reuters.com— Iran will take action if a U.S. aircraft carrier which left the area because of Iranian naval exercises returns to the Gulf.
Jan 3, 2012View in Crawl 4
Actually, Iran owes the US a thank you note for eliminating Iraq and making them a stronger power in the region. Now they would like the US to go away so they can consolidate their power. Who could have possibly seen this coming?
I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.
"which reached a record low on Tuesday and has fallen by 40 percent against the dollar in the past month."
kaboom!
---
"as Iranians scrambled to buy dollars to protect their savings"
very ironic since iran absolutely loathes the US dollar, and even tried to cripple it by buying up euro's. oh wait....what happened to the euro? bam! bit them right in the ass!
---
"Iran will not repeat its warning...the enemy's carrier has been moved to the Sea of Oman because of our drill. I recommend and emphasize to the American carrier not to return to the Persian Gulf," he said."
and again iran becomes the dog with all bark and no bite. first they make a threat to close the gulf with military action, then they back down from their threat, then they tell the carrier that was responding to their threat to leave from its routine path that it's been using long before irans threats!?! that takes a special kind of crazy. iran just looks like fools.
---
"Army chief Ataollah Salehi said the United States had moved an aircraft carrier out of the Gulf because of Iran's naval exercises, and Iran would take action if the ship returned."
quit stroking yourself iran. the carrier was moved to be considerate and give your military exercises a wide birth. we're being nice to you. also because the US knows you'd do some stupid s**t like fire the first shot (but lie and say you didn't), which would require the carrier to defend itself and break into an all out conflict. then iran can cry to the world that the big bad US wronged them.
---
"Even Iran's top trading partner China -- which has refused to back new global sanctions against Iran -- is demanding discounts to buy Iranian oil as Tehran's options narrow. Beijing has cut its imports of Iranian crude by more than half for January."
oh here comes iran's 'friend' china, who won't back the sanctions, but are more than glad to tell iran 'we want your oil at lower prices'. which makes china all the more despicable in this.
---
"It then held 10 days of naval exercises in the Gulf, test firing missiles that could hit U.S. bases in the Middle East."
yes iran, because attacking military bases on foreign soil is going to get you anywhere.
---
"I don't believe either side wants a war to start. I think the Iranians will be aware that if they block the Strait or attack a U.S. ship, they will be the losers. Nor do I think that the U.S. wants to use its military might other than as a means of pressure."
sadly, I don't think iran will learn until they're burned. they've been playing with fire for so long without any real consequences that they've forgotten it can burn them alive. iran will only learn its lesson once it's hit, and hit hard.
don't you get it iran? we could straight up destroy your ass. we've been patient, we choose not to use our vast power to do so if possible. that makes us the good guys. but keep pulling your s**t iran and you'll have a hell unleashed on you that no amount of regret will be able to stop, as your leaders are cowering and dying realizing how foolish they were, all their mistakes will suddenly become clear to them - but it wont matter anymore.
As I said before, we are not in the habit of repeating things that we have said before and let me warn you one more time and then again that we do not repeat warnings because we warn you that we are serious., Now take us seriously, this is the last time we will repeat it, until we decide to repeat it again.
iran won't do anything but talk. we saw in 2009 after their fradulent elections that the military backstops the mullah's power. we destroy the military and the people will remove the mullahs in a violent uprising.
It seems everyday the world would be a far better place if a few countries were completely flattened and erased from the earth. North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan.
And make the flatteners the worst massmurderers of all times. Not that so many cares. I do for some odd reason, killing over 100 million people with probably much higher "collateral damage" kind of frightens & saddens me. Not that I know so may people from those countries, just some nice persians. Strange how they remind me somehow of my israeli friends, same kind of attitude towards life and openness.
The only problem with that idea is that some other country would rise to fill the void left by America. And at last tally the world's previous global leaders haven't been too nice.
Is this just another opportunity to Pile On to Obama? I don't see Obama acting in the way you suggest. Either way, let's hope we're not embroiled in yet another war in the middle east.
you dont? he pretty much said "hey..uhh,,uhh,,uhh,iran,, we hear that you, uhh uhh got one of our drones and it makes me very unpleased. uhh uhh uhhh, do you think we could get that back?
The correct response would have been
bomb the facility with the drone in it to keep it out of the hands of the enemy
or send in a covert team to destroy the facility making it look like an accident
Because going in after a known terrorist in a supposed ally's country is completely the same as going in to an unstable enemy going after covering our mistake? Not saying that I disagree with his decision, but comparing the two as comparable is equally foolish.
Personally, he probably made the right call in both cases though, even if Iran manages to learn something useful from the recovered tech, attacking a foreign country, particularly someone as unstable as Iran, is a far bigger risk than simply letting them have it. In the future though, some type of a self destruct fail safe on the things might not be a bad idea.
Also, for the record, I'm no fan of Obama and if any sane candidate is put up by the republicans I will vote against him, but that doesn't mean I'm going to fault him for good calls when he makes them.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I do hope though that the little design flaw that allowed it to fall into enemy hands has been corrected. It would be pretty nice to make sure it's nothing more than an expensive smoking crater if it falls out of radio contact for greater than a certain period of time.
So Iran, with their backs against the wall financially, are expected to roll over and acquiesce to American/Israeli demands? Seriously, who in their right mind thinks this is really going to happen?
The Iranians are being pushed to instigate an attack, plain and simple.
Sanctions are not appeasing them, nor is rehashing years old data to accuse them of building nukes. Push someone hard enough and they are going to fight back.
The ONLY things they are threatening is American influence in the Middle East, and by extension, your cheap supply of oil.
You are smoking some really bad s**t. Buy Canadian.
Actually it seems sanctions are hitting them pretty hard. Will they be stupid enough to fire on a US Navel Battle group? Maybe, but that will pretty much end their navy and probably a good chunk of their Air Force as well. It would cost them more to try and replace all that than the little bit of face they're losing by doing something so incredibly stupid
Response: Because they are trying to make nuclear weapons.
A surface for the preparation of food in a kitchen Response: How do you know that?
A long, narrow table with stools or chairs along one side for the patrons, behind which refreshments or meals are prepared and served Response: We don't, Iran won't allow inspections of their facilities as most countries do.
Therefore doodlemaster smells like rotten unwashed socks.
And yet they gain nothing by attacking the US. They are being obstinate on their nuclear program so the west responds by imposing sanctions which are causing Iran's economy to collapse. Iran either has to allow their economy to collapse, which will result in significant social unrest, or they need to cave on their nuclear program.
Attacking the US would not solve either problem and would likely cause even greater sanctions.
Iran is a very militaristic country. They were at war with Iraq for a decade, in a war that never really went anywhere.
In nations like Iran and N. Korea, who would rather suffer through sanctions and the starvation of their people in order to have nuclear weapons, what would happen if they went to war with another country and were about to lose? Would they have any reason not to launch nukes? Saddam Hussein thought his reign was over, and started launching SCUD missiles at Israel, even though they weren't really part of the first Gulf War.
You seem to think that any nation who wants nukes should be able to use them. Well, sooner or later, one of these idiot third world dictators is going to launch a nuke. What will you be saying then?
You really do need to read up on your history. Let me help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Wars
(hint: Vietnam: 10+ years, ended in a stalemate)
Your gov't is in constant state of war, and denying it makes your case even more pathetic than it already is.
I'm more worried about some American redneck assh**e like Rick Perry gaining office and pressing the nuke button than I am of some 3rd world dips**t. And before you say 'Perry will never be President', remember there are 350 million idiots just like him in America.
And yet for all the wars we've been in since WWII, we haven't used a nuke. Not even in Vietnam, which was a proxy war with the USSR at the height of the Cold War.
Iraq was the one who started the war with Iran by trying to invade. The reason why it was protracted to 10-years was because your guy Saddam Hussein was given weapons from the US, USSA, and China. Otherwise, Iran would've ended the war in victory a lot sooner.
Correct, and what had just happened between Iran and the US? The Iranian Hostage Crisis. We found a way to stick it to Iran without a straight-on fight. We also were supporting the more moderate Islamic nation over the more fundamentalist nation. Saddam turned out to be a really bad guy, but that's not our fault.
Had Iran won, the Shi'ite nation would have doubled in size. We didn't give Iraq enough military help to win the war with Iran, just enough to keep the balance in the region, which was important.
Very few of Iraq's weapons were from the US. Most of it was vintage USSR and French. Iran's military was in even worse shape since the Shah had mostly bought American but with the Embassy hostage crisis, we cut them off from spare parts (and kept the money that had already been paid)
I'd reply to your post Charlotte, but you're just a troll. For the record, and history's sake, Iran at the time of the revolution had no reason to be at all friendly with the US. They had just deposed of a dictator who the CIA installed to do America's bidding in place of their own democratically-elected Prime Minister. And, yes, the Ayatollah was worse than the Shah. His regime was only strengthened by solidarity against the war with Iraq. But, overall, you're arguing that it's okay for 1-million Iranians, including women and children, to die because of the embassy takeover. No mistaking why you're hated.
Actually CW, Iraq pretty much started that action after accusing Iran of side drilling (much like the did Kuwait as well) and a few border skirmishes over disputed territory
Who's claiming victimhood here? Not the US. We're cruising in international waters. If Iran want's to challenge that, they'll end up the worse for it. Open the nuclear facilities for inspection and we can go back to the harmless bluster from Iran like in the past. Otherwise, screw them.
Are you f**king kidding me? There is a video on Digg where Hillary Clinton openly admits that the US created Al Qaeda. And don't forget the Contras in Nicaragua. There are plenty of examples.
Terrorism: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce
We don't intimidate with violence; when we use violence, it's to win.
Are you a 9/1 truther? Osama Bin Laden's relationship with the US goes back to the Soviet-Afghanistan War, where we SAVED Afghanistan from becoming a Soviet state. What Bin Laden did after that had nothing to do with us.
Reagan supported the Contras to prevent the Sandinistas from setting up a socialist/communist government. It wasn't about intimidating.
It is never about the type of government being created, or about freedom. The Palestinians determined their own gov't, to the horror of the US and Israel. The same thing is happening in Egypt right now.
Your gov't uses violence to get their own way. If they can't have something happen in their favour, then they'll make sure to create enough chaos and destruction to prevent anything else. It's about control, both governmental and financial. It's about keeping the US war machine fully funded. It's about bullying others to get what you want.
So your justification of the things your gov't does around the world is invalid, delusional and hypocritical, things every bully needs to feel better about themselves and their actions.
BTW, the US didn't save Afghanistan. They funded an insurgency to try to influence the outcome in their favour...and it didn't even work. As the war wound down the funding stopped, and the Taliban took over, the US lost its opportunity to take control of the internal politics of the Afghan people. But I can understand your confusion, given the inadequacy of the American education system.
How could the establishment of the Palestinian government be "to the horror of the US and Israel" when the US brokered the deal and Israel both participated in and agreed to it? It really shows how little you know about international politics.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Your control over them is the issue. Your government can't control them, so you don't want the Iranians to have them. Plus, there happens to be a s**tload of oil in the region.
BTW, North Korea has nukes now and they have exported their nuclear technology to others, ie. Iran, Syria, Turkey, and are a part of the Axis Of Evil of terrorist states. That's more of a threat than anything Iran has done. So tell me why you aren't waging war with them, hypocrite? I forgot: no oil...and China. Where's your self-righteous indignation for that?
If you going to bulls**t about something, be consistent.
I don't want North Korea to have nukes either. It should be very telling to you that the N. Korean government would rather starve their people because of sanctions than to give up their nuclear weapons.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Why would you say that? Why do you consider their gov't more reasonable than Iran? Do you know the new NK leader personally, hang out and circle-jerk together?
You are finally right about something tho'. China will not let it happen. They won't let it happen in Iran either.
@ultimis: Please enlighten me with your wisdom then.
China has a lot of influence in Iran, seeing as they are one of their biggest trading partners. But, unlike the US and their colonial aspirations, they aren't as demanding or belligerent.
It isn't just America and Israel that are against Iranian nukes. The entire middle east is as well. In fact, the only thing keeping Saudi Arabia and everyone else from pursuing their own weapons programs is the fact that the pressure on Iran is so strong.
The only reason why the Saudis don't have it is to appease Israel so it can keep its regional power and military advantage. If Iran, or any of the other Arab state, gains nuclear weapons, that would upset the current balance of power against Israel.
Being surrounded by enemies on all sides has that effect.
Nonsense. A couple years back H Clinton even floated the idea of the nuclear shield for our middle eastern allies. In exchange for not pursuing their own nukes, America would provide ensure their protection with our own nuclear arsenal.
...which is American propaganda for: do things our way or else.
Don't try to rationalize your bulls**t to people outside the US like that. You aren't the shining white knight you like to think you are. We know your motives, we know your bulls**t. We also know it's all about profit and control. That's why the American gov't can't be trusted.
Here it is the Calvary, not a f**king knight, that comes to the rescue. We dont have knights. And ya, America is the Calvary because when s**t goes down everyone calls on America to make it right.
...to which the US gov't extorts huge compensation, demanding changes to laws beneficial to their businesses and government. It's NOT done because it's the 'right thing to do'. It's done for profit.
Calvary or knights, your gov't is neither. More like leeches.
Grasping now aren't we? Every country in the world looks out for number one above all else. I wonder what magical land you are from where this is not the case.
There hasnt been a nuclear holocaust because of mutual destruction. You nuke us and we'll nuke you, etc.
But countries like Iran that are run by religious finatics with a "mandate from god" cannot be expected to place their own existence above their military goals. Iran represents a different kind of nuclear threat. Even N Korea is safer with nukes than Iran.
Sorry I don't. I was busy with grade school. And it was too new for the text books.
But I'm not really sure what that has to do with us going back in. If they want to attack...go for it. If we lose a battlegroup, that will suck greatly. But it will stir the dragon again. And then they will have more to worry about than a few ships in the gulf.
We don't have to go to full-blown war to bitchslap Iran, and even if we did, a war with Iran would be measured in days. Remember, Iraq was the fourth largest military in the world, going into the first Iraq war, and look at how quickly we took them down.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Not possible. You think this conflict will only include Iran, like Afghanistan and Iraq? Not a chance. Due to sanctions, China is now a major export market of energy and oil for Iran.
So if you really think China will sit idly by and let the US gain control of the entire Strait of Hormuz area, then you really are deluded.
Of course they would. No matter how much rhetoric or bluffing they want to put out, they would never risk losing one of their biggest sources of income.
Let's look at this from China's side for a minute:
1) The US is strengthening its defenses and armed forces in the region: Australia, Japan, Taiwan, Korea, etc.
2) The US is trying to control oil production and shipping in the Middle East: Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Afghanistan, etc.
3) China's imports from Iran have already suffered a major decline due to sanctions.
China is definitely feeling some pressure as well.
China is profiting from the embargo because they are now able to force Iran to sell oil to them at a lower price.
America and China both share the same goal when it comes to the strait: Freedom of navigation. China doesnt want a nuclear Iran either, they just aren't willing or able to do anything about it.
Imports from Iran have already dropped and China has had to scramble to make up their energy needs from Russia, Sudan, and other places, which is INCREASING their costs.
China would be more supportive of the current banking sanctions set up by the US and UK if they were making a profit.
So I'm assuming everything that charlotte_web doesn't like the government doing you should run out and do yourself now? You have a lot of work/money to get started on.
I'm happy to pay for the things I think the government should be doing, esp when it doesn't involve the killing of foreigners. Charlotte doesn't seem to be of the same mind set simply trying to skirt the issue by saying it won't be as expensive which isn't the same as raise my taxes to pay for it.
You can be happy all you want. But that's not what you are stating charlotte_web should do. Web *also* pays taxes (probably more than you do). What you're stating is that because you don't support a action the government takes he not only has to pay more, but also has to go enlist into the government personally and over see it.
So turning the tables on you. Pony up the money for entitlements, and I expect you to spend your every waking moment working to make sure corruption doesn't occur and that the "needy" get what they deserve. Go ahead.
Please don't make guesses about how much money I make, because you are probably wrong.
My point is that we went to Iraq and cut taxes, which was stupid you raise taxes to pay for that stuff. I already think my taxes should be raised to pay for entitlements. Charlotte takes the position that we should be global police, but doesn't advocate for tax policies to actually pay for it.
After america “won”the middle east war afghanistan and Iraq are in peace,the taliban laid down their weapons and sing about loveing each other.and the same will happen with Iran.
and now the truth
the taliban is still in control of the area all america did was provide live fire training for your troops,wast billions and lost lives.
And that makes it all good, right? Can they still recruit? Yes. Are they still influential. YES. They weren't defeated, only marginalized for a while. And Iraq is about to go into civil war.
Face it, everything that the American gov't did over there was a waste of time, money and lives. Nothing has really changed, has it? So your sons and daughters died for nothing, often killing themselves due to combat fatigue.
Wait...I'm sorry, it wasn't for nothing. A lot of American companies got extremely rich from this, and will for years to come.
So tell everyone here just how proud of your country you are now, proud that your dead kids and thousands of dead Iraqis and Afghanis helped a few rich people expand their bank accounts.
Carter gave Iran to the Mullahs, and now Golfbags is giving the Middle East to the Muslim Brotherhood? hmmm... seeing a pattern here somewhere... Islamo-Fascism is on the rise, and once again the West twiddles it's thumbs while the forces of darkness gather. I hope Frodo can get through to Mount Doom with the One Ring.
Wall street oil traders are all too happy to see a confrontation between US and Iran. Heck I am willing to switch to public transportation if we can see freedom and democracy in Iran. But it would be very sad if more innocent lives will be lost to achieve such goals! Can anyone draw up a cost and benefits analysis?
1. Cost of oil skyrockets, making people who went long on it rich.
2. Money pulled out of gold market, so price collapses making people who shorted it while extolling its benefits to sheeple ... extra rich.
3. Wall Street rolling in dough like never before.
4. Everyone on Wall Street is happy.
5. People who get investment advice from News entertainment channel infotainment commercials lose wealth but gain wisdom.
Iran thinks it can skate by on those threats because Obama doesn't want to risk another war in the run-up to the elections to which he'd have to commit major resources to end it decisively, possibly even ground troops. However it takes only one local commander getting his zealot on an firing an anti-ship missile to start a serious tussle that will not end well for Iran. They'd have to look at least 20 miles inshore for any surviving military unit after the dust settles and would in all likelihood not have working refineries left since that is the regimes' Achilles heel: they already have to import gas despite all their oil.
"Tehran's most aggressive statement yet after weeks of saber-rattling" ????
That's just too stupid, the US (pushed by their "friend" Israel who owns the bank) is saber-rattling.
Iran just responds with the only think they can do: a threat to block the oil transports, raising the oil price.
Which is a very logical and even relatively peaceful thing to do, compared to what the US did with Iraq and Afghanistan.
On top of that, Iran cannot be a real threat to the US, it can make only make the oil more expensive, any other action would lead to some US invasion killing another 100000+ innocent people.
The only nation who wants war with Iran is Israel, and the reasons for that are religious, really, stupid religion again.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I don't know the best place to start, so let me just start.
First, if anyone owns the bank, its not Israel, but China. But I guess its convenient to have a Jewish conspiracy for your last point, but I'll come back to that.
Second, Iran has no right where we send out ships, so long as we don't intrude on their waters. Its called "international waters" for a reason. If we wanted to park the entire 5th fleet half a mile from their territorial waters, there's nothing they can legally to do stop us.
If Iran were to somehow block of that Straight (take four or five of their ships and scuttle them, making an already difficult passage even worse), oil prices would rise. If oil rises enough, you can forget about any recovery here. Imagine what a sudden rise to $4.50 or $5 gas would do.
Last - back to your Jewish conspiracy - Israel does not want war with Iran. They would be perfectly happy if they didn't have a neighboring country that wanted them to be wiped from the map. You probably don't realize how small Israel is compared to Iran - a single nuke could probably destroy Israel's economy by rendering much of it off-limits.
But the final question you need to ask yourself - say Iran is stupid enough to attack one of our carriers... what would you have us do?
There is a problem with your assessment of international waters.
Many years ago International waters referred to an area that was >2miles from shore. However, that has changed. 12 miles is now the space used. So 12 miles from shore is considered territorial waters, Then 200 miles from shore is considered the "Exclusive economic zone" of the country. The whole gulf is an Exclusive Economic Zone.
That would mean that there's a lot of overlap, as there's half a dozen nations bordering the Gulf.
from Wikipedia:
"Generally, a state's EEZ extends to a distance of 200 nautical miles (370 km) out from its coastal baseline. The exception to this rule occurs when EEZs would overlap; that is, state coastal baselines are less than 400 nautical miles (740 km) apart. When an overlap occurs, it is up to the states to delineate the actual maritime boundary.[2] Generally, any point within an overlapping area defaults to the nearest state.[3]"
Actually Iran could be more transparent to to show they are not developing nuclear weapons (as if that were the case). So Iran isnt really doing s**t to help themselves in all of this.
Really, you actually think that. You're an idiot. You know how many nukes israel has? So Iran's whole plan is to build one nuke and then lob it a israel.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Who said that Iran was only planning to build one nuke?
Look at what Iraq did, though... faced with certain defeat, they still sought to destroy Israel with all the firepower that they could send Israel's way. Did it make sense? No, it didn't.
If we went to war with the Iranian government, their defeat would be certain, but they would be able to destroy Israel in the process.
A former VP of Iran made a speech a few years ago. He said that the minute Iran had nuclear weapons they would attack Israel. He also said that even if Israel retaliated and destroyed Iran, it would be worth it.
Nobody ever said Iran would be doing the killing directly.
The gravest threat is if Iran gives these weapons to a proxy terrorist organization like Hezbollah or worse, to Venzuela to hit us through south America. This would be impossiblefor us to trace using the right uranium.
This isnt my Fing warning, this is the warning of FBI Director Robert Mueller and 2 Chiefs at the CIA.
The UN Security Council has passed many resolutions, trying to reign in Iran's nuclear ambitions. It's not as if the US is alone in their concern about Iran's nuclear weapons program.
The US earned the right by being the true winning power of WW2 and maintaining global security during the cold war and through today. The US has reinforced that position by being a leader in innovation in more fields than i can list. When s**t goes down everyone looks to America.
A strong America is good for the world. The reason is that an alternative never leads to world peace, it leads to some other country filling the void. In the past, world-leading countries havent been so nice.
Your error is in assuming that the Iranian theocracy has the same respect for life that the rest of the world has. This is a nation where women are still stoned to death for adultery, with the approval of their parents.
There is something seriously wrong with you! You talk about what Iran might do. Do you know how many civilians the US has killed, and lets not forget they made up WMD's in Iraq to start war. You'll just believe anything they feed you. Now go shopping good little consumer.....bahhhhh bahhhhhh
Given such a long record of state-sponsored terrorism, it would be absolutely insane to assume that they could handle nuclear weapons technology responsibly.
Are you saying Iraq has never had or used WMD's? I think a lot of shiite and kurds who were bombed with poison gas (as well as a lot of Iranians who fought in the Iran/Iraq war) might disagree with you.
It does make for a hypocritical position. While I support a push by countries 'not' to allow for further proliferation of Nuclear weapons, we must still address our own stockpiles.
We are addressing our stock piles. At the same time we are working with Russia to address their stock piles.
We have been in a constant state of reduction for years now. It took 40 or more years of cold war to build them. It will take close to that to get rid of them.
That's a very good point, penglust. Still, while we have Nukes, it makes it harder for us to make the case that a country can not have Nukes when we have our own. Still, I of course support an international effort to prevent proliferation.
We don't have the right to do anything based on this logic. As Germany committed genocide and invaded most of the rest of Europe we had no right to say or do anything to them about it.
The "right" comes from the moral high ground (usually comes from the United Nations or national defense) or it comes from power. In regards to Iran we have both moral high ground and power.
The U.S. has had the ability to completely nuke countries off the face of the planet have not done so.
Our "right" via power is this: "You do what we say, or we will invade and make you do what we say". There is also the carrot which is "Do what we say, and we will give you this". This is why we can have the "right to tell them" to do something.
It is within our right to tell them whatever we want. It is their right to choose to ignore us (and deal with the consequences: UN sanctions or military action).
Your Germany comparison is not even close to a good analogy, much less a logical one. Germany invaded sovereign countries and rounded up foreign nationals to be sent to death camps.
As far as their actions against their own citizens: we didn't really have a right to interfere, the same way we don't have a right interfere with the atrocities in middle eastern and African countries. Contrary to what some people think, the US doesn't actually go around the world "freeing the s**t" out of every sovereign nation.
It wasn't meant to be a analogy. It was a example of us expressing our "right" to do something. With that case I would think most people and historians would say that we did have the right to "interfere".
The question I put to you is: Why is our liberty to act infringed? Based on what authority? Their rights do not supersede our rights.
The problem is what Iran's possession of nuclear weapons means for the Middle East. If Iran is allowed to develop nukes then Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Iraq and everyone else is going to want to develop their own as a deterrent. That means massive proliferation making it more likely that one weapon will fall into terrorist hands. Since Iran sponsors terrorist organizations, this threat is even more pronounced.
The US is telling Iran they can't have nukes for the same reason we dont arm 8 year olds. Too f**king irresponsible and unpredictable.
So what if they do build a nuke. The US has metric tons of them and we have used them. The US has NO business telling anyone they can't have nukes.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Why is it so important to be liked? What exactly are we going to do with being the "most liked nation"? How does that increase the quality of life for the average American?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
@Char....
Hmm... why we need to be liked
Travel. You try to go to a foreign country, you get treated like s**t.
Economy. They are less inclined to by our s**t, and more inclined to by others. Sending our economy further down.
We used to be the "Good guys", WW2, we helped save the world from the Nazi's.
We don't have to be push overs, granted. But we don't have to be the Bully either.
>> Economy. They are less inclined to by our s**t,
>> and more inclined to by others. Sending our
>> economy further down.
Bulls**t.
Where there's money to be made, doors will magically open. Remember, it goes both ways; if you want to sell in our country, you have to let us sell in yours.
Do you think we like supporting OPEC? And yet we keep buying billions of dollars worth of oil from them.
Ultimis you're a f**king idiot, my point isn't that we need to convert to Islam, it's the blowing up people, killing innocents, and regime change can have terrible consequences. You're another reason Ron Paul will never get elected.
We don't have a military presence in the Middle east? Really? Nothing that could possibly upset someone? No innocent deaths at all? No interference propping up regimes in foreign countries?
Our bases in the middle east are at the request of the governments there. Not because we are occupying their country.
It is impossible *not* to upset someone. We might upset someone by pulling out of the middle east. The reason they are killing us isn't for "upsetting" them it runs much deeper than that. We've upset many people around the globe and they're not killing us. Many people around the globe are pissing us off and we're not killing them.
And that shouldn't be the basis for our foreign policy as *anything* can be used to recruit. All it takes is lies and propaganda. Let's say that eating ice cream is a recruitment tool for terrorist groups. Should we outlaw eating ice cream? f**k no. You *cannot* control radicalized terrorist groups. They have motives that go beyond the U.S. and where it's located in the world. 9/11 occurred before the carnage of the last 10 years. Yet terrorist attacks in the U.S. have been mild.
There was a lot of stuff that happened in the middle east before 9/11 read Ron Paul's writing on these things. You have to be willfully ignorant to claim we didn't meddle in middle east politics before 9/11.
One terrorist detonating a nuke in a major city and you can bet the nuclear option will be on the table for retaliation against whoever supplied the terrorists.
OK, think just for a moment. You think a nuke is that easy to get a hold of? If so what have the 'terrorist' been waiting for all these years while we tighten security. It was too easy before, they wanted more of a challenge. It makes no sense what so ever.
Well i guess that is really the issue. Either you want preemptive action to deal with this in an easier way. Or you want to wait it out and see where it goes, risking the rise of a very dangerous and capable regime.
History teaches us that regimes like Iran's that rise in military capability tend to use it for malevolent purposes. Do we know for sure? No, but Iran isn't doing anything to help the situation. In fact all of their actions imply guilt.
I mean they intend to build a nuclear weapon despite their assurances that they aren't. Iran bombing someone, despite their threats, isnt really the concerning issue because it isnt likely to happen. The issue is Iran supplying nuclear weapons to terrorist groups, something that is very possible. America is also wary of the arms race and proliferation that would ensue in the Mid East as Iran's neighbors start their own weapons programs as a deterrent.
You're posting the truth, but most people here are brainwashed. The US could go on a school bombing spree and to them it would be justified. The US is doing every thing it can to provoke war.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Seriously, do you know what 'isolationist' means? Most countries do not have military bases all over the world. That does not make them, isolationist. The FACT is the US needs war. Weapons of war is what we make best, that is just a FACT.
The US doesnt necessarily need war. It just needs to remain the leading military power by a ridiculous margin so that no one can ever challenge them. When you think in realistic terms, the world is better off with the US in control.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
WOW! You really would be OK with the US bombing a school. It is clear you just do not care what measures the US uses. For you the US is right no matter what. I feel sorry for you.
In 2011, the US gov't legalized the indefinite detention and murder of its own citizens, declared its homeland as a battleground, its own citizens potential terrorists, guilty until proven innocent, second class people.
The war on terrorism just expanded by 350 million suspects. You are now one of them.
pablo and canpanther....wtf are you talking about? Bombing a school? 350 million suspects? Unicorns and rainbows too?? Come on, get off your soapbox and learn something about the world.
assassyn360Jan 3, 2012
We will e quiet while the US carrier is here, but when it leaves... we'll be talking again.
siliconfluxJan 3, 2012
We will be REAL REAL REAL quiet while the carrier is here..... lol
elysiangoldJan 3, 2012
I got mind control over US carrier.
craig1958Jan 3, 2012
Actually, Iran owes the US a thank you note for eliminating Iraq and making them a stronger power in the region. Now they would like the US to go away so they can consolidate their power. Who could have possibly seen this coming?
casf1bJan 3, 2012
Rogue nations need to be taught what "International waters" are.
brucealmightyJan 3, 2012
What are they going to do....make faces and call us nasty names...?
huseliusJan 4, 2012
I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.
johnnysoftwareJan 4, 2012
Well, yeah.
But just remember.
When we frustrate shipping, it's an "embargo".
When someone else does it, it's "interfering".
Those two words are not even remotely spelled the same.
dachipzJan 4, 2012
It's "The Mouse That Roared" all over again.
cantstopwontstopJan 3, 2012
"which reached a record low on Tuesday and has fallen by 40 percent against the dollar in the past month."
kaboom!
---
"as Iranians scrambled to buy dollars to protect their savings"
very ironic since iran absolutely loathes the US dollar, and even tried to cripple it by buying up euro's. oh wait....what happened to the euro? bam! bit them right in the ass!
---
"Iran will not repeat its warning...the enemy's carrier has been moved to the Sea of Oman because of our drill. I recommend and emphasize to the American carrier not to return to the Persian Gulf," he said."
and again iran becomes the dog with all bark and no bite. first they make a threat to close the gulf with military action, then they back down from their threat, then they tell the carrier that was responding to their threat to leave from its routine path that it's been using long before irans threats!?! that takes a special kind of crazy. iran just looks like fools.
---
"Army chief Ataollah Salehi said the United States had moved an aircraft carrier out of the Gulf because of Iran's naval exercises, and Iran would take action if the ship returned."
quit stroking yourself iran. the carrier was moved to be considerate and give your military exercises a wide birth. we're being nice to you. also because the US knows you'd do some stupid s**t like fire the first shot (but lie and say you didn't), which would require the carrier to defend itself and break into an all out conflict. then iran can cry to the world that the big bad US wronged them.
---
"Even Iran's top trading partner China -- which has refused to back new global sanctions against Iran -- is demanding discounts to buy Iranian oil as Tehran's options narrow. Beijing has cut its imports of Iranian crude by more than half for January."
oh here comes iran's 'friend' china, who won't back the sanctions, but are more than glad to tell iran 'we want your oil at lower prices'. which makes china all the more despicable in this.
---
"It then held 10 days of naval exercises in the Gulf, test firing missiles that could hit U.S. bases in the Middle East."
yes iran, because attacking military bases on foreign soil is going to get you anywhere.
---
"I don't believe either side wants a war to start. I think the Iranians will be aware that if they block the Strait or attack a U.S. ship, they will be the losers. Nor do I think that the U.S. wants to use its military might other than as a means of pressure."
sadly, I don't think iran will learn until they're burned. they've been playing with fire for so long without any real consequences that they've forgotten it can burn them alive. iran will only learn its lesson once it's hit, and hit hard.
don't you get it iran? we could straight up destroy your ass. we've been patient, we choose not to use our vast power to do so if possible. that makes us the good guys. but keep pulling your s**t iran and you'll have a hell unleashed on you that no amount of regret will be able to stop, as your leaders are cowering and dying realizing how foolish they were, all their mistakes will suddenly become clear to them - but it wont matter anymore.
ieatskunkJan 3, 2012
Relax. The more they hurt the more they talk s**t.
hopefuldavJan 3, 2012
As I said before, we are not in the habit of repeating things that we have said before and let me warn you one more time and then again that we do not repeat warnings because we warn you that we are serious., Now take us seriously, this is the last time we will repeat it, until we decide to repeat it again.
Closed AccountJan 3, 2012
iran won't do anything but talk. we saw in 2009 after their fradulent elections that the military backstops the mullah's power. we destroy the military and the people will remove the mullahs in a violent uprising.
WabbitslayerJan 3, 2012
It seems everyday the world would be a far better place if a few countries were completely flattened and erased from the earth. North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan.
humanitJan 4, 2012
And make the flatteners the worst massmurderers of all times. Not that so many cares. I do for some odd reason, killing over 100 million people with probably much higher "collateral damage" kind of frightens & saddens me. Not that I know so may people from those countries, just some nice persians. Strange how they remind me somehow of my israeli friends, same kind of attitude towards life and openness.
insomniax2Jan 4, 2012
America...
ieatskunkJan 4, 2012
The only problem with that idea is that some other country would rise to fill the void left by America. And at last tally the world's previous global leaders haven't been too nice.
jeworldJan 3, 2012
I hope we call their bluff and put them in their place
casf1bJan 3, 2012
With Obama as our President? He will apologize first when they attack our carrier.
JustSayNoPartyJan 3, 2012
Is this just another opportunity to Pile On to Obama? I don't see Obama acting in the way you suggest. Either way, let's hope we're not embroiled in yet another war in the middle east.
ganjadude4391Jan 3, 2012
you dont? he pretty much said "hey..uhh,,uhh,,uhh,iran,, we hear that you, uhh uhh got one of our drones and it makes me very unpleased. uhh uhh uhhh, do you think we could get that back?
The correct response would have been
bomb the facility with the drone in it to keep it out of the hands of the enemy
or send in a covert team to destroy the facility making it look like an accident
so I am sorry but casf1b has it exactly rightComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
austrologiJan 3, 2012
But But But he made the tough tough call to get Osama
ajh16Jan 4, 2012
Because going in after a known terrorist in a supposed ally's country is completely the same as going in to an unstable enemy going after covering our mistake? Not saying that I disagree with his decision, but comparing the two as comparable is equally foolish.
Personally, he probably made the right call in both cases though, even if Iran manages to learn something useful from the recovered tech, attacking a foreign country, particularly someone as unstable as Iran, is a far bigger risk than simply letting them have it. In the future though, some type of a self destruct fail safe on the things might not be a bad idea.
Also, for the record, I'm no fan of Obama and if any sane candidate is put up by the republicans I will vote against him, but that doesn't mean I'm going to fault him for good calls when he makes them.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Graf_OrlockJan 5, 2012
I do hope though that the little design flaw that allowed it to fall into enemy hands has been corrected. It would be pretty nice to make sure it's nothing more than an expensive smoking crater if it falls out of radio contact for greater than a certain period of time.
johnnysoftwareJan 4, 2012
You don't really know that would be the correct response without making some big assumptions.
penglustJan 3, 2012
Just like he apologized to Bin Laden. f**k you stupid.
ermac88Jan 3, 2012
Let the propaganda get fired up!
We've been out of Iraq for almost a month. Time for a new enemy and some new war!!!!
pabloz1Jan 3, 2012
Yep, and most of these guys are worried about Iran....lol I'm not religious but, Matthew 7:3 would seem appropriate.
canpantherJan 3, 2012
So Iran, with their backs against the wall financially, are expected to roll over and acquiesce to American/Israeli demands? Seriously, who in their right mind thinks this is really going to happen?
The Iranians are being pushed to instigate an attack, plain and simple.
ganjadude4391Jan 3, 2012
what are you blathering about? they are threatening us, how are they being instigated into an attack, If anything we are appeasing iran way to much
canpantherJan 3, 2012
Sanctions are not appeasing them, nor is rehashing years old data to accuse them of building nukes. Push someone hard enough and they are going to fight back.
The ONLY things they are threatening is American influence in the Middle East, and by extension, your cheap supply of oil.
You are smoking some really bad s**t. Buy Canadian.
macparrotJan 4, 2012
Actually it seems sanctions are hitting them pretty hard. Will they be stupid enough to fire on a US Navel Battle group? Maybe, but that will pretty much end their navy and probably a good chunk of their Air Force as well. It would cost them more to try and replace all that than the little bit of face they're losing by doing something so incredibly stupid
doodlemasterJan 4, 2012
Question: "how are they being instigated"
Response: "Sanctions are not appeasing them"
Counter Response: "Actually it seems sanctions are hitting them pretty hard."
Therefore Macparrot is a complete dumbass.
Q.E.DComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
macparrotJan 4, 2012
Question: Why are they being sanctioned?
Response: Because they are trying to make nuclear weapons.
A surface for the preparation of food in a kitchen Response: How do you know that?
A long, narrow table with stools or chairs along one side for the patrons, behind which refreshments or meals are prepared and served Response: We don't, Iran won't allow inspections of their facilities as most countries do.
Therefore doodlemaster smells like rotten unwashed socks.
Q.E.D.
doodlemasterJan 4, 2012
The expected response from a complete dumbass.
lordfate2Jan 3, 2012
And yet they gain nothing by attacking the US. They are being obstinate on their nuclear program so the west responds by imposing sanctions which are causing Iran's economy to collapse. Iran either has to allow their economy to collapse, which will result in significant social unrest, or they need to cave on their nuclear program.
Attacking the US would not solve either problem and would likely cause even greater sanctions.
canpantherJan 3, 2012
Give us your lunch money or we'll f**k you up.
It's bullying, plain and simple, just to protect your 'turf'. The US is not the victim here.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
charlotte_webJan 3, 2012
Iran is a very militaristic country. They were at war with Iraq for a decade, in a war that never really went anywhere.
In nations like Iran and N. Korea, who would rather suffer through sanctions and the starvation of their people in order to have nuclear weapons, what would happen if they went to war with another country and were about to lose? Would they have any reason not to launch nukes? Saddam Hussein thought his reign was over, and started launching SCUD missiles at Israel, even though they weren't really part of the first Gulf War.
You seem to think that any nation who wants nukes should be able to use them. Well, sooner or later, one of these idiot third world dictators is going to launch a nuke. What will you be saying then?
canpantherJan 3, 2012
You really do need to read up on your history. Let me help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Wars
(hint: Vietnam: 10+ years, ended in a stalemate)
Your gov't is in constant state of war, and denying it makes your case even more pathetic than it already is.
I'm more worried about some American redneck assh**e like Rick Perry gaining office and pressing the nuke button than I am of some 3rd world dips**t. And before you say 'Perry will never be President', remember there are 350 million idiots just like him in America.
Case in point: You.
charlotte_webJan 3, 2012
And yet for all the wars we've been in since WWII, we haven't used a nuke. Not even in Vietnam, which was a proxy war with the USSR at the height of the Cold War.
pabloz1Jan 3, 2012
No No he's (charlotte_web) right,no nukes in Vietnam, just white phosphorus and agent orange. Oooops left out napalm.
canpantherJan 3, 2012
So what? Did the Russians? Or the Chinese? Your logic is bats**t crazy.
slangitmanJan 4, 2012
Iraq was the one who started the war with Iran by trying to invade. The reason why it was protracted to 10-years was because your guy Saddam Hussein was given weapons from the US, USSA, and China. Otherwise, Iran would've ended the war in victory a lot sooner.
charlotte_webJan 4, 2012
Correct, and what had just happened between Iran and the US? The Iranian Hostage Crisis. We found a way to stick it to Iran without a straight-on fight. We also were supporting the more moderate Islamic nation over the more fundamentalist nation. Saddam turned out to be a really bad guy, but that's not our fault.
Had Iran won, the Shi'ite nation would have doubled in size. We didn't give Iraq enough military help to win the war with Iran, just enough to keep the balance in the region, which was important.
macparrotJan 4, 2012
Very few of Iraq's weapons were from the US. Most of it was vintage USSR and French. Iran's military was in even worse shape since the Shah had mostly bought American but with the Embassy hostage crisis, we cut them off from spare parts (and kept the money that had already been paid)
slangitmanJan 7, 2012
I'd reply to your post Charlotte, but you're just a troll. For the record, and history's sake, Iran at the time of the revolution had no reason to be at all friendly with the US. They had just deposed of a dictator who the CIA installed to do America's bidding in place of their own democratically-elected Prime Minister. And, yes, the Ayatollah was worse than the Shah. His regime was only strengthened by solidarity against the war with Iraq. But, overall, you're arguing that it's okay for 1-million Iranians, including women and children, to die because of the embassy takeover. No mistaking why you're hated.
macparrotJan 4, 2012
Actually CW, Iraq pretty much started that action after accusing Iran of side drilling (much like the did Kuwait as well) and a few border skirmishes over disputed territory
macparrotJan 4, 2012
Who's claiming victimhood here? Not the US. We're cruising in international waters. If Iran want's to challenge that, they'll end up the worse for it. Open the nuclear facilities for inspection and we can go back to the harmless bluster from Iran like in the past. Otherwise, screw them.
charlotte_webJan 3, 2012
Their nuclear weapons program is an act of aggression. We do not want a country that is a known sponsor of terrorism to have a nuke.
ncmusicJan 3, 2012
The US being the exception right?
charlotte_webJan 3, 2012
Are you saying that the US is a sponsor of terrorism?
canpantherJan 3, 2012
Are you f**king kidding me? There is a video on Digg where Hillary Clinton openly admits that the US created Al Qaeda. And don't forget the Contras in Nicaragua. There are plenty of examples.
So...you were saying...?
charlotte_webJan 3, 2012
Terrorism: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce
We don't intimidate with violence; when we use violence, it's to win.
Are you a 9/1 truther? Osama Bin Laden's relationship with the US goes back to the Soviet-Afghanistan War, where we SAVED Afghanistan from becoming a Soviet state. What Bin Laden did after that had nothing to do with us.
Reagan supported the Contras to prevent the Sandinistas from setting up a socialist/communist government. It wasn't about intimidating.
pabloz1Jan 3, 2012
charlotte_web is off his rocker, he really will support ANYTHING the US does. The really sad part is that there is no shortage of people like him.
ieatskunkJan 3, 2012
You are comparing apples to oranges.
canpantherJan 3, 2012
It is never about the type of government being created, or about freedom. The Palestinians determined their own gov't, to the horror of the US and Israel. The same thing is happening in Egypt right now.
Your gov't uses violence to get their own way. If they can't have something happen in their favour, then they'll make sure to create enough chaos and destruction to prevent anything else. It's about control, both governmental and financial. It's about keeping the US war machine fully funded. It's about bullying others to get what you want.
So your justification of the things your gov't does around the world is invalid, delusional and hypocritical, things every bully needs to feel better about themselves and their actions.
BTW, the US didn't save Afghanistan. They funded an insurgency to try to influence the outcome in their favour...and it didn't even work. As the war wound down the funding stopped, and the Taliban took over, the US lost its opportunity to take control of the internal politics of the Afghan people. But I can understand your confusion, given the inadequacy of the American education system.
charlotte_webJan 3, 2012
How could the establishment of the Palestinian government be "to the horror of the US and Israel" when the US brokered the deal and Israel both participated in and agreed to it? It really shows how little you know about international politics.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
canpantherJan 3, 2012
Because it a split between Hamas and Fatah, wasn't it? Not the outcome either one wanted. Seriously, do you know anything except what Fox spews out?
pabloz1Jan 3, 2012
If he/she's not, I am. Their record speaks for it's self.
canpantherJan 3, 2012
Truer words have never been spoken.
canpantherJan 3, 2012
Your control over them is the issue. Your government can't control them, so you don't want the Iranians to have them. Plus, there happens to be a s**tload of oil in the region.
BTW, North Korea has nukes now and they have exported their nuclear technology to others, ie. Iran, Syria, Turkey, and are a part of the Axis Of Evil of terrorist states. That's more of a threat than anything Iran has done. So tell me why you aren't waging war with them, hypocrite? I forgot: no oil...and China. Where's your self-righteous indignation for that?
If you going to bulls**t about something, be consistent.
charlotte_webJan 3, 2012
I don't want North Korea to have nukes either. It should be very telling to you that the N. Korean government would rather starve their people because of sanctions than to give up their nuclear weapons.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
canpantherJan 3, 2012
So why hasn't your gov't invaded them yet? Seriously.
Don't be a hypocrite and say it's okay for one and not the other.
charlotte_webJan 3, 2012
China.
China opposes N. Korean nukes (seeing as how they're right next door), but they oppose US intervention in the area even more.
Any action to oppose N. Korean nukes has to involve China, lest we open up a much larger conflict.
I'd also say that Iran is much more likely to use nukes in terrorist activity than N. Korea is.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
canpantherJan 3, 2012
Why would you say that? Why do you consider their gov't more reasonable than Iran? Do you know the new NK leader personally, hang out and circle-jerk together?
You are finally right about something tho'. China will not let it happen. They won't let it happen in Iran either.
ultimisJan 4, 2012
@canpanther
Your ignorance on this topic is overwhelming. Please research the relationship between N. Korea and China. Actually research the f**king Korean War.
China has no influence in Iran.
ieatskunkJan 4, 2012
Iran's foreign policy is based on theology, whereas N Korea is just trying to survive. That's the difference.
canpantherJan 4, 2012
@ultimis: Please enlighten me with your wisdom then.
China has a lot of influence in Iran, seeing as they are one of their biggest trading partners. But, unlike the US and their colonial aspirations, they aren't as demanding or belligerent.
ieatskunkJan 3, 2012
It isn't just America and Israel that are against Iranian nukes. The entire middle east is as well. In fact, the only thing keeping Saudi Arabia and everyone else from pursuing their own weapons programs is the fact that the pressure on Iran is so strong.
canpantherJan 3, 2012
Wrong.
The only reason why the Saudis don't have it is to appease Israel so it can keep its regional power and military advantage. If Iran, or any of the other Arab state, gains nuclear weapons, that would upset the current balance of power against Israel.
Being surrounded by enemies on all sides has that effect.
ieatskunkJan 3, 2012
Nonsense. A couple years back H Clinton even floated the idea of the nuclear shield for our middle eastern allies. In exchange for not pursuing their own nukes, America would provide ensure their protection with our own nuclear arsenal.
canpantherJan 4, 2012
...which is American propaganda for: do things our way or else.
Don't try to rationalize your bulls**t to people outside the US like that. You aren't the shining white knight you like to think you are. We know your motives, we know your bulls**t. We also know it's all about profit and control. That's why the American gov't can't be trusted.
ieatskunkJan 4, 2012
Here it is the Calvary, not a f**king knight, that comes to the rescue. We dont have knights. And ya, America is the Calvary because when s**t goes down everyone calls on America to make it right.
canpantherJan 4, 2012
...to which the US gov't extorts huge compensation, demanding changes to laws beneficial to their businesses and government. It's NOT done because it's the 'right thing to do'. It's done for profit.
Calvary or knights, your gov't is neither. More like leeches.
ieatskunkJan 4, 2012
Grasping now aren't we? Every country in the world looks out for number one above all else. I wonder what magical land you are from where this is not the case.
canpantherJan 7, 2012
Actually, no, I'm not grasping. It's not your country looking after number one. It is the 1% looking after themselves.
karmashockJan 3, 2012
... The straight is open to international traffic. Iran doesn't get to say who goes through and when.
ieatskunkJan 3, 2012
There hasnt been a nuclear holocaust because of mutual destruction. You nuke us and we'll nuke you, etc.
But countries like Iran that are run by religious finatics with a "mandate from god" cannot be expected to place their own existence above their military goals. Iran represents a different kind of nuclear threat. Even N Korea is safer with nukes than Iran.
johnnysoftwareJan 4, 2012
It is easy to get around that.
ieatskunkJan 3, 2012
I wonder if Iran even realizes they are in the cross hairs.
greatsunjesterJan 3, 2012
OR they think the U.S. will back down - honestly I don't even have a guess which way we will jump.
devnullJan 3, 2012
we'll call their bluff, which it clearly is. It's international waters. They'd have everybody screaming if they did something.
miklkitJan 3, 2012
Do you remember the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s? So many ships were being sunk we were escorting them out in convoys.
devnullJan 3, 2012
Sorry I don't. I was busy with grade school. And it was too new for the text books.
But I'm not really sure what that has to do with us going back in. If they want to attack...go for it. If we lose a battlegroup, that will suck greatly. But it will stir the dragon again. And then they will have more to worry about than a few ships in the gulf.
ieatskunkJan 3, 2012
There's a 0.0% chance the US is going to alter its existing plans for that carrier.
charlotte_webJan 3, 2012
We've already said that we aren't altering our plans for Occupy Persian Gulf.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/u-s-says-will-continue-to-deploy-warships-in-persian-gulf-despite-iranian-threats-1.405289
charlotte_webJan 3, 2012
Good, time to circle the carrier back around and call their bluff.
ncmusicJan 3, 2012
Can we raise your taxes first when we go to war to waste more blood and treasure?
charlotte_webJan 3, 2012
We don't have to go to full-blown war to bitchslap Iran, and even if we did, a war with Iran would be measured in days. Remember, Iraq was the fourth largest military in the world, going into the first Iraq war, and look at how quickly we took them down.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ieatskunkJan 3, 2012
To err on the side of caution, i would conduct such engagement as if fighting someone with technical level of China.
canpantherJan 3, 2012
Thank you for stating the obvious. Upvoted for that.
canpantherJan 3, 2012
Not possible. You think this conflict will only include Iran, like Afghanistan and Iraq? Not a chance. Due to sanctions, China is now a major export market of energy and oil for Iran.
So if you really think China will sit idly by and let the US gain control of the entire Strait of Hormuz area, then you really are deluded.
frodobagginsJan 3, 2012
Of course they would. No matter how much rhetoric or bluffing they want to put out, they would never risk losing one of their biggest sources of income.
canpantherJan 3, 2012
Let's look at this from China's side for a minute:
1) The US is strengthening its defenses and armed forces in the region: Australia, Japan, Taiwan, Korea, etc.
2) The US is trying to control oil production and shipping in the Middle East: Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Afghanistan, etc.
3) China's imports from Iran have already suffered a major decline due to sanctions.
China is definitely feeling some pressure as well.
ieatskunkJan 3, 2012
China is profiting from the embargo because they are now able to force Iran to sell oil to them at a lower price.
America and China both share the same goal when it comes to the strait: Freedom of navigation. China doesnt want a nuclear Iran either, they just aren't willing or able to do anything about it.
canpantherJan 4, 2012
Imports from Iran have already dropped and China has had to scramble to make up their energy needs from Russia, Sudan, and other places, which is INCREASING their costs.
China would be more supportive of the current banking sanctions set up by the US and UK if they were making a profit.
ncmusicJan 3, 2012
Way to dodge the question. Who is going to pay for it? Are you volunteering to be shot at? What about the increase in oil prices?
charlotte_webJan 4, 2012
By far, the biggest cost of the Iraq conflict has been nation-building. That's the situation we want to avoid.
Bombing the s**t out of Iranian nuclear sites and other military targets, and walking away? Not that expensive, really.
ncmusicJan 4, 2012
So you have your checkbook and enlistment papers ready? I didn't think so.
charlotte_webJan 4, 2012
Actually, I've already served my time in the military and put my life on the line for my country, how about yourself?
ultimisJan 4, 2012
So I'm assuming everything that charlotte_web doesn't like the government doing you should run out and do yourself now? You have a lot of work/money to get started on.
ncmusicJan 4, 2012
I'm happy to pay for the things I think the government should be doing, esp when it doesn't involve the killing of foreigners. Charlotte doesn't seem to be of the same mind set simply trying to skirt the issue by saying it won't be as expensive which isn't the same as raise my taxes to pay for it.
ultimisJan 4, 2012
You can be happy all you want. But that's not what you are stating charlotte_web should do. Web *also* pays taxes (probably more than you do). What you're stating is that because you don't support a action the government takes he not only has to pay more, but also has to go enlist into the government personally and over see it.
So turning the tables on you. Pony up the money for entitlements, and I expect you to spend your every waking moment working to make sure corruption doesn't occur and that the "needy" get what they deserve. Go ahead.
ncmusicJan 4, 2012
Please don't make guesses about how much money I make, because you are probably wrong.
My point is that we went to Iraq and cut taxes, which was stupid you raise taxes to pay for that stuff. I already think my taxes should be raised to pay for entitlements. Charlotte takes the position that we should be global police, but doesn't advocate for tax policies to actually pay for it.
charlotte_webJan 4, 2012
I don't think we should be the global police, but I do think we need to act in our own best self-interests globally.
As much as we are able to, we need to keep radical Islam in check because we are frequently target #1.
ncmusicJan 4, 2012
Our own best self-interests by doing what? Global police and/or preemptive strikes? That sounds like good foreign policy.
ka5p3rJan 3, 2012
After america “won”the middle east war afghanistan and Iraq are in peace,the taliban laid down their weapons and sing about loveing each other.and the same will happen with Iran.
and now the truth
the taliban is still in control of the area all america did was provide live fire training for your troops,wast billions and lost lives.
charlotte_webJan 3, 2012
Actually, we killed quite a few Taliban and Al Qaida fighters. The Taliban is still around, but much weaker than they were before.
canpantherJan 3, 2012
And that makes it all good, right? Can they still recruit? Yes. Are they still influential. YES. They weren't defeated, only marginalized for a while. And Iraq is about to go into civil war.
Face it, everything that the American gov't did over there was a waste of time, money and lives. Nothing has really changed, has it? So your sons and daughters died for nothing, often killing themselves due to combat fatigue.
Wait...I'm sorry, it wasn't for nothing. A lot of American companies got extremely rich from this, and will for years to come.
So tell everyone here just how proud of your country you are now, proud that your dead kids and thousands of dead Iraqis and Afghanis helped a few rich people expand their bank accounts.
StopAnimalTortureJan 3, 2012
Carter gave Iran to the Mullahs, and now Golfbags is giving the Middle East to the Muslim Brotherhood? hmmm... seeing a pattern here somewhere... Islamo-Fascism is on the rise, and once again the West twiddles it's thumbs while the forces of darkness gather. I hope Frodo can get through to Mount Doom with the One Ring.
Fly the freakin' Eagle Frodo! Fly you fool!! OMG, they're gonna walk, aren't they?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yqVD0swvWUComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
StopAnimalTortureJan 3, 2012
oh darn... apparently the liberals have no sense of humor either. I forgot.
devnullJan 3, 2012
The CIA can't be everywhere...sheesh.
gt777Jan 3, 2012
Wall street oil traders are all too happy to see a confrontation between US and Iran. Heck I am willing to switch to public transportation if we can see freedom and democracy in Iran. But it would be very sad if more innocent lives will be lost to achieve such goals! Can anyone draw up a cost and benefits analysis?
johnnysoftwareJan 4, 2012
1. Cost of oil skyrockets, making people who went long on it rich.
2. Money pulled out of gold market, so price collapses making people who shorted it while extolling its benefits to sheeple ... extra rich.
3. Wall Street rolling in dough like never before.
4. Everyone on Wall Street is happy.
5. People who get investment advice from News entertainment channel infotainment commercials lose wealth but gain wisdom.
Where is the downside?
carlmosconiJan 3, 2012
That would solve the Iran problem.
ninhJan 3, 2012
Iran thinks it can skate by on those threats because Obama doesn't want to risk another war in the run-up to the elections to which he'd have to commit major resources to end it decisively, possibly even ground troops. However it takes only one local commander getting his zealot on an firing an anti-ship missile to start a serious tussle that will not end well for Iran. They'd have to look at least 20 miles inshore for any surviving military unit after the dust settles and would in all likelihood not have working refineries left since that is the regimes' Achilles heel: they already have to import gas despite all their oil.
ieatskunkJan 3, 2012
Actually, war == re-election. Look at Bush. How the f**k did he get re-elected??
gt777Jan 3, 2012
You have to give credit to Osama Bin Laden! he rooted for George Bush by his special guest appearance on national TV!
macparrotJan 4, 2012
That didn't help Bush da First
Closed AccountJan 3, 2012
This does not look good.
trebornomisJan 3, 2012
yeah
joenixJan 3, 2012
"Tehran's most aggressive statement yet after weeks of saber-rattling" ????
That's just too stupid, the US (pushed by their "friend" Israel who owns the bank) is saber-rattling.
Iran just responds with the only think they can do: a threat to block the oil transports, raising the oil price.
Which is a very logical and even relatively peaceful thing to do, compared to what the US did with Iraq and Afghanistan.
On top of that, Iran cannot be a real threat to the US, it can make only make the oil more expensive, any other action would lead to some US invasion killing another 100000+ innocent people.
The only nation who wants war with Iran is Israel, and the reasons for that are religious, really, stupid religion again.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
magnetism86Jan 3, 2012
This is one of the most retarded posts I've ever seen on this website.
casf1bJan 3, 2012
Every nation has its share of chronic malcontents and closet traitors in the making.
ninhJan 3, 2012
Which really means it is an outstanding cultural achievement.
auditortuxJan 3, 2012
I don't know the best place to start, so let me just start.
First, if anyone owns the bank, its not Israel, but China. But I guess its convenient to have a Jewish conspiracy for your last point, but I'll come back to that.
Second, Iran has no right where we send out ships, so long as we don't intrude on their waters. Its called "international waters" for a reason. If we wanted to park the entire 5th fleet half a mile from their territorial waters, there's nothing they can legally to do stop us.
If Iran were to somehow block of that Straight (take four or five of their ships and scuttle them, making an already difficult passage even worse), oil prices would rise. If oil rises enough, you can forget about any recovery here. Imagine what a sudden rise to $4.50 or $5 gas would do.
Last - back to your Jewish conspiracy - Israel does not want war with Iran. They would be perfectly happy if they didn't have a neighboring country that wanted them to be wiped from the map. You probably don't realize how small Israel is compared to Iran - a single nuke could probably destroy Israel's economy by rendering much of it off-limits.
But the final question you need to ask yourself - say Iran is stupid enough to attack one of our carriers... what would you have us do?
anonadminJan 3, 2012
There is a problem with your assessment of international waters.
Many years ago International waters referred to an area that was >2miles from shore. However, that has changed. 12 miles is now the space used. So 12 miles from shore is considered territorial waters, Then 200 miles from shore is considered the "Exclusive economic zone" of the country. The whole gulf is an Exclusive Economic Zone.
charlotte_webJan 3, 2012
That would mean that there's a lot of overlap, as there's half a dozen nations bordering the Gulf.
from Wikipedia:
"Generally, a state's EEZ extends to a distance of 200 nautical miles (370 km) out from its coastal baseline. The exception to this rule occurs when EEZs would overlap; that is, state coastal baselines are less than 400 nautical miles (740 km) apart. When an overlap occurs, it is up to the states to delineate the actual maritime boundary.[2] Generally, any point within an overlapping area defaults to the nearest state.[3]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone
ieatskunkJan 3, 2012
Actually Iran could be more transparent to to show they are not developing nuclear weapons (as if that were the case). So Iran isnt really doing s**t to help themselves in all of this.
ncmusicJan 3, 2012
Why do we have the right to tell them not to build weapons that we have huge stockpiles of?
devnullJan 3, 2012
trying to find a good reason to counter...but I can't.
We (the US) have sold weapons to terrorist orgs
We have used the weapons in the past (WW2)
I can't say we're "responsible" with them, maybe a little more than Iran would be.
They have threaten to "wipe Israel off the map". We can't allow that. We don't threaten to wipe countries off the map, just regimes.
Nukes should probably be banned out right, but then only criminals would have nukes...or something.
siliconfluxJan 3, 2012
Because they are an unstable, tyrannical, backwards Islamic theocracy which has said that they will "wipe Israel off the map".
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/26/world/africa/26iht-iran.html
pabloz1Jan 3, 2012
Really, you actually think that. You're an idiot. You know how many nukes israel has? So Iran's whole plan is to build one nuke and then lob it a israel.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
charlotte_webJan 3, 2012
Who said that Iran was only planning to build one nuke?
Look at what Iraq did, though... faced with certain defeat, they still sought to destroy Israel with all the firepower that they could send Israel's way. Did it make sense? No, it didn't.
If we went to war with the Iranian government, their defeat would be certain, but they would be able to destroy Israel in the process.
kasha34Jan 4, 2012
A former VP of Iran made a speech a few years ago. He said that the minute Iran had nuclear weapons they would attack Israel. He also said that even if Israel retaliated and destroyed Iran, it would be worth it.
siliconfluxJan 4, 2012
pabloz1 - You do not read much do you?
Nobody ever said Iran would be doing the killing directly.
The gravest threat is if Iran gives these weapons to a proxy terrorist organization like Hezbollah or worse, to Venzuela to hit us through south America. This would be impossiblefor us to trace using the right uranium.
This isnt my Fing warning, this is the warning of FBI Director Robert Mueller and 2 Chiefs at the CIA.
ncmusicJan 3, 2012
So? Should we invade them and kill millions to bring freedom to their country? Do as I say not as I do?
charlotte_webJan 3, 2012
The UN Security Council has passed many resolutions, trying to reign in Iran's nuclear ambitions. It's not as if the US is alone in their concern about Iran's nuclear weapons program.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran#2007.E2.80.93present
I don't care about bringing freedom to Iran as much as I care about stopping their nuclear ambitions.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pabloz1Jan 3, 2012
You can't use reason with hypocritical zealots. The rest of the world exists only to provide the US with resources.
charlotte_webJan 3, 2012
What's wrong with selling resources to the US? How do you think all those sheiks in the Middle East got rich?
ieatskunkJan 3, 2012
pablo,
The US earned the right by being the true winning power of WW2 and maintaining global security during the cold war and through today. The US has reinforced that position by being a leader in innovation in more fields than i can list. When s**t goes down everyone looks to America.
A strong America is good for the world. The reason is that an alternative never leads to world peace, it leads to some other country filling the void. In the past, world-leading countries havent been so nice.
charlotte_webJan 3, 2012
Because we have huge stockpiles and they don't, and because the Iranian government is hostile to us (and many others) for our lack of faith in Islam.
ncmusicJan 3, 2012
Being differently wrong than someone else isn't a morale or ethical justification. You don't send people to prison for thought crimes.
charlotte_webJan 3, 2012
Your error is in assuming that the Iranian theocracy has the same respect for life that the rest of the world has. This is a nation where women are still stoned to death for adultery, with the approval of their parents.
Given access to the ultimate military weapon, can you honestly say that they would never use it out of respect for life?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pabloz1Jan 3, 2012
There is something seriously wrong with you! You talk about what Iran might do. Do you know how many civilians the US has killed, and lets not forget they made up WMD's in Iraq to start war. You'll just believe anything they feed you. Now go shopping good little consumer.....bahhhhh bahhhhhh
charlotte_webJan 3, 2012
We don't have to imagine Iranian terrorism; they've created quite a record for themselves:
http://mehr.org/iran_terrorism.htm
Given such a long record of state-sponsored terrorism, it would be absolutely insane to assume that they could handle nuclear weapons technology responsibly.
macparrotJan 4, 2012
Are you saying Iraq has never had or used WMD's? I think a lot of shiite and kurds who were bombed with poison gas (as well as a lot of Iranians who fought in the Iran/Iraq war) might disagree with you.
ncmusicJan 3, 2012
You're error is assuming that matters, again who is going to pay for all this world policing? You? I bet you're all about having your taxes raised.
JustSayNoPartyJan 3, 2012
It does make for a hypocritical position. While I support a push by countries 'not' to allow for further proliferation of Nuclear weapons, we must still address our own stockpiles.
penglustJan 3, 2012
We are addressing our stock piles. At the same time we are working with Russia to address their stock piles.
We have been in a constant state of reduction for years now. It took 40 or more years of cold war to build them. It will take close to that to get rid of them.
JustSayNoPartyJan 3, 2012
That's a very good point, penglust. Still, while we have Nukes, it makes it harder for us to make the case that a country can not have Nukes when we have our own. Still, I of course support an international effort to prevent proliferation.
pabloz1Jan 3, 2012
Besides, the US is doing just fine killing civilians with conventional bombs.
ultimisJan 3, 2012
"Why do we have the right to tell them"
We don't have the right to do anything based on this logic. As Germany committed genocide and invaded most of the rest of Europe we had no right to say or do anything to them about it.
The "right" comes from the moral high ground (usually comes from the United Nations or national defense) or it comes from power. In regards to Iran we have both moral high ground and power.
The U.S. has had the ability to completely nuke countries off the face of the planet have not done so.
Our "right" via power is this: "You do what we say, or we will invade and make you do what we say". There is also the carrot which is "Do what we say, and we will give you this". This is why we can have the "right to tell them" to do something.
It is within our right to tell them whatever we want. It is their right to choose to ignore us (and deal with the consequences: UN sanctions or military action).
theunlearnJan 3, 2012
Your Germany comparison is not even close to a good analogy, much less a logical one. Germany invaded sovereign countries and rounded up foreign nationals to be sent to death camps.
As far as their actions against their own citizens: we didn't really have a right to interfere, the same way we don't have a right interfere with the atrocities in middle eastern and African countries. Contrary to what some people think, the US doesn't actually go around the world "freeing the s**t" out of every sovereign nation.
ultimisJan 3, 2012
It wasn't meant to be a analogy. It was a example of us expressing our "right" to do something. With that case I would think most people and historians would say that we did have the right to "interfere".
The question I put to you is: Why is our liberty to act infringed? Based on what authority? Their rights do not supersede our rights.
ieatskunkJan 3, 2012
The problem is what Iran's possession of nuclear weapons means for the Middle East. If Iran is allowed to develop nukes then Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Iraq and everyone else is going to want to develop their own as a deterrent. That means massive proliferation making it more likely that one weapon will fall into terrorist hands. Since Iran sponsors terrorist organizations, this threat is even more pronounced.
The US is telling Iran they can't have nukes for the same reason we dont arm 8 year olds. Too f**king irresponsible and unpredictable.
ncmusicJan 4, 2012
What about Pakistan they have nukes and were hiding Bin Laden. Why aren't we bombing the s**t out of them?
kasha34Jan 4, 2012
They signed the NPT Non Proliferation Treaty. That's why.
pabloz1Jan 3, 2012
So what if they do build a nuke. The US has metric tons of them and we have used them. The US has NO business telling anyone they can't have nukes.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
charlotte_webJan 3, 2012
Good, that's just the way I like it; the US with metric tons of nukes, and nobody else having one.
If there's anyone I trust with having nukes, it's the US -- even though they are the only nation to ever use them in combat.
ncmusicJan 3, 2012
Gee I wonder why other nations don't like us.
charlotte_webJan 3, 2012
Why is it so important to be liked? What exactly are we going to do with being the "most liked nation"? How does that increase the quality of life for the average American?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
devnullJan 3, 2012
@Char....
Hmm... why we need to be liked
Travel. You try to go to a foreign country, you get treated like s**t.
Economy. They are less inclined to by our s**t, and more inclined to by others. Sending our economy further down.
We used to be the "Good guys", WW2, we helped save the world from the Nazi's.
We don't have to be push overs, granted. But we don't have to be the Bully either.
charlotte_webJan 3, 2012
>> Economy. They are less inclined to by our s**t,
>> and more inclined to by others. Sending our
>> economy further down.
Bulls**t.
Where there's money to be made, doors will magically open. Remember, it goes both ways; if you want to sell in our country, you have to let us sell in yours.
Do you think we like supporting OPEC? And yet we keep buying billions of dollars worth of oil from them.
ncmusicJan 3, 2012
Tell that to the victims of 9/11, the dead soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, ask them how important it is to be liked?
ultimisJan 4, 2012
according to ncmusic's last comment we need to convert to Islam. Allah is Great!
Real winning strategy there ncmusic. Do you bend over to anyone passing you on the side walk?
ncmusicJan 4, 2012
Ultimis you're a f**king idiot, my point isn't that we need to convert to Islam, it's the blowing up people, killing innocents, and regime change can have terrible consequences. You're another reason Ron Paul will never get elected.
ultimisJan 4, 2012
Except that isn't that has nothing to do with the deaths you mentioned. If you're going to link deaths to military policy at least use Vietnam moron.
ncmusicJan 4, 2012
We don't have a military presence in the Middle east? Really? Nothing that could possibly upset someone? No innocent deaths at all? No interference propping up regimes in foreign countries?
ultimisJan 4, 2012
Our bases in the middle east are at the request of the governments there. Not because we are occupying their country.
It is impossible *not* to upset someone. We might upset someone by pulling out of the middle east. The reason they are killing us isn't for "upsetting" them it runs much deeper than that. We've upset many people around the globe and they're not killing us. Many people around the globe are pissing us off and we're not killing them.
ncmusicJan 4, 2012
Do you think it's an invalid argument that preemptively killing people and occupying other nations is not recruitment tool for radicalizing people?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2036767/Ron-Paul-defends-Al-Qaeda-Presidential-candidate-booed-9-11-answer.html
ultimisJan 5, 2012
And that shouldn't be the basis for our foreign policy as *anything* can be used to recruit. All it takes is lies and propaganda. Let's say that eating ice cream is a recruitment tool for terrorist groups. Should we outlaw eating ice cream? f**k no. You *cannot* control radicalized terrorist groups. They have motives that go beyond the U.S. and where it's located in the world. 9/11 occurred before the carnage of the last 10 years. Yet terrorist attacks in the U.S. have been mild.
ncmusicJan 5, 2012
There was a lot of stuff that happened in the middle east before 9/11 read Ron Paul's writing on these things. You have to be willfully ignorant to claim we didn't meddle in middle east politics before 9/11.
pabloz1Jan 3, 2012
Another perfect example that US TV works. Yep, just smart enough to be a good consumer.
ncmusicJan 3, 2012
War mongers like you is why a real conservative like Ron Paul will never ever see a nomination.
ieatskunkJan 3, 2012
One terrorist detonating a nuke in a major city and you can bet the nuclear option will be on the table for retaliation against whoever supplied the terrorists.
pabloz1Jan 3, 2012
OK, think just for a moment. You think a nuke is that easy to get a hold of? If so what have the 'terrorist' been waiting for all these years while we tighten security. It was too easy before, they wanted more of a challenge. It makes no sense what so ever.
ieatskunkJan 3, 2012
Since Iran will willingly supply them.....ya it would be easy.
ncmusicJan 3, 2012
Why aren't we blowing up Pakistan or N. Korea who also have Nukes? NK especially willing to share their tech with the world.
ieatskunkJan 4, 2012
The difference between those countries and Iran is that Iran is run by someone who bases their strategic decisions on theology.
ncmusicJan 4, 2012
You mean like George I talk to God Bush? I don't think that's very meaningful until Iran actually attacks the US.
ieatskunkJan 4, 2012
"You mean like George I talk to God Bush"
Ya because that is the same thing right?
The "wait and see what they'll do" policy didnt work out to well during WW2.
ncmusicJan 4, 2012
Doesn't matter it's the right thing to do. I don't believe in killing innocents because someone else, might do something terrible.
ieatskunkJan 4, 2012
Well i guess that is really the issue. Either you want preemptive action to deal with this in an easier way. Or you want to wait it out and see where it goes, risking the rise of a very dangerous and capable regime.
History teaches us that regimes like Iran's that rise in military capability tend to use it for malevolent purposes. Do we know for sure? No, but Iran isn't doing anything to help the situation. In fact all of their actions imply guilt.
ncmusicJan 4, 2012
They are guilty of what? Something that hasn't even happened? You mean imply intent to bomb the US?
ieatskunkJan 4, 2012
I mean they intend to build a nuclear weapon despite their assurances that they aren't. Iran bombing someone, despite their threats, isnt really the concerning issue because it isnt likely to happen. The issue is Iran supplying nuclear weapons to terrorist groups, something that is very possible. America is also wary of the arms race and proliferation that would ensue in the Mid East as Iran's neighbors start their own weapons programs as a deterrent.
pabloz1Jan 3, 2012
You're posting the truth, but most people here are brainwashed. The US could go on a school bombing spree and to them it would be justified. The US is doing every thing it can to provoke war.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
penglustJan 3, 2012
As apposed to what? The general goodness Iran shows towards the world and non muslims in general.
Remember, glue sniffing is illegal. A few more brain cells lost and you wont even be able to walk.
ieatskunkJan 3, 2012
The US tried an isolationist policy, turning its back on the rise of dangerous states. Then came WW2, and since then, we do not turn our backs.
pabloz1Jan 3, 2012
Seriously, do you know what 'isolationist' means? Most countries do not have military bases all over the world. That does not make them, isolationist. The FACT is the US needs war. Weapons of war is what we make best, that is just a FACT.
ieatskunkJan 3, 2012
The US doesnt necessarily need war. It just needs to remain the leading military power by a ridiculous margin so that no one can ever challenge them. When you think in realistic terms, the world is better off with the US in control.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pabloz1Jan 4, 2012
WOW! You really would be OK with the US bombing a school. It is clear you just do not care what measures the US uses. For you the US is right no matter what. I feel sorry for you.
canpantherJan 4, 2012
In 2011, the US gov't legalized the indefinite detention and murder of its own citizens, declared its homeland as a battleground, its own citizens potential terrorists, guilty until proven innocent, second class people.
The war on terrorism just expanded by 350 million suspects. You are now one of them.
So, tell me again how the US doesn't NEED war.
ieatskunkJan 4, 2012
pablo and canpanther....wtf are you talking about? Bombing a school? 350 million suspects? Unicorns and rainbows too?? Come on, get off your soapbox and learn something about the world.
austrologiJan 3, 2012
I rather trust hitler with a nuke than Iran, these mullahs are bat s**t crazy and would be more than happy to go down in an exchange of nukes.
waitasecJan 3, 2012
Buying US dollars to protect your saving...oh yeah, you're screwed.