What is Digg?Sponsored by openforum.com
5 Futuristic Applications that Are Here NOW view!
openforum.com - 5 up-and-coming applications - and how to turn them into daily tools
229 Comments
- inactive, on 09/27/2009, -6/+55If we get in another goddamned middle eastern war, im moving to Canada.
- gaymathman, on 09/27/2009, -3/+50The OP seems to have misread the article, or the article may have been corrected after it was submitted. Either way, AJ doen't want to be criticized for this plant; Iran has already revealed its existence to the IAEA in hopes that it would lessen the impact of the plant being revealed.
- AmnesiacJack, on 09/27/2009, -19/+61Ahmadinejad wants a war or at the very least to have those nuclear facilities attacked. Right now Iran is in CIVIL turmoil due to the fraudulent elections. If an attack were to happen it would unify the country and give him free reign (even more so than now) to do what ever is necessary to restore "peace and order".
It's lose / lose no matter happens. - googooly, on 09/27/2009, -18/+48***** Ahmadinejad
Regards. People of Iran - ka9dgx, on 09/27/2009, -16/+41Beat those war drums louder please... otherwise we might hear people questioning where all the TARP money is going, or why Israel can have hundreds of nukes and never gets inspected.
- Boogalou007, on 09/27/2009, -4/+24Unless we send in Jason Bourne to take out Ahmadinejad.
- dauterive, on 09/27/2009, -2/+22can't someone besides the US deal with this? give us a break..
- whatthefu, on 09/27/2009, -1/+21I've heard that argument a lot but I don't think it would unify the country. If anything it would create more instability; the people would recognize that their government is putting all of their lives at risk. Ahmadinejad is an idiot but the Ayatollah isn't stupid--you can bet he's watching this situation carefully. Military action against Iran could easily lead to the toppling of his regime either by a foreign power or by political instability.
- SaladCactusKing, on 09/27/2009, -7/+24Me, for claiming www.president.ir is an "unedited, unbiased, undistorted" source.
- SamurAchzar, on 09/27/2009, -15/+32You have no idea what you're talking about. Consider this - Israel, reportedly, had nukes since the 60's. Now, Arab countries knew about it - even though Israel never flaunted it, provoked anyone or ever hinted at using it despite being attacked. Why didn't the Arab countries look into getting nuclear weapons earlier?
Only when Iran entered the picture, started talks of an arms race. Truth is, every single Arab country fears Iran more than it fears Israel. They think Iran wants to be the new boss of the Middle East, and armed with nuclear weapons it would seek to strike a deal of "we don't mess with the rest of the world but what we do in the Middle East is none of your business", Hitler-Chamberlain style.
The only Arabic country to stand by Iran is Syria, but that is because they are isolated from the world and chose to take side with Bush's Axis Of Evil countries.
And consider this - why all Arab countries - other than Syria - passively supported Israel's 2nd war in Lebanon (of 2006) against what is in essence an Iranian army (Hizballah)? No one condemned or threatened Israel. They are afraid of Iranian influence spreading throughout the region. - hardeep1singh, on 09/27/2009, -3/+19The description of Iran above sounds so much like a description of Pakistan.
- Megadeth222, on 09/27/2009, -3/+19I think Jack Bauer would be better for the job. Jason Bourne is always confused and rebelling against the government.
- inactive, on 09/27/2009, -6/+22it's israel's problem. israel knows if they nuke iran, there will be a ***** which will most likely end in them getting the boot from middle east altogether. this is why it wants US to do its dirty work for them. that way they don't have to suffer the consequences and get rid of the only thing standing in the way of them killing every palestinian.
- quaxon, on 09/27/2009, -12/+27 All this news about lately with the keywords 'Iran' and 'Nuke' sound realy familiar to 6-7 years ago in the lead up to the Iraq invasion. The media is trying to get us used to the idea and by the looks of the majority of comments here it's working.
- Hateweaver, on 09/27/2009, -4/+18I endorse boogalou's plan. Send in Bourne.
- perrym, on 09/27/2009, -4/+17sure you are
- inactive, on 09/27/2009, -10/+23"The absence of Germany, Russia and China from Friday's announcement was all the more disappointing given the fact that the U.S. has spent more than a year in careful deliberations aimed at securing a consensus among all six countries, whose representatives will meet with Iranian negotiators in Geneva next week."
Seems like the world is saying, "we're not going to appease your Israeli masters with you, US." - esach, on 09/27/2009, -2/+14The Bourne Insurgency?
- inactive, on 09/27/2009, -2/+13THIS IS SPARTA!
- itsthemechanic, on 09/27/2009, -13/+23Umm, guys, you don't think it's unsurprising that after years of saber-rattling by Israel threatening air strikes of Natanz he decides to move his ***** inside a mountain? And what's the fuss about them having nukes anyway? Israel has ***** nukes too, lets see them get rid of theirs first before we tell other people what they can have, ok?
Don't believe the hype, people, and if you think you can kick Iran's ass militarily you are sadly mistaken. It is a huge, well armed country, not a basket case like Iraq. If you attack them it will be America's undoing. - whatthefu, on 09/27/2009, -1/+11I didn't say anything about liberation.
- MacParrot, on 09/27/2009, -4/+14Prior to the 1st Gulf war that's what a lot of people said about Iraq's army as well.
- mcquitty, on 09/27/2009, -3/+13http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northame ...
From Sarkozy:
Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, came close to mocking his American counterpart for the good intentions, which Mr Obama had heralded as an "historic" step towards nuclear abolition, even though it set no specific targets or fresh mandates.
"We live in a real world not a virtual world," the Frenchman told the 15-member council. "And the real world expects us to take decisions.
"President Obama dreams of a world without weapons ... but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite.
"Iran since 2005 has flouted five security council resolutions. North Korea has been defying council resolutions since 1993.
"I support the extended hand of the Americans, but what good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community? More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe a UN member state off the map," he continued, referring to Israel. - mcquitty, on 09/27/2009, -2/+12I keep hearing about moving to Canada from people who keep staying here.
- inactive, on 09/27/2009, -3/+12Israel has never been in violation of any IAEA or non-proliferation treaty act.
Why would you make up some crap like that? Hoping nobody would call you on it? - MacParrot, on 09/27/2009, -0/+9No need. That's where his Mom says she's moving to also!
- Kevitivity, on 09/27/2009, -3/+121) You underestimate the hatred the people of Iran have for Ahmadinejad.
2) An "attack" would be surgical in nature, taking out the nuclear facilities and military command only. - mcquitty, on 09/27/2009, -1/+10You underestimate Iran.
The nuclear facility are near residential areas. It was planned that way. - SamurAchzar, on 09/27/2009, -1/+9The bombing in Syria took place in 2008 - long, long time after the Iranian nuclear program became an international issue. The truth is, Arab countries don't feel threatened in any way by Israel, while a nuclear Iran becomes their problem.
Anyone who has half a clue realizes that the shift of power from moderate Sunni Muslims to Iranian Shiah is a threat for the status quo in the Arab world. When Iran seizes control of the Persian gulf and start abusing UAE, Qatar and Kuwait, all protected by a nuclear capability, we'll see how good that turned out.
I'm always amused at how hypocrite, half brained extreme left types yell about nuclear disarmament but when it comes to nukes in a hostile country ran by a council of Muslim shamans, it's all OK in the name of post-modernism. I'm glad the average American (who is rarely found on digg) has a very clear distinction between "good" (USA/Israel having WMDs) and "bad" (Muslim countries having WMDs).
Now, what about nuclear armament of Venezuela? Would you support this either? - ajsmth, on 09/27/2009, -5/+13THIS IS MADNESS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- inactive, on 09/27/2009, -11/+19forgetting a </sarcasm> tag may confuse people.
- howdareyou, on 09/27/2009, -0/+7I'm a Canadian and I think my country and yours shoud start some sort of exchange program. We take any American democrats and in exchange any Canadians who love Bush (and there are some trust me) can move to the states.
- MacParrot, on 09/27/2009, -0/+7Like Canada would take half you guys that say you're moving there. Don't you actually have to have a marketable skill beyond playing video games?
- mnocket, on 09/27/2009, -2/+9I never would have believed I'd see the day when France, FRANCE! stands tall in the international community while America shrinks into an all words - no action shadow of its former self.
- jaytek13, on 09/27/2009, -9/+16Who would digg him down? Probably the people who, through past experience, know better than to believe the words out of the crazy horse's mouth about "peaceful nuclear activities". I think the US needs to take a back seat on this one, at least for a while, but ignoring the fact that Ahmadinejad pretty much admits he wants to wipe Israel off the map, just stole an election with military force shutting out world media in the process, and a whole other laundry list of things which can be summarized with "he's one crazy son of a bitch", yes, ignoring this is like sticking your head in the sand.
You can be against going to war, but don't try to act like Ahmadinejad won't lie, cheat, steal, and deceive to achieve his ultimate goals, whatever those may be. - neoquietus, on 09/27/2009, -4/+11A missile defense system like the one Bush planned is an extremely expensive way of stopping a missile launch. A cheaper way would be to simply build a few more of our own missiles and point them at Iran, letting Iran know that should they fire even a single missile at us, we will melt their country to glass.
- inactive, on 09/27/2009, -4/+11"or why Israel can have hundreds of nukes and never gets inspected."
Israel CAN have nukes because they have absolutely no known ties to any terrorist cells. Iran has openly stated they politically support Hamas and Hezbollah. The chance of this being their only support is......well about 0. Russian weapon's given to Iran have been found in Iraq and in the 2006 Lebanon war used against Israel.
See the difference?
Iran- Provides Political and (most likely) Monetary support to Hamas and Hezbollah.
Israel- Does not. - Insightful, on 09/27/2009, -3/+10Right, and Iran and other Arabic countries surely will sit by idly and not retaliate against Israel knowing that US is already bogged down in two fronts in the Middle East.
It seems the bloodthirsty war mongers only know one part of war which is attack but know nothing else like strategy, containment, cost, cleanup, etc. - fastasfoggy, on 09/27/2009, -6/+13About as surgical Iraq and that other ***** we have made into a vortex of chaos?
- inactive, on 09/27/2009, -34/+41The sheer audacity of the United States leadership in cooperation with the mainstream media to INTENTIONALLY DECEIVE the public, ceases to amaze me.
Can we hear an UNEDITED, UNBIAS, UNDISTORTED arguement from the other side?
Seek and you shall find.
http://www.president.ir/en/?ArtID=17965
Regarding Iran’s nuclear program, Dr. Ahmadinejad stated, “Iran’s peaceful nuclear activities take place under the watchful eyes of the IAEA. According to enrichment regulations six months prior to injection of gas the matter must be brought to the attention of the Agency. We informed them 18 months before the injection, meaning that we did more than we were required to do.”
Dr. Ahmadinejad added, “When the IAEA report is published, Mr. Obama will regret his statements. My advice to certain currents dominating the U.S. government is that they refrain from giving the wrong information to Mr. Obama and avoid placing him in an atmosphere where he is forced to act against the interests of his own country. Opinions expressed by Messers Brown and Sarkozy are of no significance to us, however, Mr. Obama should not make statements that have no legal basis and distort the image of the President of the United States. We had agreed to be honest in our future meeting. Such behavior belongs to the past and is among the types of conducts that must be subject to change. We hope that Mr. Obama will compensate for this.”
Iran have went ABOVE & BEYOND in cooperating with the IAEA.
The mainstream media and the U.S. government are repeating poisonous lies that ACT AGAINST the BEST INTERESTS of the PEOPLE of the United States.
Stand up for yourself.
The most underrated and dangerous weapon is psychological deception and distortion.
Don't be fooled into letting American soldiers die for another unjust cause. - adnams, on 09/27/2009, -0/+6US never declared war on Germany, Germany declared war on the US as Japan's allies
- Oatlord, on 09/27/2009, -4/+10They attacked us three times before Bush....and then after 9/11, they attacked us how many times? 0.
- Oatlord, on 09/27/2009, -4/+10Did you really just post a link to Ahmadinejad's website as a source of "UNEDITED, UNBIAS, UNDISTORTED" news? Do you truly trust that source more over every other news source in the entire free world? I hope not, because that would be a bit ridiculous.
- dlofnep, on 09/27/2009, -3/+9Care to explain where the hypocrisy is?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 243 discussions
