taken out all of the enrichment sites. That is the rational conclusion.

Now, do not take this for my advocacy of such a policy. Only my pronouncement of political and foreign policy rationales.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

The sophistry of your final two sentences ('these are my pronouncements and opinions BUT I disassociate myself from them' !!) and your reluctance to answer answer any of my questions, aside ; I'm left numb by the deja vu and clear echo of yet more fear mongering W.M.D. {Words of Mass Deception} and by The WAR like Imperial U$A-Centric ambition, arrogance, and hubris.

Anything further I say will be a repetition of something that I've already said on this thread, so I'll spare us both the tedium as your mind is clearly made up on the matter.

Pacem In Terris Et Caveat Bellum Se Ipsum Alet ...

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

Iustitia in gentem magnam facit. Raro autem gentes iustum.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

"Pacem In Terris Et Caveat Bellum Se Ipsum Alet ..." = Peace On Earth And Beware The War That Feeds Itself ...

Further, though "Justice makes a great nation (tho') nations themselves are seldom just" may be a useful dictum ; Equity, Justice and Peace are achievable and not beyond the wit of men and women. Indeed that other useful dictum - "NO Justice ; NO Peace !!" comes to mind.

pax, semper pax ...

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

It is my goal for George Bush to face war crimes charges before his death.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

May it also be your "gaol" to seek to know something about those you would have bOMbed !!!

Re. IRAN, your not so subtle invective needs a peak into alternative truths so that LOVE can vanquish WAR Propaganda !!

As such, please attempt to engage with : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30062.htm - "Inside Iran : Rick Steves' Travel Journal ; The Most fascinating and surprising land I've ever visited." (Video) !

Pacem In Terris ;-)

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

Where there is the duty to act, and the ability to act, the failure to act is an abuse of power.

That's from my mind, but feel free to publish it someday in my memoirs.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

On your rationale as quoted immediately above and taking into account some of your other posts here, does that mean that you'd support charges of dereliction of duty against the murderous 'BushCheney' Administration ?! Whilst on the matter on charges, would you countenance War Crimes charges against them re. Iraq ? If I may remind you ; 'Wars of Aggression' were considered 'THE International War Crime', sans pareil at Nuremburg War Trials ...

You'd be a really happy bunny if Obomber were to "cry havoc and let slip the dogs of WAR", on Iran wouldn't you ?! Other peoples kids dying and killing 'johnny foreigner' thousands of miles away, seems to suit you just fine, doesn't it ?!! Death and destruction visited upon Iranians in pursuance of 'strategic gaols' (et cui bono?) and a further destabilised world are unconscionable to most people but NOT to you, right ?!!!

Your so called 'mind' seems a very frightened and frightening place and re. your (hubristic) '"memoirs" - I'd sooner piss on them as publish them {:-p)

honi soit qui mal y pense ...

[-] -1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

Plus : An Article (& web-site) for you 'puff' : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30038.htm .

fiat lux ...

[-] 2 points by TrollDestroyer2000 (29) 8 years ago

I think any country that has nuclear bombs is a Terrorist state.

[-] 2 points by Mowat (164) 8 years ago

True.

[-] 2 points by KVNLGN (154) 8 years ago

Amen to that ! If I lived in a country anywhere near Israel I would look to arm myself with whatever weapons I could find. I am sure the US military is leaving Iraq so that it can go into Iran. The US citizens die while Israel sits back and pulls the strings.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

@ "Klmcl" : I think that you may be interested in : "Justifying War with Iran", by Russ Baker ; http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30084.htm . pacem in terris ...

[-] 0 points by Mowat (164) 8 years ago

Agreed.

See what they've done to Gaza and all the children killed? The weapons they've used?

They will use nuclear weapons someday. Gives me the creeps!

[-] 0 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

Great, here come the anti-semites.

[-] 0 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

Please do NOT go down the 'cul de sac' of Questioning Israel = Judeophobia / Antisemitism !! Thanx ;-)

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

Scroll down and take a look at the number of people quoting articles of Jewish faith here.

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

wow!!!

[-] 0 points by fjolsvit (957) from Washington, DC 8 years ago

The Japanese might take exception to that claim, but I get your point.

[-] 1 points by NLake72 (510) 8 years ago

Pakistan? It's arguable... Either way, Iran knows darn good and well that if they get the bomb, and use it, they'll be a sheet of glass 30 minutes later. This is nothing more than Iran trying to show the region that they're the tough guys... Nuclear Diplomacy, and not much more.

[-] 2 points by RogerDee (411) from Montclair, NJ 8 years ago

Pakistan has detonated at least 8 nuclear weapons.

[-] 1 points by NLake72 (510) 8 years ago

Duh? Honey, they've had nukes for decades, that's why we keep them well-funded-- so their country doesn't risk being destabilized. Are they a terrorist state? Maybe... it's arguable, that was my point, but I won't waste my breath either way.

[-] 0 points by timir (183) from Brooklyn, NY 8 years ago

where the hell you get those information? North Korea, maybe? Even if they have it why would they use it against The main buyer (USA)? Ohh, i see, - the stakes is too low

[-] 1 points by RogerDee (411) from Montclair, NJ 8 years ago

Wikipedia.

India and Pakistan have been in a cold war for decades

[-] 1 points by fjolsvit (957) from Washington, DC 8 years ago

I'm not even convinced they are trying to produce a nuke. Let's look at recent history. What's so terrible about Iran? They fought a war against Iraq? Uh, didn't the US do the same thing, twice? Why is the the United-States-and-Israel kvetching about Iran so much?

Have anything to do with their central bank?

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

Ummm maybe it has to do with their rhetoric about wiping another nation of the face of the map ?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by KVNLGN (154) 8 years ago

Bingo ! There are only a few "axis of evils," I mean countries not controlled by our Federal Reserve Cartel, remaining. And don't forget about the pipeline that Iran wants to build to export to China...Israel wants control of the pipeline in that region.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

So you have a mole deep in the Israeli government that tells you what they're thinking ? Absolute BS.

[-] 1 points by KVNLGN (154) 8 years ago

Clearly, I have struck a nerve. Sometimes the truth hurts, Uncle Rico.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

The 'nerve' you stuck is the one called 'Reason,' and yes it does hurt every time I read one of your posts. Truth, by the way, never hurts anyone except folks such as you who find odd comfort in delusion.

[-] -2 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

Has Israel ever shut down the Straight of Hormuz......has Israel ever sold it's technology to a bunch of nutcase radicals who hate all Americans.

Perhaps, thinking would be good for you.

[-] 1 points by Mowat (164) 8 years ago

Israel tried to sell nuclear bomb info. to South Africa when it was an apartheid state like Israel is today.

[-] 1 points by KVNLGN (154) 8 years ago

Israel doesn't hate Americans...? Are you kidding me, maybe you should study up on their scripture, the talmud.

http://www.takeourworldback.com/short/talmud.htm

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

You sir, are clearly an anti-semite. How do any of us know know you're not posting from Iran ?

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

Why and on what basis do you ascribe "anti-semitism" onto Iran and Iranians ?!

So, re. 'Iran and Jews', please see :

a) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA7yz2vciGk,

b) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-r04SQ97_Q &

c) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngttxIzXRsE .

I dare you to watch these videos & tho' I don't dare you to offer a response, please try to learn & reflect.

Happy Hanukkah ; Merry Xmas ; Yuletide Greetings for Solstice but please stop your stereotyping and racist prejudices against Iran and Iranians !!

fiat lux ...

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

Actually, I like the Iranians I have met, and I really respect Islam as I saw it practiced in UAE. What I do not like is any nation that declares another should be wiped from the face of the earth, sponsors terrorism, and wants nuclear weapons so it can engage in even worse acts.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

Here's an article for you : "The Worst Case For War with Iran", by Stephen M. Walt : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30052.htm & a happy and PEACEFUL 2012 to you and yours ;-)

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

.+ ...

1) Marching Towards War : "EU Reaches Agreement to Ban Imports of Iranian Oil (Reuters) ; http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30162.htm &

2) "Obama Seeks to Distance U.S. from Israeli Attack", by Gareth Porter ; http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30158.htm#idc-cover .

fiat pax ...

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

You should fundamentally wake up to the admittedly alarming prospect that some of your opinions re. Iran are NOT your own but are implanted by years of MSM mind-management, programming and propaganda !!

Your first reaction, will be to be very angry at me for suggesting this but IF you take a deep breath ; watch The Videos Links above (the first one featuring an Iranian Jewish MP!) and slowly re-read this thread then maybe you'll possibly see what I'm saying !

dum spiro, spero ...

[-] 0 points by KVNLGN (154) 8 years ago

I am the farthest thing from an anti-semite. I do not agree with their religion, as well as, other religions. You are calling me an anti-semite becuase I post actual scripture from the Talmud for everyone to see ? It doesn't even make sense... I don't like any group of people that deceives and manipulates society for power, control, debt, slavery and profit. Typical...always quick to pull out the racist card when the truth comes out in an effort to change the subject. All I did was provide a link to the way people who follow the Talmud think. It is important that us gentile beasts, as they state, be aware of their thought process and hidden agenda. If that makes me an anti-semite then so be it. Oh, you ordered the meatloaf...the brisket is really good here, only you'll never know it....

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

Yes, it makes you an anti-semite, and you appear to take pride in the title.

You cannot hide behind your deception that you were only engaging in dry discussion of the tenants of one religion or another. You are condemning a large segment of American society and an entire nation by the words of an ancient religious text. This no different than declaring America to be Christian and dragging up quotes from the Bible to represent what be all believe or using the words of the Koran to condemn all followers of Islam.

I doubt you live in America. Even if you did, I wouldn't count you as an American because you so willfully disdain the very tenants of religious tolerance core to our founding principles.

[-] 1 points by Mowat (164) 8 years ago

Many people will be shocked when they discover what the Talmud teaches them!

They are taught to consider all Goyim as slaves and it’s not a sin to kill them or steal their money.

Apparently Madoff was a good student!

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

??????

[-] 0 points by Scout (729) 8 years ago

no but Israel hasnt done that but it's other actions still make it a terrorist state

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

Israel has become an infected wound that has poisoned our relations with a number of countries.

I would not call Israel a terrorist state....it doesn't export it's radicalism....but it is very analogous to South Africa in the 1980's. Apartheid was an institutional form of enslavement and hatred. It was fueled by fear and political motives. In the end, it required a statesman and a national hero to overcome.

Israel lost it's last statesman, Yitzhak Rabin, and none have emerged since.

The Palestinians, meanwhile, regard Hamas as worthy of support.

It's a deadly spiral that will not end until the Israelis are treated with the same tough love as were the Afrikaners.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

That's a nice reasoned response. We do need to consider who we call our friends, and those who were our friends in the past are not necessarily our friends now, so we need to continuously evaluate our relations.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

The Story of the Taoist Farmer.....

This farmer had only one horse, and one day the horse ran away. The neighbors came to condole over his terrible loss. The farmer said, "What makes you think it is so terrible?"

A month later, the horse came home--this time bringing with her two beautiful wild horses. The neighbors became excited at the farmer's good fortune. Such lovely strong horses! The farmer said, "What makes you think this is good fortune?"

The farmer's son was thrown from one of the wild horses and broke his leg. All the neighbors were very distressed. Such bad luck! The farmer said, "What makes you think it is bad?"

A war came, and every able-bodied man was conscripted and sent into battle. Only the farmer's son, because he had a broken leg, remained. The neighbors congratulated the farmer. "What makes you think this is good?" said the farmer.

[-] 5 points by Algee (182) 8 years ago

Calling other people terrorists because they aren't on your side isn't new. The nazis called European resistance groups "terrorists". Frankly its beginning to sound a little childish. Many of the countries that are called "terrorist supporting" or are said to be part of the "axis of evil", are countries you know nothing of. All you know is what you have been told by the government or news channels. Before it was the communists who were the enemy and now its the so-called terrorists. Iran is probably just trying to survive and has become paranoid because of all the American invasions going on around, and let's not forget all the American allies too. The American army is literally surrounding Iran and you think they wouldn't arm themselves? You say war is coming, well maybe but it'll just be another useless, illegitimate and costly war.

[-] 1 points by timir (183) from Brooklyn, NY 8 years ago

totally agree. excellent. like you said they paranoid because "American army is literally surrounding Iran" - this is clearly reflects the reality

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

"You say war is coming, well maybe but it'll just be another useless, illegitimate and costly war."

Exactly. So, call your Congressmen now. Write letters to the editors. Denounce Fox news. Support anti-war candidates in the Congressional primaries.

Get out of the damn park and think of a way out of this!

[-] 3 points by Algee (182) 8 years ago

That is a way to do it. However there is one little problem with that. In the 2007-2008 financial crisis people did call their congressmen and congress voted no on the bailouts. If I remember correctly, the bailouts still took place. I say, stay in the park, find a phone and call. Let's make our cell phones useful for a change. Spread the word!

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

Sorry, but until we have completely severed our dependence on oil in the middle-east, we have to remain a player. Iran has not only voiced conflict with Israel, but the Saudis, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, and every other nation nearby. Ironically, people in this movement want to stop Canadian oil, American natural gas, etc, but decry our meddling in the middle east. Folks need to remember that a lot of people around the world suffered miserably under the great depression, and it can happen again if we don't have access to energy. Get that damned energy from wherever we can then get out of the middle east. ASAP We can work on cleaner energy using all the freakin' war dollars we currently waste defending our middle eastern oil.

[-] 1 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 8 years ago

I agree with you Rico. We are wasting far too much money trying to keep the status quo, when what we need to be doing in America is advancing. We need to focus on cheaper, cleaner and more efficient methods of energy. Cheaper, cleaner, and more efficient methods of transportation. cheaper, cleaner, and efficient methods of desalinization. Basically cheaper, cleaner and more efficient methods of everything.

The people who run U$A are evil and self-serving and all they're doing is running this country into the ground. You don't think they're just going to cut and run when they have sucked all the wealth and life out of their citizens? They will. I mean look at Bush and all of his cult followers for example.

The powers at hand obviously will not agree with making things cheaper and more efficient. How are they going to continue to make their money? They denounce such ideas with retorts such as "well this will not benefit the economy." But if people already don't know this, the economy is fucked either way. The entire monetary system is a sham. People complain that machines/immigrants/outsourcing are taking away jobs from Americans; and they are, it's a fact.

I think we've all seen what a sweat shop looks like by now and it's not a pretty sight. But the workers will continue to work in such conditions because it is a means of supporting their own families. Not because they enjoy doing these mundane tedious jobs. Do you know what happens when the wageslaves overseas try to strike for better working conditions and pay? They get beat the fuck down and are easily replaced with somebody else who needs to support their family. They work up to sixteen hours a day seven days a week so they are not left with spare time for recreational activities.

I can go on and about this...but I'm currently missing The Price is [Rigged] so I'll catch ya laterz.

[-] 0 points by timir (183) from Brooklyn, NY 8 years ago

Just be Well prepared to evacuate your cities. your actions will be restraint and punished. God bless Army

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

You lost me. Are you threatening American cities ? Who's Army are you blessing ? I'm utterly confused.

[-] 0 points by timir (183) from Brooklyn, NY 8 years ago

GOD bless army asshole. it is warning message for Iranian people. I trying to be sarcastic because you people are angry greedy bastards

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

You are a brand new poster, and English does not appear to be your first language.

May I ask where are you posting from ?

[-] 1 points by timir (183) from Brooklyn, NY 8 years ago

People's Republic of Brooklyn!

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by jimmycrackerson (940) from Blackfoot, ID 8 years ago

When I was in the Military, the Televisions in the chow halls literally had the Fox News symbol burned into the screens. When I spoke out against the bullshit fox was spewing and tried to get someone to change the channels, I got my ass handed to me by my superiors.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

Read about the evangelicalism of the Air Force Academy (located just a stone's throw from James Dobson's Focus on the Family campus and Reverend Ted Haggart's former church).

http://constantinessword.com/?cat=6

[-] 4 points by jfusa (7) 8 years ago

puff6962, Iran is a pacific country and has no intention of using nuclear weapons or invade another country. You have been watching too much Fox News. When will you learn about class consciousness? The enemy is right here in the good old US of A headquarters to global capitalism and the bankster cartel. War is very profitable, plus it keeps the sheeple like you distracted.

What else did you expect deep in trouble, and with the scrutiny they are facing via the global OWS movement? Seems like you are like a schoolyard bully itching for a fight - for the benefit of the masters of course. The real fight is the global class war that has been going on for a long time with such "foreign wars and enemies" used as a cover-up / escape-goat creating fear for the real shake-down of the working class here in god damn USA. Sheeple wake up as another round of slaughter is in the works (you included puff6962). OWS full steam ahead exposing the conspiracies of the gangster banksters. Out with predatory capitalism, scourge of war and misery.

http://youtu.be/dJ4T0eGWOgw

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by Vooter (441) 8 years ago

Guess we shouldn't have overthrown the Iranian government in '53, or spent the last century or so abusing the Middle East for its oil. People in the Middle East have EVERY right to hate us, because WE'RE the terrorists. Now go watch TV, you lazy nitwit...

[-] -3 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

You get a chubby when you try to insult someone, don't ya Piggy.

Come out and play bitch.

[-] 2 points by Vooter (441) 8 years ago

Ooooh, Puffy's upset that no one's impressed by American "power" anymore, either abroad or, more importantly, at home. LOL! The jig is up, you moron. The U.S. government, Wall Street, and corporate America have finally screwed the pooch once and for all, and there will be NO going back to your neocon "glory days." If I were you, I'd get on the right side of history, and fast. Things are going to get REALLY ugly in this country in the coming years, and any ham-handed attempt by a desperate, terrified U.S. government to start yet ANOTHER war is only going to make things WAY worse for them. Good luck--you're clearly going to need it....

[-] -1 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

Yes, I'll stand in line behind you at the guillotine.

[-] 3 points by nolongerasleep (57) from Cleveland, OH 8 years ago

Let Israel handle it. They have been itching for a fight. Sure that isn't what will happen but I'd like to cut them loose and have us worry about our own problems.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

Israel has already struck the nuclear programs of Iraq and Syria. I suspect they're only holding back on Iran because we've asked them to. At some point, they'll go, and probably with our blessing/support. We will have sufficient F-35's to fulfill Israel's order in FY-12 if we wanted.

[-] 1 points by nolongerasleep (57) from Cleveland, OH 8 years ago

I must be the only one that feels like Israel is using us to get back at the same enemies they have had for thousands of years. What real reason do we have to be allied with Israel? Oh that's right, we felt pity for them after WW2 (understandably) but then continued to feel pity for them to this day. You know I think maybe it's time we cut them loose.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

I think we have close ties to Israel because we, America, have a very large Jewish population. We have strong ties with Europe for similar reasons.. bloodlines.

[-] 1 points by Mowat (164) 8 years ago

No sir, we have close ties with Israel because AIPCA rules the White House, Senate, Congress, the Federal Reserve, the banking system, and the media.

It's not ties. It is chains. The American people are chained, that is.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

Sillyiness. AICPA is the American Institute of CPAs. See http://www.aicpa.org/Pages/Default.aspx . If you knew anything about American politics, you'd understand that the jewish vote in Florida is central. That's why both sides tend to seek the jewish vote and are careful regarding their stance on Israel. Just google "jewish voters 2012" and look at what comes up.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

The problem, however, is that the Israelis are unsure of whether they can, in fact, end the program.....and, if they try and fail, then they shall have a nuclear armed angry dog on their hands.

The Israelis have been hedging their bets all along and have maneuvered the United States into the role of nuclear policeman.

If you watch the GOP Presidential candidates, watch how many times they mention Israel. Israeli leaders have been courting evangelicals and teabuggers very effectively and the red meat Republicans will not elect a president who does not have, as part of their plans, bombing Iran.

Again, it is a checkmate scenario. These guys are like your dumbass friend who always seems to get everybody in a fight at a bar but doesn't end up fighting themselves. The GOP contestants, except for Paul, have tried to play the Iranian issue in the same manner as candidates of the old GOP used the USSR.

The Republicans need an enemy to win and Iran has provided them with it.

Again, I have spent a week trying to find a way out of this checkmate.....but, from all angles, the political moves all lead to the same outcome.

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

Now, now puff ! Let's be fair. Even the Democrats are rattling the saber in regards Iran.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

Yes....that is why it is checkmate.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

The Iranian 'MAD dog' play is irrational, illogical and paranod.

If Iranian WMD and Israeli WMD cancelled each other out, why wouldn't The Cold WAR style "Peace by MADness" (Mutually Assured Destruction !!) 'reasoning and rationality', also prevail ?

The First and possibly Only casualty would be U$A / Israeli hegemony ...

ad iudicium ..

et fiat pax .

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

The difference between Iranian and Israeli positions in a MAD scenario is that the Israelis don't believe that they have a 100 virgins waiting for them in heaven.....only Jewish grandmothers.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

Perhaps "p6962", my read of you was not wrong after all.

Your comment above is an ignorant, illogical, irrational and 'racialised' answer, 'designed' (consciously or otherwise) to bypass the higher functional brain and instead (intentionally or otherwise) to appeal directly to anxiety, paranoia, prejudice, fear and loathing.

Most unbecoming and revealing.

E Tenebris, Lux ?

[-] -1 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

blah blah blah.....go back to spanking pinkie.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

Maybe I should have taken some time to re-read the whole thread. And to think that I even apologised to you for thinking that I'd confused you with your 'shadow poster' 'puff6269' !! But I had you 'bang to rights' the first time, didn't I ?

You Desire Another Unconscionable War ; this time on Iran and you and your kind, are deploying your W.M.D. (Words of Mass Deception !) all over The Inter-Web. You are a self-exposed WAR-WHORE and Terror Troll and surely The Worst Kind of Psychopath ; happy to send Other People's Children to go and kill innocents, thousands of miles away. Cui Bono, 'puff' - cui bono ?!

honi soit qui mal y pense

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

Where in this entire thread did I once advocate any type of conflict.

This thread is a thought experiment. It is a warning. It is showing you a trap that was laid some time ago that is now ready to spring.

How can you make people truly think if you do not present realities.....how can you avoid war if you do not understand the political, historic, and social forces driving it?

War-whore? No, worse, human.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

If you're asking, then I'm answering by cutting and pasting directly from your opening forum post :

"However, we have no cruise missiles that are capable of "bunker busting." So, aircraft will be used and this means destroying all Iranian ground-to-air missile installations and the obliteration of the Iranian air force. Not a minor feat, but certainly one we can achieve."

"And, that is where I am leading with all of this. We had the option, for 10 years, of utilizing our intelligence and stealth capabilities in order to surgically strike the central locations of the Iranian nuclear program.....but we failed to act. After 9-11, no power on earth would have raised a finger if we had taken the "clean house" approach and neutered the Iranians. But that is not what occurred. This goodwill was wasted, instead, upon the invasion of Iraq."

Also, from this thread : "Has Israel ever shut down the Straight of Hormuz......has Israel ever sold it's technology to a bunch of nutcase radicals who hate all Americans? Perhaps, thinking would be good for you.".

So there you have it, 'puff6962' and you can stop the duplicitous mealy mouthed dissembling now !

I'm beginning to think that you're either a sophist OR schizophrenic on the matter of WAR on Iran. In any case, 'puff', how come you don't have a single word of criticism about Israel or it's Nuclear Weapons - The Only Rational 'raison d'etre' for any Iranian weapons programme ?

In fact 'puff' when are you (and other Americans) going to wake up to &/or admit The Strategic Liability that Israel is for The USA ?! With it's Nuclear Arsenal et al, how and why can't Israel stand on it's own feet ?!

WTF is going on 'puff' ?

spero meliora ...

[-] 1 points by RogerDee (411) from Montclair, NJ 8 years ago

There exists no conventional bunker buster capable of penetrating thru more than 40 ft of rock. Nuclear weapons are only slightly better.

I wrote this up over 3 years go, note info concerning Tactical Tomahawk Penetrator Variant missile: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/FogerRox/30

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

Straight of Hormuz.

[-] 1 points by RogerDee (411) from Montclair, NJ 8 years ago

Have you read the Art of War by Sun Tzu?

[-] -1 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

Yes.

[-] 1 points by RogerDee (411) from Montclair, NJ 8 years ago

Then why are you like this?

[-] -1 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

"All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved."

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

"He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious." et "vincit qui se vincit" !!

Thus, please allow yourself to watch and engage with :

a) http://www.iranisnottheproblem.org/about_the_movie ;

b) http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/iran-is-not-the-problem/ &

c) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1lliIGCcfs (Alt. Link) !!!

Pacem In Terris ;-)

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

Straight outta yer (x), Hermes ?!

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

Yes, I will be your guide to Hades and the underworld.

As I have told you, I live in the presence of mine enemies and history may not repeat itself, but it is rhyming.....rhyming with 2003.

This post is a warning.

You have been warned. I have explained to you how the trap was set and how it will play out.

But, there is still time to avert this action.

THE ANSWER THAT I'VE BEEN LOOKING FOR......is for some bright reporters to ask our former President and vice President why they didin't take action in 2003. They knew of Iranian nuclear advancements then. Why did they really invade Iraq over Iran? So, between these three men, caught off guard by the questioning, you will see inconsistencies......The press naturally love inconsistencies. So, now the story is growing.....Why did we go into Iraq over halting Iran's nuclear ambitions?......Now, Congress (the Democratic Senate) gets into the act and begins subpoenaing Bush officials and available records from 2000 to 2008. The cover up begins....Records are guarded and Bush / Cheney refuse to cooperate in the proceedings. And, a cover up is the wet dream of all good reporters.....the story builds that we invaded Iraq always knowing that we would also later intervene in Iran.

The public is furious, disgusted, and Republican warmongers are discredited for the time being. They need their asses kicked by all of us, at least once a generation, and now is time.

THAT IS THE WAY OUT. If one of you had really thought about the nature of the problem in political, cultural, and historical terms, that is the step by step of how things could play out differently.

So, call your newspaper and ask them to work the story. Make it an issue. Bellow it through the blogs. Make is the defining question of the Bush presidency......How could you push a war where you knew there were no WMD while ignoring the neighboring that you KNEW had an active nuclear program? Would you be willing to say that under oath, Mr. President? Mr. Vice President? Mr. Rove?

To avoid a trap, you must often set one of your own.

Here it is described for you. I have worked on it for days (while moving houses).

The only way for our politicians to avoid the trap set by Mr. Rove is to revisit and prosecute the decisions and deciders who led us into Iraq.

Now, I'm typing quickly and won't have time to edit this, but that is how you do it.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

'puff' : I'm beginning to feel somewhat sorry for your deluded Self ; twisted Spirit and tortured Soul !

I can't be bothered to re-read and deconstruct the above but suffice it to say, I can't quite believe that you can trust "bright reporters" or The Corporate US MSM to ask or 'BushCheney' to answer, Anything ; I mean The MSM is currently party to desperately trying to tar Iran with "9/!!" right now !!

'puff', they say that moving house is one of The Most Stressful things we humanoids ever do, so get it sorted, chill your ass out and enjoy the hols. We'll lock horns next year, when you may be able to answer my fair and reasonable questions to you on this thread about Israel !!!

pax et lux ; hic et ubique ; nunc et semper ;-)

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

"We got sidetracked with Saddam" ... was the point I stopped reading this NeoCon ; Paleo-Imperial ; Fear and Loathing ; WAR Promoting , screed .

W.M.D. Then = W.M.D. Now = Words of Mass Deception !!!

Me ? I'm ALL In at the Get-Go ... [ http://occupywallst.org/forum/war-with-iran/#comment-475315 ] ;-)

fiat lux ...

[-] -1 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

You didn't notice that was sarcasm.....it must be difficult to be a mouth breather.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

Gasp & Lol !!! Ironically perhaps for a born and bred Brit, I wasn't expecting it from 'A Mercan', so N0 ; I didn't ... cos I'd stopped reading !! Dhoh !

Tentative Defence = Maybe a "puff6962", puff"6269"and 'patriot76" Con-Fusion ?! Alas, post in haste and repent at leisure ...

Ooops & sorry, but least the point about The Utterly Unjust Lunacy of WAR on Iran got to be (sort of) re-made ... but again .. iDhoh! {:-o)

pax et lux ; hic et ubique !

[-] -1 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

Sequimur te gratia

[-] 2 points by blazefire (947) 8 years ago

Check these links out, on this thread.....

http://occupywallst.org/forum/thank-you-anonymous-for-restoring-the-hope-that-ob/

I think those links on that thread are evidence enough to support a standpoint of opposition to much of what you say here....I hope I'm still ur friend, soz, lol

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

bl@ze : Your instincts are I suspect, correct. (Please see above, directly and from the top of the thread). Painful but revealing. + Friends come and go but only Truth, Love and Beauty prevail.

spero.

[-] 3 points by blazefire (947) 8 years ago

Yes..... painful and revealing seem to be the way of it. I think 'we', if I were to use the chess metaphor, are several moves behind in this 'game'. I think we must remember that all the things we think we know are preludes, to the now. IF we see it, it's a result of moves made years ago, so, we are left in a place where only critical thinking and reason can show the way, and 'facts', must be seen only as forerunners to that. I think the present 'moves', in Iran are no different, in that they have been years in the making, and, the social aspects of that plan have been accounted for also. Occupy is a symptom, of this game. And a foreseen one, in terms of this 'game', same with Iran. When we understand that the reactions of our adversaries, and ourselves also are not so, but actions, we must ask ourselves: To what end? And for what cause?

Or how is checkmate defined?

I consider myself to be quite an accomplished player of chess and when you play, the first thing you do is concentrate on strategic positioning.

I think that is what we're seeing, however, the positioning seems to be more of a sociopolitical nature, than anything else, or, more succinctly, I suspect that 'checkmate', is defined as the enslavement of the 'common man'.

Hmmmmm....here's a thought. A spanner in the works....What would happen if the people of occupy, made 'official' diplomatic overtures, towards the people in Iran, and Iraq, etc, etc...?

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

Mate, for too long now, too many of us having been playing draughts (checkers) whilst Imperial Lickspittles and WAR-Whores (like puffy above) have been doing their Masters' bidding advancing their pawns ; deploying their knights and in puff's case - bashing his bishop !!

at spes non fracta ;-)

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

Re. : "A spanner in the works....What would happen if the people of occupy, made 'official' diplomatic overtures, towards the people in Iran, and Iraq, etc" ; Gr8 Idea, whose time will come next year ...

spero ;-)

[-] 2 points by blazefire (947) 8 years ago

Oh yes and,

blessed ar we,

Who engineer,

the time of endearment.

[-] 1 points by MrMiller (128) from Sandy, UT 8 years ago

The downing of the RX-170 is overblown, in my opinion. Why wouldn't they want to down it if it was circling the skies in their country? And for the real question, what the hell would they even do with it? Therein lies the true question that people don't even ponder, or at least, not as much as I think they should. It's just a child's game. In my opinion, the downing of the spycraft has little to do with the nuclear program and its accompanying agenda, but that's just my own opinion.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

So I guess Francis Gary Power's U-2 just ended up 3000 miles off course?

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 8 years ago

Why would the Iranians use a nuclear weapon when they know that they would be completely destroyed in retaliation? You can brainwash a single suicide bomber to destroy himself, but not a whole nation, I think.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

If you truly believe that God would supply you with 40 virgins when you die, then you may believe that he has 40 virgins for each of the males in the nation when they all die.

Who knows. But, once Iran obtains the bomb, they shall become the North Korea of the Mideast and will be untouchable.

This is the foundation of the calculus in this decision.

Iran would become a festering sore in the middle of a region that holds half the world's proven oil reserves. That sore shall be with us in perpetuity and the atomic genie may soon be out of the proverbial bottle for good.

Who knows.

[-] 1 points by hymie (391) 8 years ago

Are you aware that US Joint Chiefs of Staff have been telling Obama to warn Israel not to attack Iran under any circumstances, because they believe it could trigger a nuclear war with Russia and China?

This is US generals I am talking about, and its no lie. The Russians have started moving their missiles and missile defense systems around and have sent a small fleet into the Mediterranean. The US has a full nuclear capacity there as well.

The Chinese president has put the Chinese navy on alert for a war with the US. Iran is of vital interest to both Russia and China, and both have said that we wouldn't hesitate to defend Iran in a war.

Iran is doing the right thing developing nuclear energy. Every country will need nuclear energy eventually, because one thing that is certain is that we will run out of fossil fuel someday, and if we don't have an alternative by then, we will be in deep trouble.

Go to google or youtube and look up "Iran WW3" and read a little about it before you get too excited about bombing Iran.

[-] 1 points by AndyJ0hn (129) 8 years ago

Obama is a hypocrite.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

We are all part of the same hypocrisy......

(From the Godfather part II).

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

What if they had a WAR and no one came?

Just a re-occuring thought I have from time to time.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

Obama is a war mongering fraud. He supported tax payer bailouts which supported a banking system that is taking people's homes.

He's bombed more countries than GWB and OG Bush combined. He lied about ending the war in Iraq and the current withdrawal date was set up under the Bush administration. And he extended the Bush tax cuts.

Obama is a fraud.

[-] 1 points by TheRoot (305) from New York, NY 8 years ago

Puff6962: What's up with this? There is everything you and each one of us can do. Apart from us and first and foremost, Israel has theirs poised and ready. They're not waiting on us to protect their arses, nfw! I stopped counting. What do they have now, ~over 100 nuclear missiles? And Iran, what approaching ~1? At the first puff of vapor from Iran (and Israel can tell the difference between the ones being lobbed into them each month from the really bad one), Israel pulls the trigger. Bye, bye Iran and end of Terrorist Nation.

Now more than ever, each of us in the U.S. has Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution. What a concept! You want to rattle someone's chain, then pick up the phone and flood your Congressman's Office with calls and emails demanding that he/she respect it or else he/she will be retired early and replaced by you with someone who does.

On another front, what was your last count of the number of US Diplomats? You're great at tracking shit like that. What does it matter? It takes only one of them. Make them talk- to Iran! Military-Industrial-Complex, my ass. Motivate your Congress Person to get the State Department talking with Iran not about sanctions and getting U.S. spy planes back but about trade and peace.

Sanctions, cripes, they are the tools of war mongers. You know it; we all do. Take their tools away, politically, by demanding that your Representatives value human life (all of it, everywhere) more than buying, selling and using weaponry. Iran will not blast into oblivion any Country it's trading with. Count on it. Count on the basic human nature that that underscores (even though some of their and our representatives are lunatics) and demand that your Representatives open up trade with Iran.

You're talking like a "give up". What's gotten into you? The World has been a dangerous place for a long, long time. So what? What are you going to put in its place?

[-] -3 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

The Israelis have been held back from striking the Iranian sites for the past 8 years because the United States thought that such action would dramatically hurt our chances of success in Iraq. The insurgency would strengthen and become permanent. Iraq would become America's Gaza strip.

America, therefore, made a deal with the Israeli government that we would help them when the time came.....and it has come.

Mr. Obama thought that this assistance could be used as a bargaining chip in pushing the Israelis through negotiations with the Palestinians.

However, the Israelis told him to, quite frankly, fuck off. His bluff was called. We have already sold the Israelis "bunker busting" munitions and, faced with the choice, they would rather go it alone.

But, if an American president allows Israel to "go it alone," he will be seen as weak on terrorism and weak in his support of Israel.

Again, it is political checkmate. America will bomb Iran and, because a large contingent of American diplomats and private contractors remain in Iraq, Israel will be asked to remain in the background. If we fail, they will strike as well.....the snake will already be out of the pit. But, there is no question that every political inevitability leads to the outcome of a military action against Iran.

Show me how a Presidential candidate can get elected while allowing Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon and I will delete this entire topic.

[-] 3 points by TheRoot (305) from New York, NY 8 years ago

Fuck the Candidates, all of them. You're an intellectual, right. Start acting like one! You did before. What's the matter, now? There is one political inevitability that they didn't count on- you! (and me and all the rest of us!). Christ, Puff. Are you having a bad stretch right now? Find a hooker, if you want instantaneous gratification. We'll all chip in. But after you've blown your wad, get back here. You know as well as I do that when it comes to politics, good things take time. The same bloody issue will be here regardless of whether they've blown Iran off the face of the Earth. No time like the present... to start salvaging the rest of the World.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

Do you play chess? Do you remember 2003?

This time, the drums of war are beating and they're coming from an unacceptable situation prompting an unacceptable action.

I am not for it. I posted this thread as a thought instrument.

And, I have yet to read someone show me a way for a candidate to navigate a path that does not include military action against Iran (and get elected).

It's like being the biggest guy in the bar and you see a guy whose pushing his girlfriend around.....everyone is looking around for some way to avoid war while not looking like a pussy. The smart people I know are all very worried about how this hawkishness is being used in the Republican primary. Democrats cannot call the Republicans warmongers because Iran remains an open wound in the minds of many Americans. Additionally, Democrats fear the neutrality will be seen as neglecting our relations to Israel.

This is a thought experiment......so brainstorm.

Tell me how a politician can get elected in this scenario without giving tacit approval to some form of intervention.

This trap was set a long time ago by one of the most evil men in the history of American politics....Karl Rove.....and like all effective traps, it ensnares quickly and then tightens. It was a fucking brilliant maneuver and I just don't see a way out for the Democrats.

Everyone can scream and protest this conclusion.....but, having seen how easily the American populace and Congress were led by their noses into Iraq.....I am not hopeful of the chances of avoiding another blunder.

My prediction, not my hope, is that Obama will steer a middle path and bomb, bomb, and bomb.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

It will be even simpler than that. It will look a lot like the prior attacks on the Syrian nuclear sites. Israel will lead. Heck, we might even give them some early deliveries on their F-35 order.

[-] 1 points by TheRoot (305) from New York, NY 8 years ago

It’s very cool- I mean your deliberateness to deliberate. From what I have read by you in this forum, your discipline to learn from history has taken you deep into the study of ideas and the practices coming from those ideas. I’d say that you’ve achieved your goals of understanding history including “knowing your enemy”. But, with all respect to you, I caution you. You shouldn’t expect anyone to brainstorm with you with the scenario you’ve set up? I am saying that because no one can think out of the box when they have both feet in it. With that and for this brainstorm, I am suggesting taking the tact of teasing away the particulars and instead using this time to bat around the principles.

Would you consider getting way out of the box while doing it? The outcome could point to new choices or confirm the choices of the people to recruit and promote in politics; and, for those of us who want to step up, it could encourage us because we’d have clearer thoughts on how to influence the population for support. It’s not too late on the political time-line. Most people respond most strongly in their political decisions when they believe that they are right- that their actions are rooted in a true morality. Appealing to that will gain more traction and strength in politics than anything else could.

For the brainstorm in general, I am imaging the elimination of perpetual wars and finding support for it politically. On its face, many have already answered no brainstorming is necessary for as general a topic. But when I counter with the obvious question, “Then why do we still have them?”, I hear them deplete their arsenal of knee-jerk bromides and see their eyes stop moving as if their intelligence just drained from their head. There’s more to it at a fundamental level, a place where many don't spend much time.

What would your framework mean in practice? “Politics is the art of the possible. Politicians are the creation of the voters. Therefore, voters must decide what is possible.” So, I am asking that the following fundamental Q’s be considered for the thought experiment.

• In a democracy of one person, one vote- isn’t there a fundamental idea (or set of ideas) that a person should rely upon when casting his vote? What is it? • What do warmongers require and rely upon to succeed?
• How could they have thrived over most of our history when most everyone else wants peace in their own lives?
• What is required in the actions of one person to live peacefully with another?
• Whether the massively statist programs of leading Nations or the incessant infighting of tribal chiefs, what basic idea is common to both?
• In a government limited by a prescription of what politicians can and can’t do, what should the basic tenets of that prescription be and why?

Starting the brainstorming there gives rise to clearer direction in action. Whatever the outcome, you will find politicians who will sign up. They’re there today and more are on the way. They can be convinced as can enough of the population. Borrowing here, Shadz66’s asked and answered, “How will anyone convince anyone of anything ever?” “With truth, facts, reason, belief and passion!” Should you want to continue with a brainstorm like this, I am all in. I believe that it’ll net important and actionable answers to “Tell me how a politician can get elected in this scenario without giving tacit approval to some form of intervention.”

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

From reading this thread in general and the 'puff' post above in particular, it is impossible NOT to conclude that The Only Country that has the U$A in a "political checkmate" is Israel !

Further, it would appear that "political checkmate" is an euphemism for "blackmail" !!

Finally : The next logical deduction is thus ; U$A = Usurped $tates of Amnesiacs !!!

Quad Erat Demonstrandum ...

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

Latin scmatin.

Amplexus amplexus est, ut fatui vobis.

You are offering me only gripes.....I am asking you how you convince politicians and our populace to take a different tract.

And, I hear nothing.

Do you think that I have enjoyed writing this thread?

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

Fair enough, you're entitled to be upset a little at my earlier language but readers will note your inability or unwillingness to address the points in my posts.

How will anyone convince anyone of anything ever ? With Truth ; Facts ; Reason ; Belief and Passion !

However IF you "hear nothing", then perhaps that makes you a part of the problem too ...

ad iudicium ?

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

Maturitate plerumque potestas quae accepta dubitatur.

[-] 1 points by fucorporatemedia (451) 8 years ago

We can surround the TV stations, with signs printed with their lies from the last war...almost the exact same stupid ass lies...it really is insulting to our intelligence.

Only this time we are too broke to pay out social security, but we still have the money for trumped up wars. The stupid...it burns....

Seriously, Occupy needs to take back the debate in this country, by surrounding the TV stations and demanding they tell the truth. Don't leave until they tell the truth, make them embarrassed to be fascist enablers.

[-] -1 points by Jflynn64 (337) 8 years ago

When you guys surround the TV stations, can you please make sure you use the restroom and not defecate on the streets. The rest of us would appreciate it.

[-] 1 points by fucorporatemedia (451) 8 years ago

We can surround the lying TV stations and demand they tell the truth.

Those are our public airwaves and they are not serving the public interest.

Iran is not a threat to the world, we need to stop these fascists and their enablers(the corporate media)

Stand outside the stations demanding the tell the truth....until they tell the truth..like they did in Egypt.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 8 years ago

there most certainly is something we could do to prevent it. WE could have a real revolution, have a real new global diplomacy, and stop doing things to make other nations so pissed at us that they want to harm us.

We most certainly could use economic means to turn iran into an ally. We most certainly could end global poverty, we most certainly could stop this from escalating.

You forgot to mention. China says if we attack iran, the kid gloves come off. So you are talking about a nuclear world war 3.

So, we can all blither on mindlessly on this forum, with trolls, or we can have a paradigm shift and thus a revolution and then start on the path to a new global world order that isn't a fascist nightmare.

http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Article_5_Convention

http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/THE_99%25_POLITICAL_PARTY

http://occupywallst.org/forum/im-quitting-unless-you-all-start-working-stay-the-/

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

You are just so desperate to create something that has no use. Everyone simply ignores your new-wave wiki world.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 8 years ago

puff the trolling tard and his ad homs uncanned.

whats no use is THIS site. The wiki has assorted uses, far more real and far more powerful in potential than any of this clownshit.

The probem is asshats like you, who think you know enough to come in here and preach and deliver the grand truth according to you. You have nothing of value to share with us, and the reason why we come into conflict is because you have an ego trip.

I am desperate to save the humans. I am desperate to have a real revolution. I am desperate to be free from fucktard rebels without a clue who imagine themselves to be some kind of info guru, constantly proving as they spew nonsense only that ignorance is not bliss.

You are just so hot to see the world end, that you have given up any hope or chance that we can stop it.

Rather than face the content of my post, you attack me and my work. What a prick.

no surprise there, we have dealt with this scumbag before.

[-] -1 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

Politics is the art of the possible.

Politicians are the creation of the voters.

Therefore, voters must decide what is possible.

You lack the humility to understand this very simple truth that guides all of my thoughts.

Go read, "Freedom From Fear," by David Kennedy....a book about the Great Depression and it's upheavals....then you will develop some insights into how the next ten years will play out and what you can do to shape it.

I offer this advice to you without malice. The book won the Pulitzer Prize and you will thank me for recommending it to you.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

still bet the rules would change if we could create a voting system

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 8 years ago

I don't lack any humility, i know how it is. Very simple truth that guides all of your thoughts.. okay, this is going to be big, i can tell. Uhm. Excuse me? go read? I got done reading. I read. I read 3000 textbooks. I have extraordinary clarity and i don't need any more reading. thanks, but no thanks. I'm busy, i don't have time for distractions.

http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Article_5_Convention

http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/THE_99%25_POLITICAL_PARTY

http://occupywallst.org/forum/im-quitting-unless-you-all-start-working-stay-the-/

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

As you say. But, pick up a copy on Amazon and, when you are done, you can throw away your 3000 textbooks.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 8 years ago

I feel, reluctantly, that I have to respond to this post - reluctantly, first because I have tended to agree with most, if not all, of the posts "puff" has placed here. Whoever you are, puff, you have a brilliant mind!

I agree with you about the position Obama has inherited. I wouldn't want to be in his position for all the tea in China. But let me, nevertheless, offer a brief critique of your post.

When the world was dragged into WWI, everybody went along with the belief that it was inevitable, but it turned ot in hindsight that it was not inevitable at all. People simply lost sight of the idea that diplomacy really had a good chance of preventing it.

Our problem here, is that religious hatred and mistrust deeply complicate the situation, and that is what makes it all the more dangerous.

Let us not enter yet another futile conflagration, please. Let us not succomb to the idea of the necessity of war, for in truth I am not sure that we ourselves can survive the strain of yet another war.

The Moslem world, at this point, has many justifiable grievences and how can people in this movement turn their back on those grieviances or upon the potential ignomity of the possibility of war for profit's sake, and yat another false call to patriotism, as happened in Iraq?

Rather, we should hear those grievances out, instead of falling into the trap of accepting the simple "good vs. evil" psychology that always preceeds war.

A war with Iran would be disaster, compounded upon disaster. To say that there is nothing we can do about it, presupposes our compliance.

The situation regarding the security of Israel is, of course, paramount and that would be the most compelling reason for war. And yet, I think we are collectively turning a blind eye to the legitimate complaints of the Moslem world, and that we have not yet come to accept, or to atone for tha wrongs we have done the Moslem World in the blind desire for profit.

The branding of Iran as a "terrorist" state, seems to me to be a way of blocking out anything they have to say about the state of things from their own perspective, andthat the utter villifying of a people is the most effective way of preparing for war.

Let us think again, if we may, before sending hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions more people to an untimely grave, not to mention before putting the strain of yet another war upon the already fragile fabric of our own society.

We simply must get back to judging issues on the basis of their merits, rather than simply following the dictates of our corporate elite as to why we should back thier their interests in yet another war.

I would really welcome a debate here between puff6962 and therising on this issue. That, I think, would be really enlightening!

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

Very good points.....

Let me say this very clearly though. In my writings on this topic, I am not arguing for any course of action. I am just picturing myself within the minds of our leaders, past and present, and analyzing what course of actions have been, or are available.

Moreover, I have thought very deeply about some other set of actions that would produce an acceptable outcome for the world without producing significant conflict.

These would include:

A blockade of Iran.

Continued spying, electronic warfare, and covert actions.

Doing nothing.

Arming Israel with an ABM net.

The "Wildfire" plan....if rogue elements ever go nuclear, then all rogue nuclear nations would suffer nuclear retaliation without discrimination.

The Assassination and killing of the Iranian government without harm to the people.

Massing troops along the Iranian border and drawing in the Republican guard so that revolutionary elements within Iran proper might have an opening cause by a "stretched" Iranian military.

The problem is that, as Goering pointed out, the easiest way for a bad government to get reluctant citizens behind them is to say they are under attack.

Any action we take in Iran could strengthen the horrible government in that country. The very poor majority in Iran is very susceptible to this type of manipulation. The moderates and the more affluent hate the government but cannot overcome it.

All the while, our options are becoming more limited and dire.

Perhaps someone can think of another way.

I personally like the blockade idea except for the economic ramifications and the likelihood of conflict still emerging from the tactic.

[-] 1 points by AndyJ0hn (129) 8 years ago

lucky you dont have your hands any where near the control of government.

[-] 1 points by Vooter (441) 8 years ago

Oh, please--this is the most pathetic, deluded nonsense I've ever read in my life. You're shitting your pants about IRAN? You must be about 10 years old, riding around in Charles Krauthammer's wheelchair with a G.I. Joe doll in one hand and Benjamin Netanyahu's dick in the other. People like you are just NOT gonna get it until you're being chased down the street by a bloodthirsty mob, are you? Iran is the LEAST of this country's worries--it's not even close. The party is OVER. Tiocfaidh ar la, my little friend...

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

I am against any action. This topic describes, however, the political inevitability of such action.

Do you not read through this thread and note my sad resignation to what I see will happen.

I am not advocating anything.....I am telling you what is going to happen while describing the fact that I can't see a way to outmaneuver this inevitability.

[-] 1 points by thomasthetank (41) 8 years ago

this is one of the best discussions i've read.

[-] 1 points by BLUTODOG (111) 8 years ago

I doubt War is in the immediate plans. Even the Retardicans know the country is both bankrupt and war weary after 10yrs. of endless war.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

It will be an air war and it will not occur until 2013....after the elections.

Whether the President is Democrat or Republican, there will be no mention of boots on the ground. Instead, the modus will be one of decapitating Iran's technological capabilities while also promoting "regime change."

Think of Bosnia plus Libya combined.

[-] 2 points by BLUTODOG (111) 8 years ago

Ok, that's a possibility. Iran though will be a very hard nut to crack methinks. They have large Mt. areas and have reportedly already heavily dug in their nuke infrastructure. Our so called Intell. folks ( oxymoron) will probably have us pounding dust mostly. The Israelis won't be as easily fooled though and will be sent in to do the 'dirty work" when the time comes. The upshot when it happens is $250 a barrel oil or higher, because Iran has the capability of closing the Sts. of Hormuz , therefore shutting down the flow of oil from the Persian/Arabian Gulf. Then comes the really deep deep doo doo as the world economy folds from the Oil shut off. Our Oily,Gasy, Sooty gangs will hang us all out to dry. Read, Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" for what goes down next. By the way Russia will bluster and scream and do nada since they will profit hugely from this war. China is the wild card since an Oil shut off will cripple them badly.

[-] -1 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

Russia is currently in political disarray and could use a good war....

That was tongue and cheek. But, Putin, sensing weakness in his political flank will...honestly...seek out some military or nationalistic diversion during the next 6 months.

Russia doesn't like the Middle East....they have their own Muslim underbelly and a very large border across which terrorists can pass quite freely.

[-] 1 points by BLUTODOG (111) 8 years ago

Yea, it's a tough call what Russia will and won't do in the event of such an attack on Iran? I suspect she won't be too worried though about a weakened Islamic State on her border. On the other hand she might be threatened by such an attack. It's a tricky equation to say the least. As for Israel, she doesn't care that much about the price of oil since they are already converting to a non-oil based energy economic model.. Her concern will be IMO Europe and Russia's reaction.

[-] -1 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

We will never land a troop on Iran....or another middle Asian country.....but that doesn't mean that we will not bomb away.

In fact, bombs and drones will be the only active tool of our military for decades to come. We've learned our lessons regarding troops on the ground, insurgencies, and IED's. Also, the AK-47....the great equalizer....means that a foreign enemy can be very effective for very cheap and there just ain't a way around that.

Drone baby drone....

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 8 years ago

The Ron Lawlites don't care if Iran has a nuke!

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 8 years ago

Well as long as they use it on whomever, and those tots over there stop trying to gain ultimate control over the United States in order to force us to do their bidding for them.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

They will when they shut down the Straight of Hormuz with a nuclear umbrella.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

The Iranians do NOT need nuclear weapons to "shut down the Straight(s) of Hormuz" ! To think so defies logic and geography ... amongst other things .. multum in parvo .

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 8 years ago

Their bad breath would work for that, you gotta point!

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

What would happen if Iran tried to shut down the Straight of Hormuz?

What would happen if a nuclear Iran shut down the Straight of Hormuz?

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

What Would Happen IF Y0U stopped your 'not so subtle' Trolling For WAR and Regurgitation of Corporate-M.S.M / NeoCon / Paleo-Imperial, Kool-Aid ? ;-(

[-] -1 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

Why don't you look back at this forum. Over the past 2 months, I have discussed the new American slavery.....illegal immigration....Help for underwater homeowners....A realistic free trade policy to protect American labor....

And you say that? You really need to go the way of Justin Beiber.

[-] 1 points by 666isMONEY (348) 8 years ago

illegal immigrants are the new american slaves

[-] -1 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

Yes, they will be the third great American sin.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

Oh SH!T ! I've gone and confused you with your Personal Shadow-Troll, 'puff6269' again, have I ?! Dhoh !! + ... Q: What d'you call a bloke with a 1 inch Dick? A: 'Just-in' !!! Peurile ? Probably .. but I chuckle on !!

pax et lux ;-)

[-] -1 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

Yes, I'm Jerry and he's.........Newman!

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

Who Dat ?! Dis ... http://www.jerrynewman.net/ ?!! I'm in The UK and confused ... & NOT for the 1st time when it comes to The U$A and USers !!!

[et"hic"{ahem}] ... in vino veritas .. ;-)

[-] -1 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

Seinfeld....a television show of the 1990's.

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 8 years ago

you got it !

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

So, "Who Got What" then ?! ab absurdumb ...

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 8 years ago

Drop the bombs !

Duh!

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

On Your (x) ! DHoh !!

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 8 years ago

Ow well , we can only be so accurate when dropping bombs from so high !

This is why we do war !

No intimate contact with the people we kill !

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

You sound like an odious combination of 'Coward' and 'Psychopath' ;-(

[-] 3 points by ropeknot (359) 8 years ago

Just interpreting what the U.S. does for war today !

[-] 1 points by Treehugger56 (3) 8 years ago

If the USA does not attack Iran, the Israelis will. That's what is coming in 2012. The Iranians can badly cripple the flow of oil from the region, which will cause astronomical spikes in the price of gasoline, and further cripple our fragile economy. I'd tell those folks who are thinking of investing in gold to invest in a PANTRY, and stock it as best they can.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

Please Go Hug A Tree, 56 times, In Penance. ;-)

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

Israel will not because they are uncertain whether they would be successful in thwarting Iran's ambitions. They are Iran's neighbor and the consequences of their failure would be dire.

So, the Israelis have hedged their bets. They have a bunch of crack addicts living next door, but they don't want to go over there themselves and make a scene. Those people may later come after them. So, they would rather the world's policeman make their neighborhood safe for them. By the way, that neighborhood is the world's largest source of oil.

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 8 years ago

That's why it will happen, and we're already gearing up for it as we speak !

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

United States: Iran Oil Route Must Not Close

TEHRAN, Iran — The U.S. strongly warned Iran on Wednesday against closing a vital Persian Gulf waterway that carries one-sixth of the world's oil supply, after Iran threatened to choke off traffic through the Strait of Hormuz if Washington imposes sanctions targeting the country's crude exports.

The increasingly heated exchange raises new tensions in a standoff that has the potential to spark military reprisals and spike oil prices to levels that could batter an already fragile global economy.

Iran's navy chief said Wednesday that it would be "very easy" for his country's forces to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz, the passage at the mouth of the Persian Gulf through which about 15 million barrels of oil pass daily. It was the second such warning by Iran in two days, reflecting Tehran's concern that the West is about to impose new sanctions that could hit the country's biggest source of revenue, oil.

"Iran has comprehensive control over the strategic waterway," Adm. Habibollah Sayyari told state-run Press TV, as the country was in the midst of a 10-day military drill near the strategic waterway.

The comments drew a quick response from the U.S.

"This is not just an important issue for security and stability in the region, but is an economic lifeline for countries in the Gulf, to include Iran," Pentagon press secretary George Little said. "Interference with the transit or passage of vessels through the Strait of Hormuz will not be tolerated."

Separately, Bahrain-based U.S. Navy 5th Fleet spokeswoman Lt. Rebecca Rebarich said the Navy is "always ready to counter malevolent actions to ensure freedom of navigation."

Rebarich declined to say whether the U.S. force had adjusted its presence or readiness in the Gulf in response to Iran's comments, but said the Navy "maintains a robust presence in the region to deter or counter destabilizing activities, while safeguarding the region's vital links to the international community."

Iran's threat to seal off the Gulf, surrounded by oil-rich Gulf states, reflect its concerns over the prospect that the Obama administration will impose sanctions over its nuclear program that would severely hit its biggest revenue source. Iran is the world's fourth-largest oil producer, pumping about 4 million barrels a day.

Gulf Arab nations appeared ready to at least ease market tensions. A senior Saudi Arabian oil official told The Associated Press that Gulf Arab nations are ready to step in to offset any potential loss of exports from Iran. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the issue.

Saudi Arabia, which has been producing about 10 million barrels per day, has an overall production capacity of over 12 million barrels per day and is widely seen as the only OPEC member with sufficient spare capacity to offset major shortages.

What remains unclear is what routes the Gulf nations could take to move the oil to markets if Iran goes through with its threat.

About 15 million barrels per day pass through the Hormuz Strait, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

There are some pipelines that could be tapped, but Gulf oil leaders, who met in Cairo on Dec. 24, declined to say whether they had discussed alternate routes or what they may be.

The Saudi official's comment, however, appeared to allay some concerns. The U.S. benchmark crude futures contract fell $1.98 by the close of trading Wednesday on the New York Mercantile Exchange, but still hovered just below $100 per barrel.

U.S. State Department spokesman Mark Toner played down the Iranian threats as "rhetoric," saying, "we've seen these kinds of comments before."

While the Obama administration has warned Iran that it would not tolerate attempts to disrupt traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, U.S. officials do not see any indication that the situation will come to that. Nor do they believe that Iran, which is already under increasing pressure from sanctions, would risk disrupting the Strait because doing so would further damage Iran's own economy.

Instead, the administration believes Iran is playing the only card it has left: issuing threats and attempting to shift focus away from its own behavior.

U.S. officials have not said whether there is a concrete response plan in place should Iran seek to block the Strait. But the administration has long said it is comfortable with the U.S. Naval presence in the region, indicating that the U.S. could respond rapidly if needed.

The White House has been largely silent on Iran's threat, underscoring the administration's belief that responding at the White House level would only encourage Iran.

While many analysts believe that Iran's warnings are little more than posturing, they still highlight both the delicate nature of the oil market, which moves as much on rhetoric as supply and demand fundamentals.

Iran relies on crude sales for about 80 percent of its public revenues, and sanctions or even a pre-emptive measure by Tehran to withhold its crude from the market would already batter its flailing economy.

IHS Global Insight analyst Richard Cochrane said in a report Wednesday that markets are "jittery over the possibility" of Iran's blockading the strait. But "such action would also damage Iran's economy, and risk retaliation from the U.S. and allies that could further escalate instability in the region."

"Accordingly, it is not likely to be a decision that the Iranian leadership will take lightly," he said.

Earlier sanctions targeting the oil and financial sector added new pressures to the country's already struggling economy. Government cuts in subsidies on key goods like food and energy have angered Iranians, stoking inflation while the country's currency steadily depreciates.

The impetus behind the subsidies cut plan, pushed through parliament by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was to reduce budget costs and would pass money directly to the poor. But critics have pointed to it as another in a series of bad policy moves by the hardline president.

So far, Western nations have been unable to agree on sanctions targeting oil exports, even as they argue that Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon. Tehran maintains its nuclear program – already the subject of several rounds of sanctions – is purely peaceful.

The U.S. Congress has passed a bill that penalizes foreign firms that do business with the Iran Central Bank, a move that would heavily hurt Iran's ability to export crude. European and Asian nations use the bank for transactions to import Iranian oil.

President Barack Obama has said he will sign the bill despite his misgivings. China and Russia have opposed such measures.

Sanctions specifically targeting Iran's oil exports would likely temporarily spike oil prices to levels that could weigh heavily on the world economy.

Closing the Strait of Hormuz would hit even harder. Energy consultant and trader The Schork Group estimated crude would jump to above $140 per barrel. Conservatives in Iran claim global oil prices will jump to $250 a barrel should the waterway be closed.

By closing the strait, Iran may aim to send the message that its pain from sanctions will also be felt by others. But it has equally compelling reasons not to try.

The move would put the country's hardline regime straight in the cross-hairs of the world, including nations that have so far been relative allies. Much of Iran's crude goes to Europe and to Asia.

"Shutting down the strait ... is the last bullet that Iran has and therefore we have to express some doubt that they would do this and at the same time lose their support from China and Russia," said analyst Olivier Jakob of Petromatrix in Switzerland.

Iran has adopted an aggressive military posture in recent months in response to increasing threats from the U.S. and Israel of possible military action to stop Iran's nuclear program.

The Iranian navy's exercises, which began on Saturday, involve submarines, missile drills, torpedoes and drones. A senior Iranian commander said Wednesday that the country's navy is also planning to test advanced missiles and "smart" torpedoes during the maneuvers.

The war games cover a 1,250-mile (2,000-kilometer) stretch off the Strait of Hormuz, northern parts of the Indian Ocean and into the Gulf of Aden near the entrance to the Red Sea and could bring Iranian ships into proximity with U.S. Navy vessels in the area.

The moderate news website, irdiplomacy.ir, says the show of strength is intended to send a message to the West that Iran is capable of sealing off the waterway.

"The war games ... are a warning to the West that should oil and central bank sanctions be stepped up, (Iran) is able to cut the lifeblood of the West and Arabs," it said, adding that the West "should regard the maneuvers as a direct message."


[-] 0 points by timir (183) from Brooklyn, NY 8 years ago
[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

Now, do you realize how fucking smart I am.

Read this article, dated today..... It's all playing out just as I have written.

How do you stop it? I don't know.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/12/28/international/i081431S62.DTL

US warns Iran not to disrupt oil route

Associated Press December 28, 2011 08:14 AM Copyright Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

(12-28) 08:14 PST DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) --

A spokeswoman for the U.S. Navy's 5th fleet is warning Iran that any disruption of traffic flowing though the Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil route, "will not be tolerated."

Iran's navy chief warned earlier Wednesday that the Islamic Republic was ready and willing to close the strategic waterway if the West imposes news sanctions targeting Tehran's oil exports over the country's suspect nuclear program.

"Anyone who threatens to disrupt freedom of navigation in an international strait is clearly outside the community of nations; any disruption will not be tolerated," said Fleet spokeswoman Lt. Rebecca Rebarich.

She said the U.S. Navy is "always ready to counter malevolent actions to ensure freedom of navigation."

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran's navy chief warned Wednesday that his country can easily close the strategic Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, the passageway through which a sixth of the world's oil flows.

It was the second such warning in two days. On Tuesday, Vice President Mohamed Reza Rahimi threatened to close the strait, cutting off oil exports, if the West imposes sanctions on Iran's oil shipments.

With concern growing over a possible drop-off in Iranian oil supplies, a senior Saudi oil official said Gulf Arab nations are ready to offset any loss of Iranian crude.

That reassurance led to a drop in world oil prices. In New York, benchmark crude fell 77 cents to $100.57 a barrel in morning trading. Brent crude fell 82 cents to $108.45 a barrel in London.

"Closing the Strait of Hormuz is very easy for Iranian naval forces," Adm. Habibollah Sayyari told state-run Press TV. "Iran has comprehensive control over the strategic waterway," the navy chief said.

The threats underline Iranian concern that the West is about to impose new sanctions that could target Tehran's vital oil industry and exports.

Western nations are growing increasingly impatient with Iran over its nuclear program. The U.S. and its allies have accused Iran of using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to develop nuclear weapons. Iran has denied the charges, saying its program is geared toward generating electricity and producing medical radioisotopes to treat cancer patients.

The U.S. Congress has passed a bill banning dealings with the Iran Central Bank, and President Barack Obama has said he will sign it despite his misgivings. Critics warn it could impose hardships on U.S. allies and drive up oil prices.

The bill could impose penalties on foreign firms that do business with Iran's central bank. European and Asian nations import Iranian oil and use its central bank for the transactions.

Iran is the world's fourth-largest oil producer, with an output of about 4 million barrels of oil a day. It relies on oil exports for about 80 percent of its public revenues.

Iran has adopted an aggressive military posture in recent months in response to increasing threats from the U.S. and Israel that they may take military action to stop Iran's nuclear program.

The navy is in the midst of a 10-day drill in international waters near the strategic oil route. The exercises began Saturday and involve submarines, missile drills, torpedoes and drones. The war games cover a 1,250-mile (2,000-kilometer) stretch of sea off the Strait of Hormuz, northern parts of the Indian Ocean and into the Gulf of Aden near the entrance to the Red Sea as a show of strength and could bring Iranian ships into proximity with U.S. Navy vessels in the area.

Iranian media are describing how Iran could move to close the strait, saying the country would use a combination of warships, submarines, speed boats, anti-ship cruise missiles, torpedoes, surface-to-sea missiles and drones to stop ships from sailing through the narrow waterway.

Iran's navy claims it has sonar-evading submarines designed for shallow waters of the Persian Gulf, enabling it to hit passing enemy vessels.

A closure of the strait could temporarily cut off some oil supplies and force shippers to take longer, more expensive routes that would drive oil prices higher. It also potentially opens the door for a military confrontation that would further rattle global oil markets.

Iran claimed a victory this month when it captured an American surveillance drone almost intact. It went public with its possession of the RQ-170 Sentinel to trumpet the downing as a feat of Iran's military in a complicated technological and intelligence battle with the U.S.

American officials have said that U.S. intelligence assessments indicate the drone malfunctioned.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/12/28/international/i081431S62.DTL#ixzz1hrj7efNI

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

Anything more on the President's misgivings regarding the Congressional bill banning deals with the Iranian central bank?

Any news on Iranian efforts to team up with Russia and or China as a counter to nato?

And those Iranian subs - are they really sonar evading? How much of this might be a test of U.S. capability? 2%? or more?

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

The Iranian subs will last about thirty seconds. They are already being tracked by our attack subs and would never know it.

Iran's leaders saber rattle so as to provoke international reactions.....These leaders then go back to their people, particularly the poor, and decry the West for their attack against Islam. This allows the regime to maintain it's hold upon power, but it inches it towards greater radicalism at each go around. Pretty soon, the leaders begin believing their own propaganda.....and drink their own cool-aide....and act upon one of their stupid threats.

Then you have disaster.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

the leaders begin believing their own propaganda.....and drink their own cool-aide....and act upon one of their stupid threats.

they are every single bit as stupid as the goddamned repelicans.

The U.S. Congress has passed a bill banning dealings with the Iran Central Bank, and President Barack Obama has said he will sign it despite his misgivings

Why is Congress ratcheting up the pressure? What the fuck are they thinking? Isn't foreign policy part of the President's portfolio? I know there are a lot of implications I've missed - haven't been following this story really closely - but to me it sounds like the goddamned Congress has played into both the Iranian hands and the repelican hands if this guarantees a rise in oil prices and therefore presents a further drag on the economy.

Why didn't they leave the President more flexibility?

. . . or do they think they are providing him with cover . . . .

[-] 1 points by gsw (3324) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 8 years ago

more war--rally round the gran ol flag!!

i'll just bike to work, or maybe sleep there

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

"Iran's leaders saber rattle so as to provoke international reactions." = dissembling and mendacious - Two Faced ; 'Arse about Tit' ; Diametrical Opposite ; Propagandist Lie ... as it is The U$A that is responsible for the Vast Majority of any sabres being rattled and who is looking for reactions !!!

There is NO logic or evidence that Iran desires war !!

Please cease and desist from your WAR-mongering !

a) http://www.iranisnottheproblem.org/about_the_movie ;

b) http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/iran-is-not-the-problem/ &

c) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1lliIGCcfs (Alt. Link) ~}~

honi soit qui mal y pense

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

How do you say "blah blah blah" in latin?

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

Je ne sais pas et honi soit qui mal y pense est Fr.... !!!

Also see : http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-iran-war-war-is-god-by-michael-carmichael/ & especially the post replying to poster "ropeknot" - s'il vous plait !!

Adieu !

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-28/oil-trades-near-six-week-high-on-iran-threat-to-crude-transport.html

Oil Trades Near Six-Week High on Iran Threat to Crude Transport December 28, 2011, 12:30 AM EST

Dec. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Oil traded near the highest level in six weeks after Iran threatened to block crude transportation through the Strait of Hormuz, increasing concern that global supplies will be curbed amid shrinking U.S. stockpiles.

Futures were little changed after rising for a sixth day yesterday, the longest run of advances since November 2010. Iran’s official Islamic Republic News Agency cited Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi as saying the country would bar shipments through the strait if sanctions are imposed on its oil exports. U.S. oil inventories probably dropped for a third week, a Bloomberg News survey showed before an Energy Department report this week.

“There’s been a significant decline in inventories,” said Gavin Wendt, a senior resource analyst at Mine Life Pty in Sydney. “If that trend continues, combined with the Iranian situation, it could be significant in driving oil prices even higher.”

Oil for February delivery was at $101.42 a barrel, up 8 cents, in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange at 11:55 a.m. Singapore time. It rose $1.66, or 1.7 percent, to $101.34 a barrel yesterday, the highest settlement since Nov. 16. Futures have climbed 11 percent this year after increasing 15 percent in 2010.

Brent oil for February settlement was down 1 cent at $109.26 a barrel on the London-based ICE Futures Europe exchange. The European contract’s premium to crude in New York was $7.84 a barrel, compared with $7.93 yesterday, the smallest differential based on settlement prices since Jan. 20.

Iran Maneuvers

About 15.5 million barrels of oil a day, or a sixth of global consumption, passes through the Strait of Hormuz between Iran and Oman at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, according to the U.S. Energy Department. Iran’s navy started a 10-day exercise east of the passage that involved the use of submarines, ground- to-sea missile systems and torpedoes, Press TV said Dec. 24.

The U.S. and European governments are seeking help from Arab and Asian allies to reduce Iran’s oil revenue to pressure the Islamic republic to abandon a suspected nuclear weapons program. The strategy includes a push by France and the U.K. for an embargo on imports of Iranian oil by the 27 European Union countries as soon as next month. Iran claims its nuclear program is strictly for energy.

Iran is attempting to “distract attention” from its nuclear program by threatening to block oil shipments through the strait, Mark Toner, a State Department spokesman, said at a briefing yesterday in Washington.

U.S. Stockpiles

More than 75 percent of crude shipments that pass through the strait are destined for markets in Asia, particularly China, Japan, India and South Korea, according to the U.S. Energy Department.

U.S. crude stockpiles shrank by 2.5 million barrels, or 0.8 percent, to 321.1 million last week, according to the median estimate of seven analysts polled before an Energy Department report tomorrow. That would be the lowest level since the period ended Dec. 26, 2008. Six respondents forecast a decline and one an increase.

Oil inventories fell in December in the past five years as refiners reduced stockpiles at the year end to minimize their taxes. Texas and Louisiana assess taxes based on the fair-market value of inventories on Jan. 1.

The Energy Department is scheduled to release its weekly report at 11 a.m. on Dec. 29 in Washington, a day later than usual because of the Christmas holidays.

--Editors: Paul Gordon, Alexander Kwiatkowski

To contact the reporter on this story: Ramsey Al-Rikabi in Singapore at ralrikabi@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Alexander Kwiatkowski at akwiatkowsk2@bloomberg.net

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

First Power, Then Change.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

Aides Qualify Panetta’s Comments on Iran By THOM SHANKER Published: December 20, 2011 New York Times

WASHINGTON — An assertion by Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta that Iran could have a nuclear weapon as soon as next year was based on a highly aggressive timeline and a series of actions that Iran has not yet taken, senior Pentagon officials said Tuesday.

In an interview broadcast Monday on “CBS Evening News,” Mr. Panetta was asked whether Iran could have a nuclear weapon in 2012.

“It would be sometime around a year that they would be able to do it,” he said. “Perhaps a little less.”

Mr. Panetta said the country’s ability to become a nuclear-weapons state could be accelerated if there was “a hidden facility somewhere in Iran that may be enriching fuel.”

He also restated American policy: that it would be unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons, and that no options, including military action, had been taken off the table to prevent that from happening.

“The United States does not want Iran to develop a nuclear weapon,” Mr. Panetta said. “That’s a red line for us. And it’s a red line, obviously, for the Israelis.”

But on Tuesday, George Little, the Pentagon press secretary, said Mr. Panetta’s comments should not be taken as a prediction that Iran would have a nuclear weapon within a year.

“The secretary was clear that we have no indication that the Iranians have made a decision to develop a nuclear weapon,” Mr. Little said. “He was asked to comment on prospective and aggressive timelines on Iran’s possible production of nuclear weapons — and he said if, and only if, they made such a decision. He didn’t say that Iran would, in fact, have a nuclear weapon in 2012.”

Mr. Little said inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency remained in Iran and had “good access to Iran’s continuing production of low-enriched uranium.” Should Iran choose to “break out” — diverting low-enriched uranium to produce weapons-grade highly enriched uranium — the inspectors could detect it, Mr. Little said.

“We would retain sufficient time under any such scenario to take appropriate action,” he said.

Mr. Panetta’s comments and efforts by his senior aides to add nuance and context to those statements show the highly sensitive nature of all public dialogue on Iran’s nuclear intentions. The issue is particularly acute as a debate is raging in Israel over whether pre-emptive action is required to prevent Iran from constructing a nuclear weapon, and, if so, how much time remains. A version of this article appeared in print on December 21, 2011, on page A8 of the New York edition with the headline: Aides Qualify Panetta’s Comments on Iran.

[-] 0 points by Spankysmojo (849) 8 years ago

Just lay back and enjoy the ride.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 8 years ago

No war for the USA we're broke and that's why we are getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

This was a quote from Herman Goering and, sadly, you will see it's validity over the next 18 months. The Republicans are looking for their Hitler, but they already have their Goering.

[-] 0 points by KVNLGN (154) 8 years ago

Sounds like Israels motto -

  1. "When you go to war do not go as the first, but as the last, so that you may return as the first. Five things has Canaan recommended to his sons: 'Love each other, love wantonness, love robbery, hate your masters and never tell the truth.' Straight from their scripture, http://www.takeourworldback.com/short/talmud.htm
[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

Sheesh, do I really have to start quoting equivalent rhetoric from the Koran ?

[-] 1 points by KVNLGN (154) 8 years ago

Be my guest, doesn't bother me if you shed light on the tool, religion, used for seperating the masses so that the evil at the top can continue to profit.

[-] 0 points by Kevabe (81) 8 years ago

Israel is a peaceful nation. They are surrounded by violent hateful countries and only take up action to defend their survival. Anyone who calls Israel a warmongering nation simply lacks a sufficieny in Middle Eastern History.

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 8 years ago

Puff man you need to relax, dude. Be the best warrior you can possibly be. If martial arts are required, you know how to do a proper karate chop, disabling, and possibly dismembering.we must prepare for future madness. Battenn down the hatches.

[-] 0 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

I know my response will not be very popular, but here goes anyway...

If I were Pres Bush, I would have asked not only who was engaged in terrorism, by why they're were so many young men in the middle east willing to die under the tenants of radical Islam. I would have concluded the answer to the second question was that the nations of the middle east were ruled by despots and royalty that lived very rich lifestyles while allowing a huge number of young men to live in poverty while simultaneously suppressing access to information about the rest of the world and silencing the most reasonable voice in any society, that of the wives, mothers, and women. Insular societies with no freedom or opportunity.

I attack those that committed real acts of terrorism, but I would also work to find a way to fix the underlying problems of the insular societies that leave so many desperate they end up turning to radical Islam for answers.

Attacking those who committed real acts of terrorism is pretty easy; I would simply go clear out the Taliban from Afghanistan, break up the training camps, and disrupt al-Qaeda to the maximum extent possible. I would also free the women of Afghanistan and try to instill a more free society to try and counter the return of the problematic factions.

I would deal with the root cause of insular societies lacking jobs, freedom, and opportunity in the middle east using a variety of methods. First, I would pick a centrally located country with a heavy handed despot who provided me with sufficient excuse and go topple their government and install both a Democracy and a long lasting military presence near Iran. Second, I would install cell-phone towers, alternate Internet feeds, etc so the people of the middle east can have direct access to the news and opinions of the rest of the world to help reform the insular societies created by the regional despots. I would use the DoD developed onion routing 'Thor' Network and 'Anonymous' systems to ensure their government couldn't close down access. I would then use these tools (texting, twitter, face-book, etc) to help ferment rebellion by the people of the middle east against the despots.

As President, I would know that nation building works. I would understand the nations that Great Britain created in India, Singapore, and Hong-Kong, so I would definately want them with me. I would understand the success of our own efforts in Japan, Germany, Taiwan, and South Korea as well the the success my predecessors had in bringing down the Iron Curtain. I would know from history that nation building takes a very long time, and I would also know that the American public would not stand for it unless there was a strong story behind our effort. Reflecting on how we finally brought America around to entering WWI and WWII, I would realize I was going to need to demonize the enemy and 'sell' entry into a foreign country to the American people. Unfortunately, I wouldn't be able to be very public about my grand strategy in reforming the middle east because we depend on their oil, and they could cut us off if they knew what we were really trying to do. I'd realize I would need an excuse all the other nations in the area could accept. Hmmmm....

Iraq is next to Iran, has employed chemical weapons against it's own people, is known to be torturing citizens, and just recently attacked our biggest oil supplier, Saudi Arabia. Iraq it is. Now we just need to make a plausible story. No problem.

My plan would be risky, but in my opinion, it would have addressed the root causes and enhanced our military presence in the region. I think the biggest problem with my plan would have been dealing with the American public after they figured out I kinda trumped up the case against Iraq, but that wouldn't really be very important to me in my second term compared to eliminating the root causes feeding the terrorist movements.

Anyway, all of the above is just what I myself might have done had I been President. I got most of my thinking from a very popular brief by an officer at the Naval War college that was widely reviewed and accepted in Washington. The brief is now available in book form and is titled "The Pentagon's New Map." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon's_New_Map and watch the brief at http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/182105-1 (skip ahead to the 5 minute mark).

Maybe President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair saw the brief.

[-] 2 points by TheRoot (305) from New York, NY 8 years ago

"I got most of my thinking from a very popular brief by an officer at the Naval War college that was widely reviewed and accepted in Washington. "

Rico: It sounds to me that you didn't do any thinking but instead a lot of copying and pasting. Stick to chess because at least on that board, you won't hurt anybody.

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

[Sigh]

I was trying to show folks that the 'plan' followed under the Bush administration actually was effective if costly, and the the details of the strategy were actually published for all to review.

I won't even bother to respond to rude insults from someone who presumes to judge a person's intellect after reading only a few paragraphs of respectfully presented material for consideration.

[-] 2 points by TheRoot (305) from New York, NY 8 years ago

Of all who post here, you caught me by surprise writing this. I rudely replied to you. I am sorry for attacking your intelligence.

I couldn't see why you would post this. In reading, The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century" I see it clearly as rallying cry for imperialism. There is no justice in the man's writing and especially none in those who've carried out his plan. The fallacy he counts on is that you can have peace by destroying it. The fear he engenders comes from his care in explaining his proposition that all those who live under unstable leadership and in countries who don't trade with us are those who want to kill us. His response is to kill them first. Both fly in the face of reason, something he has to abandon to foist this crap on people. As to his effectiveness in lying, he's brilliant.

[-] 2 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

I never said I endorsed all this (though I suppose my approach to presentation might suggest that), I was countering the original poster's assertion that the Bush administration had no plan and did nothing. Whether we agree with what they did or not, they did follow a plan. We have boots on the ground, have opened up the insular societies, successfully fostered revolution, and likely have more organic intelligence assets in the region than in any time prior. People should be careful about buying into the "shuck's, it's jus lil ole me" image the Bush administration so successfully projected to the public.

[-] 0 points by NLake72 (510) 8 years ago

Don't Panic (that's a quote from the Hitchhiker's Guide To the Galaxy.)

Iran is full of it. Even if they get a bomb assembled, and put it on a rocket, they can't use it. They don't have the allies to save them. Think about North Korea... China isn't going to lift a finger to the switch if they somehow managed to pop off a nuke, and, that's right next door to them. Pakistan has lots of bombs, and it's all just for show, too.

This is called nuclear diplomacy, in a destabilized, mineral rich region. Iran knows America is hogtied: nearly bankrupt, our military is worn down, and we're almost unable to fight another major ground engagement in the next year or two. Certainly, the American people aren't ready for another war. China knows this too. In fact, I'd worry a lot more about what China was up to than Iran, but I don't think China is stable enough internally to start a sustained world war, even if they'd like to. China is no joke, but Iran kinda is.

It's a scary scenario, particularly for Israel. But, the danger of the entire world being dragged into a conflagration over Iran or Israel, is really pretty slim. Russia and America have faced off over this stuff for decades, and figured out it was just stupid to even consider it. Intelligence wars, and economic wars never end, and that's what we're fighting, and yes, it's an ugly scene, but it's been going on for years, and will continue to go on. War Hawks love it all, and some even profit by it-- it certainly garners a lot of consistent voters, if nothing else. However, after 10 years in the Middle East, everyone with half a brain has grown tired of war. This is the season for everyone to lick their wounds, and tend to the crops, as it were. Iran knows it, and that's why they are acting tough now.

Maybe there's enough crazy people at the top who would prefer that we stay in a perpetual war, but the world's citizens aren't going to tolerate it in the long run. Certainly, no country is going to annihilate the world with nukes, although it's always possible we could all wind up living or dying in the stone age for a few years. Let's hope nobody gets the upper hand, let's pray our digital security is better than theirs. Russia and China are two powers that are pretty unlikely to pop off anything directly at the U.S. Iran is just a two-bit dictatorship, holding down a well-educated population. Their hawkish leaders see their chance to capitalize on the economic situation on the ground. They have to look like the toughest guys on the block if they want to assert control over the region. This is just a bunch of people beating their dicks on the table. It's nothing to lose sleep over... I hope.

[-] 0 points by rockyracoon2 (276) 8 years ago

there is something we can do about it, and that is to first stop saying there is nothing we can do about it.

to me, it appears like ur trying to "sell" the war. i think we should all ignore your post.

[-] -2 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

Ignore this post you can, but don't say that I didn't warn you.

To be forewarned is to forearmed.

I was trying to arm you with reality.

[-] 1 points by rockyracoon2 (276) 8 years ago

you are all blab blab blab you haven't warned anyone

everyone here has at least half a mind, knows already about this terrible issue.

warn or promote or discourage? to me, it seems ur trying to promote it and sell it

maybe you should take some reflection about your approach, since you are involving death and destruction of our brothers and sisters and our Mother Nature.

You treat it like it's some game. try, as hard as it may be for you, to place yourself in their shoes

[-] -1 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

Actually, I posted this topic because I was unable to think of a way out of this checkmate scenario and I wondered if anyone would. You haven't.....so, doesn't that kinda prove the validity of my thinking?

Come on Sparky, let's here your solution.

[-] 1 points by rockyracoon2 (276) 8 years ago

if that's really the case, then why not change the title of your post, asking if we can come together with ideas to help stop the war drums or something to this effect, instead of current tact.

anyway, i see this conversation as futile. please try to be peaceful in your approach, our world badly needs it. maybe someday you'll wish to travel through there and have some place to rest. peace bro

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

er

stop bombing other countries

[-] 0 points by badconduct (550) 8 years ago

Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics is one of the earliest examples of proposed safety measures for AI:

  1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
  2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
  3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with either the First or Second Law.

Automated drones that are designed to kill are a direct violation of the first law. Programming the drone the act on it's own and attack targets is a violation of the second law. That only leaves one law.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8708) 8 years ago

puff, I feel the consequences of such a war would be so catastrophic that we simply cannot strick the fist blow. The following course of action would seem advisable. Firstly, we need to actually know what Iran's nuclear capability is. The Iraq war alone should have shown us this. Intelligence is where we need to put the thrust of our attention. If our own counterintelligence agencies are unable to ascertain this knowlege, then we must ask for help from Britain, whose MIA is actually capable of gathering such informtion. (I'm not being flippant here, just stating the well known expertise of the British in the area of intelligence).

Secondly, Iran has a huge deterrent to not use nuclear weapons, even if they possess them and are capable of delivering them to any Western target, the prospect of doing so would be of their own nuclear innihilation. This fact should give us safe ground to await developments. Finally, the Iranian Government is so disliked by the Iranian People that it is unlikely to stay in power indefinately. The Iranians have shown their prefference for democratic government in the past, and we should do what we can to aid the people of Iran should this become a factor. The bottom line to me, is that almost NOTHING could justify the possible outcome of such a confrontation, and under no circumstances should we be the ones to innitiate one. Sorry, those ideas are the best I have, given the consequences of our history of praying on foreign nations for labor and resources, and the resulting allienation of forign affection from the U.S., and given the politically divided and economically devistated society these same corpotate Ubermen have left us to cope with at home.

[-] 0 points by badconduct (550) 8 years ago

Don't join the army.

Oh wait, they have an army of drones. They don't need anyone to join the army any more.

[-] 0 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 8 years ago

There will probably be no war with Iran until just before election time. Remember, no president has ever lost a campaign to be re-elected during a time of war. Obama has done everything the bankers wanted him to. (they're the ones funding these wars) ~shrug~ So its my guess that he is their man, and official war with Iran will be held off until its time for his re-election.

::::::::::::The Top 30 Global Geopolitical Hot Spots for 2012::::::::::::

-12/09/2011-

The Council on Foreign Relations has released their politically-correctly-named 'Preventive Priorities Survey'... http://www.cfr.org/conflict-prevention/preventive-priorities-survey-2012/p26686?cid=nlc-news_release-news_release-link4-20111209 ...or put another way - where-in-the-world-is-stuff-going-to-hit-the-fan-next report. The report is designed to help the US policy community comprehend where the next conflict will occur in the world and the relative catastrophe factor. The 3 tiers of chaos offer a menu of drivers-for-war, likely terrorist targets, and political tensions. Notably they include such systemic factors as the European debt crisis, budgetary limits, and Saudi political instability's impact on oil supplies at Tier 1 (most critical) contingencies.

::::::::::::Continue Reading this article Here::::::::::::

((SeeCharts)) http://www.zerohedge.com/news/top-30-global-geopolitical-hot-spots-2012

[-] -1 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

Then why are we flying supersecret RX-170 drones over their airspace on such a regular basis that the Iranians were able to know when and where to disrupt communications with the device.

Iran will not be a Cold War, it will be a lot warmer.

[-] 1 points by nikilister (109) 8 years ago

It will be the warmest hell you can imagine in Israel.

[-] -1 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

I am in the midwest.....and what would happen if someone scattered U-238 across Manhattan?

[-] 1 points by nikilister (109) 8 years ago

I guess all that champagne you drank after WWII was not enough to last for Manhattan.

[-] -1 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

Martinis, never champagne.

[-] 1 points by nikilister (109) 8 years ago

Your boss is generous.

[-] 1 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 8 years ago

yep, thats why I said "Official" war ;) Nice to meet ya puff

[-] 0 points by Evolution001 (100) from Vancouver, BC 8 years ago

puff6962 you are seriously retarded for claiming the Democrat and Republican grotesque clowns as yours. When will you learn about class consciousness. The enemy is right here in the good old US of A headquarters to global capitalism and the bankster cartel. War is very profitable, plus it keeps the sheeple like you distracted. What else did you expect deep in trouble, and with the scrutiny they are facing via the global OWS movement? Seems like you are like a schoolyard bully itching for a fight - for the benefit of the masters of course. The real fight is the global class war that has been going on for a long time with such "foreign wars and enemies" used as a cover-up / escape-goat creating fear for the real shake-down of the working class here in god damn USA.

Sheeple wake up as another round of slaughter is in the works (you included puff6962).

OWS full steam ahead exposing the conspiracies of the gangster banksters.

Out with capitalism, scourge of war and misery. Help to establish the new economic system based on common ownership with no private power / government / dominant hierarchy.

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 8 years ago

That's not capitalism, that's mercantilism. Adam Smith invented capitalism to replace the abuses of corprate rule with a system that promotes growth and trade. One aspect of a global free-market society would be one free of war as everyone everywhere would not need to invade other countries for resources because they can purchase it on the open market. Another capitalist feature is the seperation of government and buisness, mercantilism on the other hand, promotes imperialism, inequality, authoritarianism, and war. So capitalism is NOT the problem.

[-] 1 points by Evolution001 (100) from Vancouver, BC 8 years ago

Unfortunately, you cannot tell capital how to behave. Because capitalism is a competitive economic system, it encourages greed and fear resulting in accumulation of private property / power. Capitalists eat each other, destroy any semblance of free-market, eventually destroy the capitalism itself. Mercantilism, imperialism, "corporate globalization" / "world government" are the necessary of evolutionary phases of capitalism. Unless we believe in fountain of youth, or the time machine, we have to understand and accept the very natural process inherent in capitalism consequence of its defining fundamental motive - capital generation.

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 8 years ago

Please, capitalism is thr freedom that allows us to not only survive, but to thrive. It allows us to be exceptional, to achieve great scientific and technological feats such as landing a man on the moon. Either way, it isn't going away, and you should probably accept that, but that is your choice and yours alone.

[-] 1 points by Evolution001 (100) from Vancouver, BC 8 years ago

Capitalism, now at its last leg, gives us the freedom to live a miserable life or die. You will join that reality much sooner than later, guaranteed - even if you kick and scream.

Stop judging the world based on your self-centered perspective. Most people in the world (even as we speak) live worse than they did back in the stone ages - in terms of both survival and thriving. Landing on the moon was all about propaganda. It doesn't matter if you have the cure for AIDS when most afflicted can't have access to it, etc., etc. Understand what class means. Wake up from your "American Dream".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gkc3uqGuPnGfO90dElARcCQvgTvA?docId=9576d6a6343c46b1abbd0184a9244305

Capitalism is nothing but a walking corpse. Discover who put you to sleep and why?? Help to bring about the new more sustainable economic system or you will be consumed by it just like the rest of us.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

I think that is called communism and it hasn't worked out too well for those who have tried it.

Go back to school....

Grade school.

[-] 2 points by Evolution001 (100) from Vancouver, BC 8 years ago

No it is called Libertarian Communism or Libertarian Socialism. Remember everything could be considered a utopia until it succeeds. The devil is in the details. Evolution proceeds in fits and starts. Last time I checked capitalism keeps toping its genocidal records; that doesn't imply "working out too well".

Time to hit the books and do some research. I'd be weary of "school" since it is mostly used to indoctrinate you. "Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school" (Einstein)

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world : the unreasonable man persists to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, 'Man and Superman'

[-] 2 points by Evolution001 (100) from Vancouver, BC 8 years ago

I agree. Capitalism has exhausted its adaptive / reformist capacity long ago becoming "the unreasonable man". High time to move on and experiment with an alternative economic system not based on endless exploitation of the species and the planet (death and destruction in the name of growth and progress).

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 8 years ago

I find it interesting that very few "solutionists" on OWS pay any regard to those ultimately having a voice in The People's government should, in any form or fashion, have to prove themselves "reasonable". It is obvious that many expressing concern should be able to qualify for full disability, either for being mentally retarded or plain crazy. And then that large handful that are simply illiterate, well they too are far from reasonable.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

I would prefer a return to to policies of "The Great Compression."

Read Krugman, "The Conscience of a Liberal," first 170 pages and learn how the middle class actually arose. Prior to WWII, there was no such concept.....afterwards, there was.

Wouldn't you choose to stick to what has worked well in the past over creating something that has never worked in the history of mankind?

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 8 years ago

I want a copy of that book myself!

[-] 0 points by Evolution001 (100) from Vancouver, BC 8 years ago

By your logic we should go back to the stone age, since it worked for such a long time - much longer than capitalism.

If capitalism was working we wouldn't be having this discussion (although it is working just fine for the <1% hiring troll patrol like yourself on a lame attempt to deny reality, but I am not writing this for you and your boss).

I have news for you; we are in 2011! Time catches up with you and soon enough your decrepit system has to die. Don't worry people like me won't kill it; you and your bosses are doing a fine job at it.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

There is not a thing in the world so easy to sell than that which has never existed.

Meritocratic capitalism, where hard work is associated with tangible, scalable, economic results is simply the best system created in the history of mankind.

You could wrack your brain for the next 10,000 years and you will not find one better.

Libertarian Communism or Libertarian Socialism is like putting putting powdered sugar on a turd and calling it a jelly doughnut.

[-] 1 points by Evolution001 (100) from Vancouver, BC 8 years ago

"There is not a thing in the world so easy to sell than that which has never existed." That is exactly my point pea-brain. Capitalism has never been about "democracy", "liberty", "the constitution", "god/family/country". It has always been about theft. We are now in its last global viral stage. I won't tell you go wrack your brain, cause you've got none. You sold it to the capitalists long time ago, you viral moron.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

So, please describe to me your improved economic system? Why hasn't anyone ever thought of it before? Why haven't people, during the past 14000 years, recognized it's superiority and adopted it for themselves?

Actually, if you could just describe your better economic system, that would be enough for me right now.

[-] 1 points by Evolution001 (100) from Vancouver, BC 8 years ago

Learn how evolution works. When you do, you will have recognized the answer yourself.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

How pithy. I'm actually a biologist. Why don't you explain to me how evolution works. Or, do you wish to answer that question with another stupid evasion.

Pussy.

[-] 0 points by tedscrat (-96) 8 years ago

Oh man, if we go to war, we had better be well-versed in how influential Iran is. Iran is predominately Shiite (I believe) which means that Iran has its fingers in the national policies of Iraq, Syria, and/or whatever nation is predominately shiite. This puts them in direct confrontation with Saudia Arabia, and any other nation that is Sunni. I wish there was some surgical way we could neuter them. I believe the Israelis are better equipped and experienced to handle this. We have spent the past several wars doing it haphazardly Washington calling the shots. Part of me, the part that doesn't dread the prospect, would like to see Iran as a laboratory of sorts. We spend our time trying to form alliances and not upset anyone. Enough of that. Iran has committed crimes against America that would have resulted in ground invasion 20-30 years ago. We know that Iran is training militants and sending weapons that are killing Americans. We know that Iran is actively destabilizing neighboring nations in support of its own agenda. If we do go to war, then let's take the stand of take no prisoners and unconditional surrender.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

@ '"ted-ious" : Are U also a Total F**kin' WAR-Whore ; Empire-Gimp and Death-Troll ?!!!

Let's Go Then WARmonger !! But you'd better know your SH!T ! I'll follow my previous posts with ...

Re. Iran : Some hard facts may bring some 'Light' to matters, rather than all the unpleasant 'Heat' being generated by the constant fear and loathing :

a) Iran has The Worlds 2nd Largest Liquid & 3rd Largest known 'Total' Oil Reserves : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_Iran ,

b) Iran has The Worlds 2nd Largest known Gas Reserves : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_reserves_in_Iran

c) Further consider that in Feb. '08, Iran opened a Hydro-Carbon Bourse at the Kish Mercantile Exchange ( http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11613.htm and http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28646.htm ) - trading in a basket of currencies, including Euros, Roubles, Yuan & Iranian Rial BUT NOT in U$ Dollar$ & thereby challenging Reserve Currency, Dollar "HegeMoney" & the Monopoly of the existing Oil & Petroleum Bourses. Thus do 'a-c' here constitute the Real "Casus Belli" ?!

d) The same NeoCon, Neo-Colonial, Paleo-Imperial WARMONGERS who beat the drums for The Unconscionable, Illegal & Immoral WAR on Iraq (where The Only "WMD" = Words of Mass Deception !!) are now beating the Drums of War and this time Iran is in the Imperial crosshairs. Pls. Research PNAC (eg http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC etc.)

e) See The Film, "WHY WE FIGHT ; What are the forces that shape and propel American militarism ?" : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8494.htm .

@merica (& 'ted'!) : Nosce Te Ipsum ...

[-] 1 points by thomasthetank (41) 8 years ago

9-11.

[-] 1 points by thefutureisnow (223) from Newark, NJ 8 years ago

You are not only awesome you are correct with your clarifying perspective of what and who the warmongers really are great work you are a fricking genius ,

[-] 1 points by newearthorder (295) 8 years ago

They have a pretty large deposit of chromium. Look out for a shortage of shiny objects.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

Oh No !!! The Battle for the Bling !! Oy Vey ! [ps : Niice Moniker ~{;-) & x]

[-] 1 points by newearthorder (295) 8 years ago

NEO for short, get it?

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

L0L ! I Do Now !! I like those films because ... We Win In The End !!! As The Oracle had it (on the wall over the doorway) ; "Nosce Te Ipsum" .. pax, amor et lux . ommm~~{;-)

[-] 0 points by tedscrat (-96) 8 years ago

It is people like you who give people like me the first impression to lock the lot of you up! I have 2 trains of thought. One is that we are a nation of individuals with their own ideas and I still believe that we can come together and work out our differences. A form such as this is a good place. Even among the most nutty I can usually find a point or two that will give me pause and to think about my initial stance. The other is a little more brutal. What if democracy is at an end? I have seen no place on this planet that isn't in one form or another in some state of gridlock and in need of forming a coalition government in order to just fill a quorum in the halls of parliament. In this new type of world, where we are all coming together as one community, some one has to take charge. I hope it is us. But we cannot make that case if the people seen on the screen are doing nothing but protesting and bitching about being evicted from their self-glorified shanty towns in the public square. China and the new economic blocs in Asia do not give much concern for appearing to be nice.
The problems facing the world are world problems and will require world solutions. Kyoto, Copenhagen, UN, Oslo, and whereever they have had their latest failure are proof to me that a global consensus is an impossibility. The solution will have to be forced home, from one power, and I want that to be us. To do that will require everyone working and having that iron will to do what needs to be done. If you, shadz66, can do nothing but throw shit at me because my view does not match yours, then it would appear you are not part of the solution and should be cast aside. Need a reference? SM Stirling has written a trilogy about the Domination of the Draka. It is fiction, of course, but I have found interesting models for the way the world might proceed.

Ok, I feel a little better. Now I don't give a shit about Iran's oil or anyone elses oil. My goal is energy self-reliance through a combo of reen energy, nuclear power and use of our own fossil fuels. What I care about is Iran being about as stable as a five year old on a Rock Star high and meddling in every other regional country's affairs and having nuclear weapons as well. I hope sanctions or incentives or some non-violent diplomatic solution will solve the problem. If it isn't, then we need to be ready to take the next step. Like this nation, shadz66, I am at a crossroads in my way of thinking. Will reason win the day or will it be time to kick ass and take no names and ram our own solution down. Back off you cursing rhetoric, shadz66, and I will love to debate you and talk to you. I believe that even you have a few ideas that I could incorporate into my thinking

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

Though admittedly I was rude and offensive in my language, I am wishing my language had been different initially as it clearly detracted from the gist of my post. Tentative apologies are thus in order, though the reason for my ire was that I interpreted your post as Gung-Ho for WAR With Iran as evidenced by the following quotes :

a) "I wish there was some surgical way we could neuter them. I believe the Israelis are better equipped and experienced to handle this." : Neuter them ? They are an ancient and sovereign people with legitimate regional interests, what do you mean "neuter them" ?!

b) "Part of me, the part that doesn't dread the prospect, would like to see Iran as a laboratory of sorts" : Laboratory ?! For what ?!! More Death and Destruction & US-WMDs ?!!!

c) "We spend our time trying to form alliances and not upset anyone. Enough of that. Iran has committed crimes against America that would have resulted in ground invasion 20-30 years ago" : Really ? What Crimes ?! Have you any idea about any crimes committed against Iran ?

d) "We know that Iran is training militants and sending weapons that are killing Americans. We know that Iran is actively destabilizing neighbouring nations in support of its own agenda. If we do go to war, then let's take the stand of take no prisoners and unconditional surrender." : WTF ?!!!

My position on the bleak prospect of yet another unconscionable war, this time against Iran is clearly laid out in my posts above and I'm increasingly losing patience with those so easily up for another Imperial Resource Grab and Domination Exercise.

Mohammed Mossadegh, the Progressive and Democratically elected Iranian prime minister was overthrown in a UK-MI6 / CIA engineered coup (Operation Ajax) fronted by Kermit Roosevelt Jnr. in the 1950s after which The Shah was cemented in as an American Client. Mossadegh's 'crime' had been to want to nationalise 'Anglo-Persian Oil' {now BP} so that the proceeds of the sale of Iran's oil might go towards the betterment of Iran and Iranians. The coup was directed out of The US Embassy and that is what was behind the later 1979 'hostage crisis' as over zealous Iranian revolutionary student activists took it upon themselves to ensure that there was no repeat of The 50s coup.

Iran was attacked by Saddam Hussein's Iraq, which was at the time supported by all the Arab, European & North American Countries. Iran had in excess of 1 Million casualties in a 10 year war in the 1980s. Iranians know their ancient and recent history, even if the MSM indoctrinated Americans and Europeans can't quite remember what happened last month !! Iran's major crime seems to be that they plough an independent furrow to this day and for this they have paid a heavy price for not 'making nice'.

fiat pax ; nunc et semper ...

[-] 2 points by tedscrat (-96) 8 years ago

No need to apologize. I will be the first to admit that I will probably be the last to be won over. But in a nation this size, everyone will not agree. The dialogue here over the past few months has given me a fair amount to think about and consider. I have seen the most reasonable and the most radical, on both sides. I guess categorization and stereotyping get under my skin. I would like to think, at the end of the day, that we will come together as one nation. I remember the Iran Iraq war. I was only 9 in 1979 during the hostage crisis and I chuckle at how the US has changed sides. It was very obvious that the US aided Iraq in the 80-89 war, only to fight them in 2 wars afterwards.
The US is notorious for backing certain human rights abuses (e.g. Kuwait) and ignoring other ones (e,g. Rawanda). But the US is my country all the same and I want to see our best interests come first. I wish we were able to do more back in 2009 during the Tehran protests. If peace does not win the day, if a person like the Iranian leader only responds to violence, then it should definitely not be excluded from our decision making process.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

tscr@t : Which is why despite your good grace and reasoning, You and I could never really be friends.

The Highest Powers in The Highest Realms could Never countenance Any WAR That Wasn't One Of Self Defence (The ONLY Conscionable, Moral or Ethical War).

Self Defence trumps Strategic Self "Interests" here on this vibrational frequency range ; in the Astral Planes and Beyond ... et "honi soit qui mal y pense" ~{:-p)

Absit Omen ...

[-] -1 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

a) Re. Mohammed Mossadegh : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh ;

b) Re. Anglo-Persian Oil : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Persian_Oil_Company &

c) Re. 'Operation Ajax' : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax .

Also 'ted' and despite my post precluding friendship, I would nevertheless like to extend to you and yours all the very best wishes of this season of goodwill to all and thus : Merry Xmas and Happy Hanukkah, Solstice, Yuletide and New Year to you and yours.

Pacem In Terris ;-)

[-] 0 points by tedscrat (-96) 8 years ago

Same to you, shadz66

[-] 0 points by thomasthetank (41) 8 years ago

9-11

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

Iran is larger than Iraq

Iran Country Study

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

M@ttLH : Thanx ! Very Cool Post !!

Between The Caspian (and its Oil !) and The Black Sea are The Caucasus Mountains, from where the term "Caucasian" comes. The very word "Iran" comes from 'Aryan' (cf one of the bombastic titles of that CIA-Puppet, 'The Shah' was "Ari Noor" = 'Light of The Aryans') ... and again another ancient people are again to be on the receiving end of The Imperial 'Usurped States of Amnesiacs' and its Infernal War-Machine, which has so little regard and respect for Iran's 3500 years of 'written' civilisation, culture and custom. Oy Vey !!!

Re. WAR on Iran :

In terms of cold, hard strategic logic, there is no country on earth as surrounded by enemies as Iran. The Imperial Armies of the U$A are camped out on both Eastern (Afghanistan) and Western (Iraq) borders. To the North are oligarchic US allies and to the South are the decadent, dynastic and despotic Arab regimes who are in Utter Dread of The Very Notion of an "Islamic REPUBLIC". Iran also actually shares a border with Nuclear Armed Pakistan, a long term US 'client' with whom it has always had a difficult relationship. Finally and of course, The 'Zionist-Apartheid Entity' is a nuclear power of the first order and The Pre-eminent Hegemonic Power in the region bent on retaining its position.

For over sixty years The Zionist-Apartheid Entity has been trying to entice Iran's ~50,000 strong Jewish community to decamp to Israel, but the loyal-to-Iran descendants of ancient Persian Jewry will have no truck with the Zionists and have consistently refused all entreaties. Yet another one of those uncomfortable facts-on-the-ground, that The Zionist-Apartheid Regime's Propaganda Machine would rather you did NOT know.

Thus, for further insights re, 'Iran and Jews', please see : a) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA7yz2vciGk b) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-r04SQ97_Q & c) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngttxIzXRsE

Regime change in Iran will be achieved by the Evolution of the Iranian body-politic and it has been happening ever since Iranians got rid of that despotic CIA-puppet known as "The Shah" and his brutal secret police, Savak. Iran has had many elections since 1979 whereby the popular-will does find expression both locally and nationally so to pretend that it is on any kind of par with for example The "Kingdom" of Saudi Arabia, is frankly 'beyond the pale'.

We can increasingly see the real reasons for the Slow Motion and Covert War being pursued against Iran by The Empire, as alluded to in my posts below. As such, please further consider that in Feb. '08, Iran opened a Hydro-Carbon Bourse at the Kish Island Mercantile Exchange ( http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11613.htm and http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28646.htm ) - trading in a basket of currencies, including Euros, Roubles, Yuan and Iranian Rial BUT NOT in U$ Dollar$ and thereby challenging Reserve Currency, Dollar "HegeMoney" and the Monopoly of the existing Oil and Petroleum Bourses.

An 'evil and unholy alliance' of The Ever-Warlike, "United States of Amnesia" (Gore Vidal) ; The Belicose, "Zionist-Apartheid Entity" ; The Despotic, "Kingdom' of Saudi-Arabia" ; The 'Oilygarchs' and The Kleptocratic 'Global Corporate Power Elites', are pitched against Iran and its people.

ALL right thinking people everywhere, who truly believe in Peace, Justice and Freedom MUST oppose a WAR with Iran both for the sake of innocent Iranians AND with an eYe to the Global Conflagration that will certainly result !

fiat lux et pax ...

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

The Drumbeaters for WAR On Iran are in the background using The Corporate MSM to Psy-Op Propagandise ; Mind Manage ; Perception Control and to 'Manufacture Consent' for WAR on on Iran, Innocent Iranians and The 'State Controlled' and "Entirely Government Owned" Iranian Central Bank [ http://blogs.wsj.com/corruption-currents/2011/12/15/senate-passes-sanctions-on-irans-central-bank/?mod=google_news_blog & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Bank_of_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran ]!

Re. "Manufacturing Consent", see : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12972.htm .

fiat lux ; fiat pax ; fiat justitia ...

[-] 1 points by TheRoot (305) from New York, NY 8 years ago

Are you actually "thinking" in Latin, too?

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 8 years ago

Errr ... Quid ?!

[-] 0 points by badconduct (550) 8 years ago

And richer, and better equipped, with a higher population, more government support.

US won't fight them directly. It'll be sanctions for 3 or 4 years. Assuming the economy is capable of that.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

Iran's economy is growing despite the sanctions

[-] 0 points by thomasthetank (41) 8 years ago

Agree. I think that it will be the policy of this country, in decades to come, to split the Islamic world.

This will be the Nixon goes to China strategy and will result in America siding with Sunnis over Shiites.

Sunnis are better educated, wealthier, and are generally have a more modernistic view of the world.

An attack on Iran will be seen as an attack on Shiites and, for that reason, was delayed until we got our troops out of Iraq.

It may be a sad paradox that we freed Iraq from a Sunni aristocracy and dictatorship only to hand it over to Shiites who will, inevitably, hate us.

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) 8 years ago

if there is a war, we will not be involved. the middle east is divided as it has ever been. it is very likely that iran and syria will be cut off from the world until finally a coup will take place. the pieces are already in place, including language and policy from the UAE and muslim brotherhood who is trying to legitimize itself at long last.

[-] 2 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

You forget that the Muslim and Persian worlds are largely rural.

The coups may be progressive, but the resulting leadership is a very dangerous mix of Islamists, Islamists, and Islamists.

Nobody knows what will emerge in the region.....but, would you want the possibility of a failed state in the middle east that also harbors nuclear weapons?

Think 50 years ahead in your thoughts....

Iraq was the war of choice. 9-11 was the tool the neocons used to choose it.

But, as is often the case, the nutcases made things crazier.

With Iraq gone, Iran's influence in the region grew and it's fears of Western intervention soared. Iraq led Iran to accelerate it's nuclear program dramatically.

We created a monster out of a troll. No pun intended.

Now, we are forced to accept an unacceptable situation or to take an unacceptable action.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 8 years ago

all of that is true. the part i think you should examine is the definition of Islamist. consider the following http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism

even in the wiki you can see conflicting concepts, confusion of direction, it just lacks cohesion. the same can be said for the word communism. the same for the word capitalism. now it could very well turn out to be just as bad if not worse, but the most important considerations should be the goals of the iranians that want to overthrow their current government. What do they want? this question is intentionally ignored just as the true wishes of OWS are being ignored. because it doesn't serve the people currently in power. the citizens of iran are the same as us in every way. for every word in the quran, you can find the same in the christian bible. they have families, a need for education and healthcare. then look at the goals of those who would assist in the overthrow, the UAE. they have goals inline with civility and prosperity. once we stop letting the gods of war set the narrative for us, they will have no power over us.

ps, jesus is mentioned many times in islam. as a friend and person of god.

[-] -2 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

I have nothing against Christianity.....it's Christians that bother me.

The same is true of the Koran.

Do you know upon what book Thomas Jefferson swore his oath of office?

The irony of the middle east is that, where the government hates us, the people love us. And, where the government is friendly to America, the people hate us.

It is a no win cauldron and, honestly, if it weren't for oil, the middle east would be Africa with falafel.

But, it is what it is.....I wrote of the inevitability of our action against Iran. That does not imply support for it.

However, as Churchill pointed out, "Justice makes nations great, but great nations are seldom just."

What he was pointing out is that great nations often arrive at their stations through unjust means or actions. And, if we remove all thoughts of morality and idealism from the equation....pretend we are playing Risk....we would bomb Iran to oblivion.

It is my fear, just as it is the Israelis, that we will be unable to eliminate the nuclear threat from Iran and our actions will only stir up a nuclear hornet's nest.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

Do you know upon what book Thomas Jefferson swore his oath of office?

Nobody does. He owned a Quran but there's no record of the book he used (if any) for the oath.

Also RQ-170. :)

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

I have a copy of the Jefferson Bible myself, but, where does it say anything about TJ's oath..?

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

After a day like today, that was just what I needed to hear. :)

Time for another beer - have a good weekend Puff.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

you too.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 8 years ago

oh i know very well. the very second we went after afganistan, i knew iran was the target. how can you justify the invasion of a country where people take horses to work. but there is a war going on inside our own government and obama is cleaning house. he will not allow a war with iran and since they cannot reach us, the gig is up.

[-] -1 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

Obama demanded a peace agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians in return for American action against Iran.

Israel turned him down....flat. That is why the President's relationship with Netanyahu is so hostile.

The Israelis didn't make the bargain because they want the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and Jerusalem. More importantly, THEY RECOGNIZE the inevitable necessity for us to bomb Iran back into the seventeenth century.

Therefore, they didn't bite....and the President's bluff was called.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 8 years ago

that is completely false. the two ideas are contradictory. the Israeli conflict empowers the argument for war with iran. a peace deal would remove the need for war with iran.

[-] -1 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

How would Israel making an agreement with the Palestinians disrupt the insanity of the Iranian regime? You may want to qualify that one.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 8 years ago

Iran gets it's momentum in the middle east by championing the palistinian cause. once they have peace, palistinians would be able to shake off iranian interference in order to maintain legitimacy and their new state. otherwise they would have new troubles from the UAE and the permanence of their state could be questioned by the international community.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

Everyone in the region fears the Iranians....they are Persians, not Arabic....and they see themselves and the natural dominating force over their neighbors.

Iran will go nuclear if Israel replanted itself on another continent. Palestine is their rallying cry, but not their motivation.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 8 years ago

without the palistinians to champion, there would be no apatite for supporting irans war ambitions. you're to caught up on the technical aspects and you completely dismiss the human and emotional factors, those factors are everything. once there is no need for the iranian power, the other middle eastern countries will cut them off from the globe. they have the power to close off every road going into and out of iran.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

"without the palistinians to champion, there would be no apatite for supporting irans war ambitions."

Not true. Iran sees itself as the North Korea of the middle east.

Once it gets a nuke, nobody can touch it.....and it can continue to be batshit crazy.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 8 years ago

how iran sees itself means nothing. north korea nor iran will never jump because they know the end result. what matters is isolating them.

[-] 1 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

They're too close to an enemy that they see as their duty to destroy.....plus, they could hold the world hostage by shutting down most Middle Eastern oil.

Remember 1973? I vaguely do. Too many ludes that year.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 8 years ago

that is why they must be isolated. once that happens, they have little control on oil prices.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

"Iran is one of the few major economies that has maintained positive growth in the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis, despite sanctions imposed by the international community as a result of the country's nuclear program.[25][26]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iran

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 8 years ago

So pro Obama I wretched.

[-] 0 points by KVNLGN (154) 8 years ago

yep, too much of a political slant here, and in other posts...politics do not solve anything whatsoever. see below. The United States is currently in the process of completing the withdrawal of its combat forces from Iraq. With the destruction of the Iraqi military in 2003, the U.S. military became the only force able to counter Iranian conventional military strength in the Persian Gulf region. Because of this, the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq will create a power vacuum that the Iranians are eager to exploit. The potential for Iran to control a sphere of influence from western Afghanistan to the Mediterranean is a prospect that not only frightens regional players such as Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey but also raises serious concerns in the United States. As we have noted before, we don't believe that a military attack against Iran's nuclear facilities alone is the answer to the regional threat posed by Iran. Iran's power comes from its ability to employ its conventional forces and not nuclear weapons. Therefore, strikes against its nuclear weapons program would not impact Iran's conventional forces or its ability to interfere with the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz by using its conventional forces asymmetrically against U.S. naval power and commercial shipping. Indeed, any attack on Iran would have to be far broader than just a one-off attack like the June 1981 Israeli strike at Osirak, Iraq, that crippled Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program. Because of this difficulty, we have seen the Israelis, Americans and their allies attacking Iran through other means. First of all, they are seeking to curb Iran's sphere of influence by working to overthrow the Syrian regime, limit Syria's influence in Iraq and control Hezbollah in Lebanon. They are also seeking to attack Iran's nuclear program by coercing officials to defect, assassinating scientists and deploying cyberwarfare weapons such as the Stuxnet worm. It is also necessary to recognize that covert action does not occur in a vacuum. Each covert activity requires a tremendous amount of clandestine intelligence-gathering in order to plan and execute it. With so much covert action happening, the clandestine activity undertaken by all sides to support it is obviously tremendous. But as the frequency of this activity increases, so can sloppy tradecraft. Finally, as we examine this campaign it is remarkable to note that not only are Iran's enemies using covert methods to stage attacks on Iran's nuclear program and military capabilities, they are also developing new and previously unknown methods to do so. And they have shown a willingness to allow these new covert attack capabilities to be unveiled by using them — which could render them useless for future attacks. This willingness to use, rather than safeguard, revolutionary new capabilities strongly underscores the importance of this covert campaign to Iran's adversaries. It also indicates that we will likely see other new forms of covert warfare emerge in the coming months, along with revolutionary new tactical applications of older forms.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

No....the scenario would have been the same if it were McCain.

My point was the inevitability of all of this and how Rove used it to box the next President.

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 8 years ago

I see.

[-] 2 points by ropeknot (359) 8 years ago

Yeah you would if you knew what the Builderburg people were planning !

[-] -1 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

Rove is a genius and the move was genius. Evil, but genius.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by RussellFeingold (55) 8 years ago

Pakistan and India are the world's first nuclear terrorist states. I've worked all over India, from Udaipur and Jaipur in the north, to Maduri and Trichy in the south. I'll bet none of you NY subway rats could find those cities on a map of India. I've stood on the southern tip of India. They are no better than the Pakis. Indians consider nuclear annihilation of Pakistan to be a viable option with acceptable casualties.

I just have one question. How the Hell did the RX-170 "crash land" without getting a scratch on it? The CIA soft landed it on purpose. It's another Gulf of Tonkin.

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

An interesting thought. However, in the Gulf of Tonkin, the North Vietnamese didn't ask for their torpedo back.

Pakistan and India both have a military that see themselves as an institution separate from the government.

I've spent time in both countries and there is a very unhealthy national pride in their fighting forces that is waiting to explode in conflict. The two nations have 80 years of enmity built up and it is truly a caldera waiting to blow.

[-] -1 points by Tinhorn (285) 8 years ago

Do you think that countries like Iran haven't known that they were being spyed on by the rest of the world for years? Do you think they arent doing the same thing? Really, read a book or something. We know that China spys on us, China knows that we spy on them. Same with North Korea, are we at war with them?

[-] 0 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

Satellites and electronic surveillance are for spying, top secret stealth drones are for target selection.

You would not risk the asset over hostile airspace unless you are VERY serious about your intentions.

Read a book? Is that the best insult you can muster? Pussy.

[-] 1 points by Tinhorn (285) 8 years ago

Clueless. We use drones all the time for surveillance and EW. Drones are the number one source of live feed intel to the commander on the battle field for over the next hill or around the next corner detection. Work with them sometime and then talk to me.

[-] -1 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

Drones are the number one source of live feed intel to the COMMANDER ON THE BATTLE FIELD for over the next hill or around the next corner detection.

You are a argumentative piece of shit who thinks being contrary is being substantive. I have no more time to waste on you.

I've read some of your posts.....simply pathetic.

[-] 0 points by Tinhorn (285) 8 years ago

You have no more time because you have no more argument that you can substaniate on the subject it's ok to admit that you are somewhat ignorant on the subject alot of people are.

[-] -1 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

"Alot" is not a word. Go back and smack your third grade teacher in the face....the second one.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

neither is ofcourse

[-] 0 points by Tinhorn (285) 8 years ago

Again, argue the point not my typing ability, oh yeah, you can't.

[-] -1 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

No sane person, who has any respect for journalistic truth, would watch a "news" network that employed Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Glenn Beck, and the rest of the parade of idiots that inhabit Fox news.

You make it sound like the "mainstream" media, outside of Fox news, is part of some conspiracy trying to hide the truth.


I hate to tell you this, Piggy, but there is no such conspiracy.....you are just plain stupid.

Stupid is what stupid does.....An' use doin sum reel stup'd.

[-] 0 points by Tinhorn (285) 8 years ago

Can you not read? Who said anything in this post about the news? This is another typical tactic for those that can't argue the topic. If you have read my posts in the past as you claim, you would know my stance on any for profit news organizations, they all suck. But good job furthering proving that name calling and insults are the way of OWS when you can't argue the point.

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

I'd be careful here. Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program. You guys are believing the hype. It is all about the oil. You don't want to go to war, the first thing to do is don't believe the hype. Stop getting your information from mainstream media. in the US.

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 8 years ago

"Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program. "

Really ?

then what are they doing saying Israel must be annihilated as they do nuclear things ?

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

Iran does NOT have a nuclear weapons program. Really, really.

[-] 2 points by ropeknot (359) 8 years ago

O.K. then we should just live along side our neighbors peacefully as they figure out how to get rid of us ?

Just the comment of wanting to get rid of a people and doing nuclear things should give you a clue as to what is happening now , Ostrich , bury your head in the sand person !

Sorry !

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

No, the clue here is that they do not possess a nuclear weapons program. And............you act like this is ok.

Paid any attention to the Egypt-Israel oil pipeline that was bombed?

Show me you give a damn about Israel. IDF is dropping bombs, does anyone know why? Oh, that's right. Because we don't really give a shit about Israel unless it serves our purpose.

[-] 2 points by ropeknot (359) 8 years ago

That's another Duh ,

We have never given a shit about anyone except ourselves as history shows !

And the government being out of control doing this without our consent ( vote ) is what I'm talking about !

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

Nope. We do not intervene anywhere unless it is beneficial.

[-] 2 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 8 years ago

Sure, ask Nuclear Rocket Surgeon Dr Girl Friday, she's forgotten more about everything than any mere mortals will ever know about nothing. Seriously, ask it.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

Several nuclear experts have repudiated the recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on Iran's nuclear program, saying it is misinformed, misleading and merely a hype created by the media, Press TV reports.

In its November 8 report, the IAEA accused Tehran of activities aimed at developing nuclear weapons before 2003 and speculated that these activities “may still be ongoing”.

Robert Kelley, former IAEA director and nuclear engineer, says he was “quite surprised” by the lack of new information in the report, further stressing that the report is “highly misleading.”

Kelley says the IAEA report draws its material from a single source, a laptop computer. The laptop, he says, was allegedly supplied to the IAEA by a Western intelligence agency, “whose provenance could not be established.”

Tehran has rejected the report as "unbalanced, unprofessional and prepared with political motivation and under political pressure by mostly the United States.”

“There is nothing (in the IAEA report) that indicates that Iran is really building a bomb,” says Greg Thielmann, former State Department and Senate Intelligence Committee analyst.

“Those who want to drum up support for a bombing attack on Iran sort of aggressively misrepresented the report,” Thielmann adds.

On Saturday, Russian Ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin said the IAEA report bore greater resemblance to a “PR exercise than a serious nuclear effort.”

Churkin cited the manner in which the report “was played up in the media and then leaked to the press, containing very little information,” about Iran's nuclear program, as proof of this public relations maneuver.

In its November 18 resolution against the Islamic Republic, the IAEA Board of Governors voiced “deep and increasing concern” about Tehran's nuclear program, and called on Iran and the IAEA to intensify dialogue to resolve the dispute over the Iranian nuclear energy program.

The resolution, however, stopped short of reporting Iran to the UN Security Council or setting Tehran a deadline to comply.

The United States, Israel, and some of their allies accuse Tehran of pursuing military objectives in its nuclear program and have used this pretext to push for the imposition of sanctions as well as to call for an attack on the country.

Iran, however, refutes such allegations as “baseless” and maintains that as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and a member of the IAEA, it has every right to develop and acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

In addition, the IAEA has conducted numerous inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities, but has never found any evidence indicating that Iran's civilian nuclear program has been diverted to nuclear weapons production.

HMV/HGH http://www.presstv.ir/detail/214133.html

[-] 2 points by ropeknot (359) 8 years ago

As I said !

So it's not nuclear , just any other way of getting rid of Israel !

That makes it O.K. !

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

They don't have a nuclear weapons program. You don't have a reason to go to war with Iran.

[-] 2 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 8 years ago

TERRORIST ALERT! See the first SB1867 detainee get hauled off and tortured!

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 8 years ago

What don't you understand about me being Iran and wanting you (Israel)dead ?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

The fact that you don't have nuclear weapons and you don't have a nuclear weapons program. Don't let the facts get in the way.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 8 years ago

You believe that crap? pfffffftt

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

IRAN AND THE I.A.E.A. Posted by Seymour M. Hersh

The first question in last Saturday night’s Republican debate on foreign policy dealt with Iran, and a newly published report by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The report, which raised renewed concern about the “possible existence of undeclared nuclear facilities and material in Iran,” struck a darker tone than previous assessments. But it was carefully hedged. On the debate platform, however, any ambiguity was lost. One of the moderators said that the I.A.E.A. report had provided “additional credible evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon” and asked what various candidates, upon winning the Presidency, would do to stop Iran. Herman Cain said he would assist those who are trying to overthrow the government. Newt Gingrich said he would coördinate with the Israeli government and maximize covert operations to block the Iranian weapons program. Mitt Romney called the state of Iran’s nuclear program Obama’s “greatest failing, from a foreign-policy standpoint” and added, “Look, one thing you can know … and that is if we reëlect Barack Obama Iran will have a nuclear weapon.” The Iranian bomb was a sure thing Saturday night.

I’ve been reporting on Iran and the bomb for The New Yorker for the past decade, with a focus on the repeated inability of the best and the brightest of the Joint Special Operations Command to find definitive evidence of a nuclear-weapons production program in Iran. The goal of the high-risk American covert operations was to find something physical—a “smoking calutron,” as a knowledgeable official once told me—to show the world that Iran was working on warheads at an undisclosed site, to make the evidence public, and then to attack and destroy the site.

The Times reported, in its lead story the day after the report came out, that I.A.E.A. investigators “have amassed a trove of new evidence that, they say, makes a ‘credible’ case” that Iran may be carrying out nuclear-weapons activities. The newspaper quoted a Western diplomat as declaring that “the level of detail is unbelievable…. The report describes virtually all the steps to make a nuclear warhead and the progress Iran has achieved in each of those steps. It reads likes a menu.” The Times set the tone for much of the coverage. (A second Times story that day on the I.A.E.A. report noted, more cautiously, that “it is true that the basic allegations in the report are not substantially new, and have been discussed by experts for years.”)

But how definitive, or transformative, were the findings? The I.A.E.A. said it had continued in recent years “to receive, collect and evaluate information relevant to possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program” and, as a result, it has been able “to refine its analysis.” The net effect has been to create “more concern.” But Robert Kelley, a retired I.A.E.A. director and nuclear engineer who previously spent more than thirty years with the Department of Energy’s nuclear-weapons program, told me that he could find very little new information in the I.A.E.A. report. He noted that hundreds of pages of material appears to come from a single source: a laptop computer, allegedly supplied to the I.A.E.A. by a Western intelligence agency, whose provenance could not be established. Those materials, and others, “were old news,” Kelley said, and known to many journalists. “I wonder why this same stuff is now considered ‘new information’ by the same reporters.”

A nuanced assessment of the I.A.E.A. report was published by the Arms Control Association (A.C.A.), a nonprofit whose mission is to encourage public support for effective arms control. The A.C.A. noted that the I.A.E.A. did “reinforce what the nonproliferation community has recognized for some times: that Iran engaged in various nuclear weapons development activities until 2003, then stopped many of them, but continued others.” (The American intelligence community reached the same conclusion in a still classified 2007 estimate.) The I.A.E.A.’s report “suggests,” the A.C.A. paper said, that Iran “is working to shorten the timeframe to build the bomb once and if it makes that decision. But it remains apparent that a nuclear-armed Iran is still not imminent nor is it inevitable.” Greg Thielmann, a former State Department and Senate Intelligence Committee analyst who was one of the authors of the A.C.A. assessment, told me, “There is troubling evidence suggesting that studies are still going on, but there is nothing that indicates that Iran is really building a bomb.” He added, “Those who want to drum up support for a bombing attack on Iran sort of aggressively misrepresented the report.”

Joseph Cirincione, the president of the Ploughshare Fund, a disarmament group, who serves on Hillary Clinton’s International Security Advisory Board, said, “I was briefed on most of this stuff several years ago at the I.A.E.A. headquarters in Vienna. There’s little new in the report. Most of this information is well known to experts who follow the issue.” Cirincione noted that “post-2003, the report only cites computer modelling and a few other experiments.” (A senior I.A.E.A. official similarly told me, “I was underwhelmed by the information.”)

The report did note that its on-site camera inspection process of Iran’s civilian nuclear enrichment facilities—mandated under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory—“continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material.” In other words, all of the low enriched uranium now known to be produced inside Iran is accounted for; if highly enriched uranium is being used for the manufacture of a bomb, it would have to have another, unknown source.

The shift in tone at the I.A.E.A. seems linked to a change at the top. The I.A.E.A.’s report had extra weight because the Agency has had a reputation for years as a reliable arbiter on Iran. Mohammed ElBaradei, who retired as the I.A.E.A.’s Director General two years ago, was viewed internationally, although not always in Washington, as an honest broker—a view that lead to the awarding of a Nobel Peace Prize in 2005. ElBaradei’s replacement is Yukiya Amano of Japan. Late last year, a classified U.S. Embassy cable from Vienna, the site of the I.A.E.A. headquarters, described Amano as being “ready for prime time.” According to the cable, which was obtained by WikiLeaks, in a meeting in September, 2009, with Glyn Davies, the American permanent representative to the I.A.E.A., said, “Amano reminded Ambassador on several occasions that he would need to make concessions to the G-77 [the group of developing countries], which correctly required him to be fair-minded and independent, but that he was solidly in the U.S. court on every strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program.” The cable added that Amano’s “willingness to speak candidly with U.S. interlocutors on his strategy … bodes well for our future relationship.”

It is possible, of course, that Iran has simply circumvented the reconnaissance efforts of America and the I.A.E.A., perhaps even building Dick Cheney’s nightmare: a hidden underground nuclear-weapons fabrication facility. Iran’s track record with the I.A.E.A. has been far from good: its leadership began construction of its initial uranium facilities in the nineteen-eighties without informing the Agency, in violation of the nonproliferation treaty. Over the next decade and a half, under prodding from ElBaradei and the West, the Iranians began acknowledging their deceit and opened their enrichment facilities, and their records, to I.A.E.A. inspectors.

The new report, therefore, leaves us where we’ve been since 2002, when George Bush declared Iran to be a member of the Axis of Evil—with lots of belligerent talk but no definitive evidence of a nuclear-weapons program.

Illustration by Guy Billout http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2011/11/iran-and-the-iaea.html

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 8 years ago

flat out lies

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

Former Weapons Inspector: Iran Does Not Have Nuclear Weapons Test Chamber A former inspector for the IAEA has repudiated its major new claim that Iran built an explosives chamber to test components of a nuclear weapon. November 20, 2011 |

The IAEA claim that a foreign scientist - identified in news reports as Vyacheslav Danilenko - had been involved in building the alleged containment chamber has now been denied firmly by Danilenko himself in an interview with Radio Free Europe published Friday. The latest report by the IAEA cited "information provided by Member States" that Iran had constructed "a large explosives containment vessel in which to conduct hydrodynamic experiments" - meaning simulated explosions of nuclear weapons - in its Parchin military complex in 2000.

The report said it had "confirmed" that a "large cylindrical object" housed at the same complex had been "designed to contain the detonation of up to 70 kilograms of high explosives". That amount of explosives, it said, would be "appropriate" for testing a detonation system to trigger a nuclear weapon.

But former IAEA inspector Robert Kelley has denounced the agency's claims about such a containment chamber as "highly misleading".

Kelley, a nuclear engineer who was the IAEA's chief weapons inspector in Iraq and is now a senior research fellow at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, pointed out in an interview with the Real News Network that a cylindrical chamber designed to contain 70 kg of explosives, as claimed by the IAEA, could not possibly have been used for hydrodynamic testing of a nuclear weapon design, contrary to the IAEA claim.

"There are far more explosives in that bomb than could be contained by this container," Kelley said, referring to the simulated explosion of a nuclear weapon in a hydrodynamic experiment.

Kelley also observed that hydrodynamic testing would not have been done in a container inside a building in any case. "You have to be crazy to do hydrodynamic explosives in a container," he said. "There's no reason to do it. They're done outdoors on firing tables."

Kelley rejected the IAEA claim that the alleged cylindrical chamber was new evidence of an Iranian weapons programme. "We've been led by the nose to believe that this container is important, when in fact it's not important at all," Kelley said.

The IAEA report and unnamed "diplomats" implied that a "former Soviet nuclear weapons scientist", identified in the media as Danilenko, had helped build the alleged containment vessel at Parchin.

But their claims conflict with one another as well as with readily documented facts about Danilenko's work in Iran.

The IAEA report does not deny that Danilenko – a Ukrainian who worked in a Soviet-era research institute that was identified mainly with nuclear weapons – was actually a specialist on nanodiamonds. The report nevertheless implies a link beween Danilenko and the purported explosives chamber at Parchin by citing a publication by Danilenko as a source for the dimensions of the alleged explosives chamber.

Associated Press reported Nov. 11 that unnamed diplomats suggested Volodymyr Padalko, a partner of Danilenko in a nanodiamond business who was described as Danilenko's son-in-law, had contradicted Danilenko's firm denial of involvement in building a containment vessel for weapons testing. The diplomats claimed Padalko had told IAEA investigators that Danilenko had helped build "a large steel chamber to contain the force of the blast set off by such explosives testing".

But that claim appears to be an effort to confuse Danilenko's well- established work on an explosives chamber for nanodiamond synthesis with a chamber for weapons testing, such as the IAEA now claims was built at Parchin.

One of the unnamed diplomats described the steel chamber at Parchin as "the size of a double decker bus" and thus "much too large" for nanodiamonds.

But the IAEA report itself made exactly the opposite argument, suggesting that the purported steel chamber at Parchin was based on the design in a published paper by Danilenko.

The report said the alleged explosives chamber was designed to contain "up to 70 kg of high explosives" which is claims would be "suitable" for testing what it calls a "multipoint initiation system" for a nuclear weapon.

But a 2008 slide show on systems for nanodiamond synthesis posted on the internet by the U.S.-based nanotechnology company NanoBlox shows that the last patented containment chamber built by Danilenko and patented in 1992, with a total volume of 100 cubic metres, was designed for the use of just 10 kg of explosives.

An unnamed member state had given the IAEA a purported Iranian document in 2008 describing a 2003 test of what the agency interpreted to be a possible "high explosive implosion system for a nuclear weapon".

David Albright, director of a Washington, D.C. think tank who frequently passes on information from IAEA officials to the news media, told this writer in 2009 that the member state in question was "probably Israel".

Although the process of making "detonation nanodiamonds" uses explosives in a containment chamber, the chamber would bear little resemblance to one used for testing a nuclear bomb's initiation system.

The production of diamonds does not require the same high degree of precision in simultaneous explosions as the initiator for a nuclear device. And unlike the explosives used in a multipoint initiation system, the explosives used for making synthetic nanodiamonds must be under water in a closed pool, as Danilenko noted in a 2010 PowerPoint presentation.

Having endorsed the IAEA's claims, Albright concedes in a Nov. 13 article that the IAEA report "did not provide [sic] Danilenko's involvement, if any, in this chamber."

In an interview with Radio Free Europe Friday, Danilenko denied that he has any expertise in nuclear weapons, saying, "I understand absolutely nothing in nuclear physics." He also denied that he participated in "modeling warheads" at the research institute in Russia where he worked for three decades.

Danilenko further denied doing any work in Iran that did not relate to "dynamic detonation synthesis of diamonds" and said he has "strong doubts" that Iran had a nuclear weapons programme during those years.

Albright and three co-authors published an account of Danilenko's work in Iran this week seeking to give credibility to the IAEA suggestion that he worked on the containment chamber for a nuclear weapons programme.

The Albright article, published on the website of the Institute for Science and International Security, said that Danilenko approached the Iranian embassy in 1995 offering his expertise on detonation diamonds, and later signed a contract with Syed Abbas Shahmoradi who responded to Danilenko's query.

Albright identifies Shahmoradi as the "head of Iran's secret nuclear sector involved in the development of nuclear weapons", merely because Shahmoradi later headed the Physics Research Center, which the IAEA argues has led Iran's nuclear weapons research.

But in late 1995, Shahmoradi was at the Sharif University of Technology, which is a leading centre for nanodiamonds in Iran. Albright argues that this is evidence supporting his suspicion that nanodiamonds were a cover for his real work, because the main centre for nanodiamond research is at Malek Ashtar University of Technology rather than at Sharif University.

However, Sharif University had just established an Institute of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology in 2005 that was intended to become the hub for nanotechnology research activities and strategy planning for Iran. So Sharif University and Shahmoradi would have been the logical choice to contract one of the world's leading specialists on nanodiamonds.

Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006. http://www.alternet.org/story/153148/former_weapons_inspector:_iran_does_not_have_nuclear_weapons_test_chamber_?page=entire

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 8 years ago

Show boobs please, your brains suck.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

You don't have a case. You didn't have one before and you do not have one now.

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 8 years ago

Just SHOW YOUR BOOBS. You are a muslim extremist if you don't hate the people the Jews fear. Don't you understand that, terrorist girl? You also believe if the UN puts sanctions on Iran, that China will be the only country buying their oil, and for well below market price. Nope, the BRIC will buy.

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 8 years ago

Rantings of the mentally ill. Bad time of the month for you?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

Iran got some Uranium Mines

Uranium Mines

Since 1988, Iran reportedly opened as many as 10 uranium mines, including the Saghand uranium mine in Yazd province, as well otherwise unspecified locations in Khorassan, Sistan va Baluchestan, and Hormozgan Provinces, and in Bandar-e-Abbas and Badar-e-Lengeh Provinces along the Gulf. The Director of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), Reza Amrollahi, announced in 1989 that the expected reserves of these deposts was in excess of 5,000 tons.

Uranium resources of Iran were not considered rich. The results of the AEOI exploration activities had shown proven reserves of about 3,000 tons of Uranium so far. According to the discovered indices (more than 350 anomalies) and the results of the field discoveries, the expected resources of Iran could be at the range of 20,000-30,000 tons of U3O8, throughout the country. Therefore Iran's domestic reserves might be sufficient enough to supply the raw material for needed nuclear power plants in future.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/mines.htm

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 8 years ago

That's pretty good , Huh !

I will dig in the dirt to find a way to get rid of my enemy !

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

'cept, they don't have a nuclear weapons program.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

they might not

refining uranium is 70 year old technology

I can't see bombing Iran to an earlier technological age

unfortunately destruction is so easy that there will always be a potential

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

So, we should clearly break international law again for a pre-emptive strike so that after millions of people have died we can look back and say (what we know now) is that this is about oil?

[-] 2 points by ropeknot (359) 8 years ago

"So, we should clearly break international law again"

It seems that dictators do as they please, even in this country where the sheeple live !

Esp. the senate bill just passed whereas American citizens can be held indefinitely without trial !

This is to reign us in so we don't appose what's going on in the world .

Yeh ! Oil ! Never heard of the oil shortages and the end of oil ?

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 8 years ago

Legal compliance is overrated. Let's light some off and make sure we didn't buy any duds.

[-] 2 points by ropeknot (359) 8 years ago

Obama and Bushs' LEGAL is not our constitution, but The Iranians don't adhere to our constitution !

So yeh !

Draw a line in the sand !

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 8 years ago

Turn it to glass and then frak the oil out gooderly and right properful.

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 8 years ago

The end result is an alternate energy form !

Just go there "Girlfriday" and no war will happen !

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

You go there. And send your children.

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 8 years ago

I meant go there as per new energy sources !

No sarcasm intended !

[-] 2 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 8 years ago

We have all these bombs and war toys. Somebody needs to use them before the police departments end up with all of them. Silly twit.

[-] 2 points by ropeknot (359) 8 years ago

And using them on us for target practice as in the O.W.S. situations !

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 8 years ago

It would appear that some here are trying to make that happen!

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 8 years ago

Yup !

O.W.S. and beyond !!!

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 8 years ago

GirlFriday seeks nervous doctor, seriously. She doesn't know anything about nukes either.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

You have the intellect of a gnat.

[-] 2 points by ropeknot (359) 8 years ago

You have the intellect of an Iranian president !

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 8 years ago

Iranian duush nozzul is more like it.

[-] 2 points by ropeknot (359) 8 years ago

Civility please !

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 8 years ago

Mea Culpa! Edited for less barbaric spelling.

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 8 years ago

You have the intellect of the Iranian president !

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

You are full of shit. There is not one reason nor shred of evidence to support any reason to go to Iran.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 8 years ago

Fanciful whim is good reason.

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 8 years ago

Ms IddyBiddyTiddyBrain, I have huge pectorals that bounce on command.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

if Iran has so much oil, why do they need nuclear power ?

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 8 years ago

No refineries ?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

"The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA) is a bill passed by the U.S. Congress that would apply further sanctions on the government of Iran. A previous iteration of the bill, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009 (IRPSA), would extend U.S. economic sanction"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Iran_Sanctions,_Accountability,_and_Divestment_Act_of_2010

maybe the US wants to bomb what refineries they have

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 8 years ago

Or before they get any !

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

it runs the power plants, Matt.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

so does oil

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

Probably because it is cheaper. So, again, we should clearly break international law again for a pre-emptive strike so that after millions of people have died we can look back and say (what we know now) is that this is about oil?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

maybe Iran wants a nuclear weapon to deter getting bombed for oil

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

They don't have a nuclear weapons program. :/

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

the US and Israel do

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

And?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

[-] MattLHolck no one suggests bombing out those countries' nuclear weapons programs

[-] GirlFriday Of course not. Or India. Or China. Or Russia. Or the UK.

[-] MattLHolck We have used drones and made strike in Pakistan Pakistan also have nuclear weapons

[-] GirlFriday Where are we going with this?

[-] MattLHolck Iran recently shot down a drone over their land

[-] GirlFriday They still don't have a nuclear weapons program.

[-] MattLHolck That is very responsible

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

They still don't have a nuclear weapons program.

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

Where are we going with this?

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

Of course not. Or India. Or China. Or Russia. Or the UK.

[-] -1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 8 years ago

'cept you ain't nevah been there and only have hearsay to go on

do you just believe anything you read on the internet or see on the news?

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

ssshhh, the adults are talking.

[-] -2 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 8 years ago

lil gurl chile, don't sass me again or you'll get some lotion for your skin

ya just pipe down and eat your gruel, ya gots 45 seconds an then get back in the galley to row with the rest of the hootchie slaves

[-] -1 points by puff6962 (4052) 8 years ago

Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program?

The IAEA, a very non-American entity, just published a scathing report that would contradict the "hype" you just spewed.

The premises in my discussion are factual.....

I was hoping that someone could provide some other alternative course of action for our country and that this topic would lead to a substantive discussion.

I might have been wrong.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

They didn't have them in 2007. It was halted in 2003. Was there any secret-secret crap going on that the American Public was not aware of? Only if you only read MSM news. Scott Ritter called this several years ago (and now every attempt is made to discredit this man) and here we are.

From 2007 http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/04/world/fg-iran4

and then this: http://rt.com/news/irans-nuclear-standpoint-firsthand-927/

Don't believe the hype.

[-] -1 points by Farleymowat (415) 8 years ago

Believe the hype Girly. Iran has nukes and is intent on bringing back their messiah out of some well he went hiding down centuries ago. They believe this, and they intend to finish up what Hitler began 70 years ago. This is a mean old world, and Iran intends to push Israel into the mediteranean sea. They will probably get some help from their neighbors too. The answer is: No Peace.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

Wrong answer. They don't have a nuclear weapons program.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 8 years ago

GF=Intergalactic Nuclear Weapons Inspector from Uranus, she knows more than anyone about everything. Ask her.

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 8 years ago

Do you have other denial issues?

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

You don't have any evidence of a current nuclear weapons program. NONE.

[-] -1 points by Farleymowat (415) 8 years ago

Nor don't you girlymonday

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

You don't have jack. It's called international law.

[-] -1 points by Farleymowat (415) 8 years ago

Live in your little world of denial, that is up to you. When a mushroom cloud visits this world, you will see the light. I pity the millions of Persians that have to live in that nightmare under that regime. Perhaps we can at least agree on that.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

They don't have a nuclear weapons program,. It doesn't exist. I don't care how many ways you try to spin this shit-there is not one reason to go to war with Iran. Not one.

[-] -1 points by Farleymowat (415) 8 years ago

Okay. You persuaded me. Are you an alcoholic or drug addict?

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

How much do you get paid to post?

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 8 years ago

A lot of money! Stock options too!

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 8 years ago

She smokes arm dope.

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 8 years ago

No kidding, as if they don't have enough money for even me to go over and set them up with whatever they wanted!