digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at time.com

Ahmadinejad: There Will Be No War With Israel or the U.S

time.com — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday that he sees no possibility of a war between his country and the United States or Israel. He also predicted Israel would collapse without Iranian action. "I assure you that there won't be any war in the future," Ahmadinejad told a news conference during a visit to Malaysia for a summit.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Conwaysb0718, on 07/08/2008, -33/+137How is Israel gonna collapse when the United States keeps giving it billions upon billions of dollars every year?
    • Waiting2awake, on 07/09/2008, -18/+87eventually those billions of dollars aren't worth anything....then they will sell America just as an old dried up cow.

      while those that have been supporting this parasitic relationship will no doubt blame the liberals, or homosexuals, or....
      • Cybermaul, on 07/09/2008, -1/+25Using a classic example, the Jews?
      • fisher2, on 07/09/2008, -7/+4I'm so sick of this ***** a temporary economic recession does not mean our money will soon be worthless and our country will collapse. Holy ***** you guys are ridiculous.
      • FreemanJack, on 07/09/2008, -2/+3BLACKS!! OOH OOH!! JEWS!!! MEXICANS!!!
      • zeabu, on 07/10/2008, -0/+5fisher: I work in a hotel, I remember when 5 dollar was a nice tip, worth 7 euros. Now it's... well 2 euros after exchanging them.
    • bensone1, on 07/09/2008, -5/+67because when we collapse, israel will collapse. its that simple.
      • Ortheos, on 07/10/2008, -0/+5When the soviet union collapsed, so did the governments in over 20 other countries allied with it. Same deal with the US. The golden age won't last forever. This is the beginning of the end, thanks to Bush's expert economic skillz.

    • mr0nine2five, on 07/09/2008, -3/+16I still don't see the point in digging the Parent down.

      As far as I know that is a perfectly valid statement/question. We have been giving Isreal money for a long time now. If I'm wrong, please show my why. And yes I understand Waiting's point about the loss of value in currency. And placing blame when something is broken is part of the American way of life. I don't see how we'll ever grow out of that
    • geddon, on 07/09/2008, -5/+21Do I qualify for some of the billions in U.S. Israeli aid if I convert to Judaism? Times are tight, ya know.
      • cheezintern, on 07/09/2008, -3/+16It has little to do with the actual Jewish religion...
      • SammyJr, on 07/09/2008, -2/+4@RedneckFrmSouth

        Check on the cut wiener part. Don't forget that many Gentile Americans have adopted that strange blood ritual as their own.
      • giveupsin, on 07/09/2008, -6/+4That strange blood ritual actually eliminates 99% of possible infections and diseases common to men in that part of the body. Studies show that men are actually less likely to get HIV because of that strange blood ritual. It's almost like the Jews knew something before they understood it.
      • madfrogurt, on 07/10/2008, -2/+8Remember kids, we can't call RedneckFrmSouth anti-Semitic just because he's denigrating the Jewish faith and all Jews in Israel. This is digg, and we don't have anti-Semitic people here. We only have people worried about "Zionist influence."
      • SammyJr, on 07/10/2008, -1/+3@giveupsin

        and all of the "benefits" of that strange blood ritual can be achieved with a little soap and water, self control, and condoms. Plus, none of those cause permanent sensitivty loss or require surgery on a minor, as adults rarely pick it for themselves. Not to mention in the U.S. we have much higher per capita rates of HIV infection than does Europe and Europe doesn't participate in the American, Jewish, and Muslim blood ritual.
    • matu4251, on 07/09/2008, -9/+8Simple demographic: there will be more Muslims than Jews in Israel in a couple of decades.
      • mchisari, on 07/09/2008, -2/+9
        Muslims are currently only around 16.3% of the Israeli population, around 1,140,600 people. The current rate of increase in the muslim population in Israel is 3.6%. The Jewish population of Israel is 5,313,800, or around 76.0% of the Israeli population. Their rate of increase is currently 1.8%.

        So, in 40 years, there will be 4,693,789 Muslims, and 10,847,166 Jews in Israel. Which means that Muslims will still only be 30% of the population.

        In 80 years, there will be 19,315,848 Muslims, and 22,142,540 Jews in Israel. Which means, at 46%, Muslims still haven't become the majority. In 80 years.

        So stating that in a couple decades, they'll be the majority is pure propaganda. It's based in the kind of demographic prejudice that presents a country as being defined not by it's ideals, but by it's populations. If Israel wants to be an ethnic theocracy, then maybe that's true, but if it's a pluralistic democracy, it has nothing to worry about from demographics.
      • giveupsin, on 07/09/2008, -6/+2You assume there are no Jews still outside of Israel, which would not be the case. You'd be surprised how many Jews are in Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, not to mention here in the U.S. Those populations are growing too. Additionally, Muslim is a name to represent someone who believes in Islam, not a race. Arab is more of a term you'd want to use to define someone from middle east, but that doesn't work for American Muslims, or European Muslims, or Chinese Muslims. No, "Muslim" is an evil word used by atheists to denigrate a religious order, and thus you hear someone say "Muslims are growing in population" as though the religion is growing, not meaning a race is growing. The Jews and the Ishmaelites are actually brothers. Since people leave Islam every day, while others join it every day, it is harder to define demographics. And that's why when you hear how Europe is becoming "Muslim", it is less an issue of people and more of Europe's intolerance towards religions.
      • blackjack75, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3You shouldn' digg parent down he has a valid point if you take into account the occupied territories.

        The original plan of the occupation was to get all the available jews (from other countries) to move into Israel and the occupied territories and simply outnumber the palestinians. They would absorb them as a minority (just like the current 1 million arabs living inside actual Israeli territory).

        But history turned out the other way. Palestinian population grew much faster (ironically maybe due to the state of poverty maintained by the occupation) and many jews from other countries just didn't want to leave their country. I guess you'd have to be a serious religious nut to leave New York or France to move to Israel nowadays.

        Now there are about 6 millions people living in the palestinian territories so Israel cannot annex them without losing their jewish majority (which would negate the whole point of the country).

        You could say Palestine has litterally earned its independence thanks to having more (unprotected) sex.
      • matu4251, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1giveupsin : I know how many Jews live outside Israel, the largest is the USA with around 5.6 millions, then France with around 800,000 then Russia with around 300,000. That's actually the reason why Israel tries to attract those population (it has a special agency in charge of that) through various means:tell them it's their promised land, promise then a house and job or even by putting an emphasis on antisemitism, ...
        What mchisari forgot to take into account (and that blackjack75 corrected) is that you shouldn't forget occupied territories, or exiled Palestinians in Lebanon...
        In an ideal world mchisari would be right, it wouldn't matter, but the fact of the matter is: it does matter to them. Isn't the one thing at the origin of the country named Israel the desire of the Jewish community (at least Zionists) to return to their "promised land"?
      • mchisari, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1"What mchisari forgot to take into account (and that blackjack75 corrected) is that you shouldn't forget occupied territories, or exiled Palestinians in Lebanon.."

        No, I didn't forget to take those into account.
    • Tr3mulant, on 07/09/2008, -4/+28"The greatest threat in the Middle East and the whole world ... is the United States' intervention in other countries"

      I'd have to agree with that statement. The US is looking for any excuse to carve out yet another chunk of the middle-east for itself. Though elites will decry this statement as the ravings of a madman, Ahmadinejad is spot on.
      • popfrogs, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3Yeah, I agreed with alot that he had to say. Either he got a good translator or the message from Iran is, dare I say it, true.
      • zeabu, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2As wqs pointed out, his comment about wiping Isra'el from the map, is a translation of his words that probably was not what he said.
    • flibuste, on 07/09/2008, -2/+7It's called rotting from the inside by ways of extremist ideology. Other countries already have that problem as you probably know.
    • ecod3r, on 07/09/2008, -9/+1by Imam Al-Mehdy (peace be upon him) + Jesus Christ (peace be upon him)

      both are the greatest symbols in human history.
      • sodade, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3I say we ridicule both of them - if their ideas haven't brought the world to peace in two thousand years, move the ***** on. These religions had their moment when they were beneficial to human society, but now they are an anti-evolutionary cancer.
    • flink405, on 07/09/2008, -7/+11The United States also gives Egypt billions in aid.
      The Palestinians have also received billions in aid from the U.S. and Europe.

      The biggest threat to the Middle East is religious dictators oppressing their people.
      • WTFISAMOLLUSK, on 07/09/2008, -3/+2The biggest threat to the USA is religious dictators oppressing their people.

      • sodade, on 07/09/2008, -0/+9The fundamentalist extremists in Iran are in power directly because of US intervention.
        http://digg.com/politics/US_Intervention_in_Iran
      • blackjack75, on 07/10/2008, -0/+5Dicators, including religious ones, like the Saudis, receive backing from the west. We're just as guilty in Europe and the U.S.
    • abadonn, on 07/09/2008, -3/+9Yes, the US gives Israel billions of dollars, which Israel then promptly returns to US military companies like Lockheed, which supports the US economy and employs thousands and thousands of US workers. Israel has one of the largest and most technologically advanced armies in the world, and you know where they buy their guns and planes?
      • popfrogs, on 07/09/2008, -1/+5If you're talking about straight up foreign aid, you're partially right. Most of the ~6 billion yearly is earmarked for defense spending, around 75% last time I checked. Still, that leaves 1.5b just for walking around money.

        Also there have been tens of billions (if not hundreds) of write-down loans from the US to Israel. Israel hasn't ever paid us back for loans that I'm aware of.
      • sodade, on 07/09/2008, -1/+7ROTFL, you make that sound like arming Israel to the teeth is some overall pragmatic benefit to us.
      • gerbil20, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4...not only it is a benefit for us, it is an economical disaster for them. Israel is more than capable of manufacturing their own arms, but we'd rather give it ours than allow them compete against us on the weapons market. After all if they make a gun and advertise it as "Designed, Manufactured, and Combat Tested in Israel", why would anybody want to buy from somebody else?
      • abadonn, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3Example: The Uzi
      • blackjack75, on 07/10/2008, -0/+5Short said: american military industrial complex has managed to get cash directly from the U.S. govt in order to fund a neverending war on the other side of the world. Nothing new here.

        The result is still the same: your tax money goes to a corporation.
    • tonto69, on 07/09/2008, -2/+7Not to mention that the U.S. keeps fighting Israel's wars.
      • blackjack75, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3Who controls the oil, and who takes all the blame? My opinion is it's rather the other way around. U.S. corporations love to see all the focus on Israel and Palestine when it's all about maintaining corrupt leaders in arab countries to control their oil.
    • PakoBedejo, on 07/09/2008, -8/+4That's simple...the US won't have billions of dollars to give to the Zionists for much longer...thank God...
    • FreemanJack, on 07/09/2008, -3/+1OH SNAP!!
  • ShisouKen, on 07/08/2008, -44/+13Of course there's not going to be a war but if you don't let everyone know exactly what you're doing nuclear technology wise, the U.S and Israel are going to start bombing you...
    • raisputin3, on 07/08/2008, -9/+41Which would of course start a "WAR" and Iran would be well within their rights to bomb the hell out of whomever attacks them in defense :)

      Iran has no need to do any more than they already have regarding their nuclear program. Israel on the other hand has a "secret" Nuclear program, has not signed the NPT and basically shouldn't have any nuclear technology at all, but being that we (The USA) are Israel's bitch, we won't do ***** about it, just like we won't do ***** about them ignoring every UN resolution that has ever been passed (few and far between since their bitch (us) always vetoes them).
      • TopherT, on 07/09/2008, -2/+8Well... The United States would never DECLARE war, and even though the Iranians are 10 times more able when it comes to armed forces than Iraq was, no conventional army can stand up to that of the US, so it wouldn't be much of a war. (As an occupation it would be much, much, MUCH bloodier, however)

        The English language is much too bendy I think, or at least the people in power in this country treat it very bendily. War doesn't exist, but extended police actions do. There is no empire but there are strategic interests meriting long term investment. I submit that from now on we all start talking in C++ or Lisp.
      • Akairenn, on 07/09/2008, -3/+3^ No, no programming languages. We don't need clarity, we need more insanity. I submit to you that we thus start speaking like those aliens in that one episode of Star Trek.

        Dick and Bush in the White House. Shaka, when the walls fell.
      • YoshinoAiki, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2Sucat, his eyes uncovered!
      • TopherT, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1Man, that was a fun episode.
    • Jexie, on 07/09/2008, -4/+27"but if you don't let everyone know exactly what you're doing nuclear technology wise"

      You do realize Israel completely denies having any nuclear weapons as well right? When do you think the US will start bombing them?
      • Dragular, on 07/09/2008, -5/+6When they start openly pressing for the destruction of other countries and declare us to be the enemy, perhaps.
      • Jexie, on 07/09/2008, -3/+6Well they've pressed for the destruction of other countries so 1 down 1 to go I suppose. Lucky for them the US is happy to destroy itself for them by sending over all its money.
      • jabberwolf, on 07/10/2008, -3/+2Simple like the others said.
        When Israel threatens to destroy other countries. And they haven't.
    • jabberwolf, on 07/10/2008, -2/+1"Which would of course start a "WAR" and Iran would be well within their rights to bomb the hell out of whomever attacks them in defense "

      Iran just has to keep behaving their way they do to try and provoke a war.
      They dont want to be the ones accused of starting it,,, but they dam well are trying their hardest to create a war.

      And sorry to have to go here, but for the ultra-crazy muslims ( not normal ones) that run Iran, their whole religion is based on a great final war. They are bent on it happening and are trying their best to create a situation where other countries will have to act.

      Again remember Iran it the one supplies the improvised explosive devices in IRAQ, supplying Hezbollah, supplying Hamas. They have a history of crazy suicide kids called Basij with Ahmadinejad being a passed instructor of the Basij.

      They dont see a war?! BS - they are literally praying for one!! (with the start and end of every speech Ahmadinejad makes)

      • raisputin3, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1@jabberwolf:

        "And sorry to have to go here, but for the ultra-crazy muslims ( not normal ones) that run Iran, their whole religion is based on a great final war. They are bent on it happening and are trying their best to create a situation where other countries will have to act"

        Wow, sounds like Christianity to me....

        Iran hasn't attacked anyone in something like 200 years...and you say THEY want war....ROFLMAO
  • crxvfr, on 07/08/2008, -12/+33Like his perspective? Yes? No? Wait a day and the rhetoric will change.
    • gn0stik, on 07/09/2008, -2/+9Since the article mentions tuesday you are correct. Today they test fired long and short range missiles, and said it was to "demonstrate their resolve and might against enemies who in recent weeks have threatened Iran with harsh language.”

      So..... Apparently he accepted the deal but then decided to beat his chest anyway.

      I tell you what it seems like to me. Ahmadinejad is swimming as fast as he can trying to mitigate all this crap, and Khameini is stirring the pot.

      Of course, how can their Imam be wrong? He's infallible after all. How bad would it suck to be the president of Iran, and have to be that *****'s lap dog? On the upside, oil per barrel has deropped 9 bucks in the last 3 days. All of which occurred yesterday, it rose briefly, then dropped back down to yesterday's price. All this oil will be at the pumps in August. Expect it to rise before it drops. Also, let's hope Ahmadinejad keeps up this kind of talk, and Khameini gets struck by lightening.
      • ZenMojo, on 07/09/2008, -1/+5You mean, they tested missiles already? It's only been a week since Israel staged its own War Games as an open threat to Iran. They really should schedule these things better.
      • arplayer2k, on 07/09/2008, -2/+2Just one obvious inaccuracy in your very enlightening statement is that an Ayatollah and an Imam are two different things. Imams were infallible, but are no longer with us, and an Ayotollah is the title given to a scholar who has been accepted as one of the most learned people on Islam and related subjects, enough to interpret the laws himself and have a following. An Ayotollah is not infallible... he is a human being. An Ayatollah can also be viewed similar to a top of his field Phd Professor, but instead they are very knowledgeable in a vast variety of subjects.

        As for oil.... hey buddy, everybody says it will keep going up as global demand increases whether our demand goes up or not. It might come down a few cents here and there, but the long term trend will be an overall increase in average gas prices in the US. So i'm basically sensing a pattern of... you don't know what the ***** you are talking about.
      • gn0stik, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1I know the difference arplayer. Many consider him an imam, which is not an officially bestowed title, but one generated naturally by his following. It hasn't been an official title since there were Caliphs who could proclaim someone an Imam. Do a google search for Imam Khameini. He is officially an Ayatollah, yet considered an Imam. BTW, Imams are considered imbued with divine wisdom, like the prophet, so how is it that they are NOT infallible? Also, why do they always say stuff like "In accordance with his supreme guidance," etc.?

        Not to mention, there are several different degrees of Imam. There's the BIG one, which means successor to Mohammed. Then there's the type that Khameini is.. All the way down to a term of respect for a religious leader you have learned a lot from. It's context that we can use to derive what they mean when they say Imam.

        Let's just hope he doesn't think his job is to usher in the coming of the 12th imam, or reestablish the Persian empire.
    • PabloMac, on 07/09/2008, -7/+6Ahmadinejad wouldn't lie. That would go against his religion.

      Oh, wait...
    • ZenMojo, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2Obviously he hasn't read the script.
    • kaelyiesta, on 07/09/2008, -0/+8Simply put, do not trust any attempt by the US government to demonize Iran or its president. Time and again we find out that we are deceived years after the fact. WW1, vietnam, korea, iraq, greneda, syria, lebanon, panema and Libya all have ended up not only more costly wars than we are lead to believe, but unjust as well.

      Learn from history, be VERY skeptical of any push for war or actions intended to incite a war.
    • skipdog172, on 07/09/2008, -2/+9I will say that I agree with this one statement he made:

      "The greatest threat in the Middle East and the whole world ... is the United States' intervention in other countries," Ahmadinejad said.
      • voodoosteve84, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2I also agree with this one:

        "The Zionist regime is pushing the White House to prepare for a military strike on Iran," Shirazi was quoted as saying.
    • tcsucks, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5He basically said that he won't be the first to attack, but IF attacked things will be completely different.
  • cc1263, on 07/08/2008, -39/+17Since when has TIME magazine been a credible source? They called Putin man of the year and put him on the cover.
    • Jexie, on 07/09/2008, -1/+10Just because he's also a tyrant and/or you just don't like him doesn't make him an unimportant person and possibly the biggest headline of the year. Besides even if it is an error, this one example does not completely discredit the source, all media makes mistakes.
      • toyrifle1, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3actually Hitler was Times "man of the year" back in the 1930`s... just making conversation.
    • Chassit, on 07/09/2008, -1/+10Putin? How about such evil men as Stalin, Bush and Hitler?

      YES ALL OF THEM HAVE BEEN TIME'S PERSON OF THE YEAR!

      It is not a rating on how good a person is, but how much influence (s)he has had.
    • Xihix, on 07/09/2008, -2/+2Putin is the mother ***** man of the millennium in my book. Have you seen that guy hunting? Or his karate videos? Guy is a mother ***** bad ass.
    • toyrifle1, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1
      http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19390102,0 ...
  • scheibs14, on 07/08/2008, -48/+106At least he's being a rational president unlike ours
    • TheGambit, on 07/08/2008, -14/+9"The Web site of the elite Iranian force posted a statement late Monday quoting guard official Ali Shirazi as saying that Iran would retaliate against any military strike by targeting Tel Aviv and U.S. warships in the Gulf."
      • raisputin3, on 07/08/2008, -5/+22makes perfect sense to me
      • Waiting2awake, on 07/09/2008, -4/+18Why not? What do you do when you are attacked? Remember what happened when a bunch of saudi's flew planes into American buildings? Remember the "justified" attack on Afganistan because of it?

        It is only like that, only hopefully the Iranians are brighter than the Americans. If not they may end up bombing Mexico for something Israel did.
      • swanny89, on 07/09/2008, -3/+9Afghanistan was justified. Iraq was not. The 9/11 hijackers were trained in Afghanistan.
    • bosssmiley, on 07/09/2008, -15/+47Amedinejad being rational? Must be the old "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day" thing.
      • Waiting2awake, on 07/09/2008, -15/+7why? Because he is Muslim or Iranian?
      • bosssmiley, on 07/09/2008, -6/+9@Waiting2awake: the man has prior form in the art of letting his overheated rhetoric run away with him (and that's a personal trait, not a function of his nation or creed). Do you not recall the "Israeli must be removed from the map" ruckus last year?
      • relic180, on 07/09/2008, -1/+12It was cited in the article, and speculation that it could have been a misinterpretation. Not that I don't think Amedinijad isn't another bat-***** insane leader or anything... just saying.

        Anyhow, it doesn't make much difference as he's only the elected leader. The real leaders of that country are the self appointed clergy that tell the Iranian administration what to do.
      • mitikomon, on 07/09/2008, -2/+14@Waiting2awake:
        As an Iranian who live in Iran: No matter what he said, he is an idiot. he's mentally ill.
        its not because he is Iranian or Muslim. According to my uncle who is the professor at psychology department in Tehran University, it is confirmed that he has schizophrenia.
        sorry. i didn't know how did he got elected. in my whole family(clan) I just found 1 person who voted for him.
      • PabloMac, on 07/09/2008, -3/+5mitikomon, you need to run for cover NOW!
      • linuxrocks2007, on 07/09/2008, -4/+13@bosssmiley: The "Israel must be removed from the map" was a mistranslation. The original quote was "the Zionist regime occupying Jerusalem was to collapse".

        Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekinreview/11b ...
      • MellerTime, on 07/09/2008, -3/+4@linuxrocks2007 You crazy kids and your logic and references... What are you thinking?
      • PolishLogic, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1@ the Ahmadinejad fans

        So when he said that the solution to the middle east crisis was "the elimination of the Zionist regime", that was just him figuratively speaking too?

        I didn't realize we had so many of his supporters on Digg,
    • PolishLogic, on 07/09/2008, -9/+14Test firing 9 missiles and discussing how you have the ability to hit Jerusalem is being rational?
      • popfrogs, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1It's typical middle eastern sabre-rattling. If you don't do it, your neighbors start edging closer to your borders.
      • ScottoGato, on 07/09/2008, -2/+4Who's got nukes again? Who was doing test runs on Iranian facilities? I don't see why it's so controversial for a country to defend themselves.
      • PolishLogic, on 07/10/2008, -2/+3So when they do it, it's saber-rattling, but when we put on a spectacle similar to this, it's war-mongering.

        Interesting.


        @ScottoGato

        You do realize in the entire history of the atomic/nuclear age, only two of those weapons have been used, or even come close to being used, right? Forgive me if I think that after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear threats will never amount to anything more than just threats.



        Ok, I'll save everyone the task of anti-American comments and just say: yes, it was us who used those weapons, both times.
    • adjustafresh, on 07/09/2008, -6/+10Congratulations. You've illustrated the breadth of your knowledge on this subject in less than 10 words.
    • diggumthefrog, on 07/09/2008, -2/+12Rational? He wants to execute homosexuals and believes women shouldn't go anywhere without a man.

      Are you stupid?
      • makkaveli19, on 07/10/2008, -3/+1uh...... can you cite the second part of your comment??!?!?!?!?
        ***** Iranian women have complete freedom to do anything with out a man.
      • PolishLogic, on 07/10/2008, -2/+3@makkaveli19

        What, no comment on the first part of what diggumthefrog said?
    • skipdog172, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3It seems like to many Iranians, Ahmadinejad is their Bush. Most of them don't agree with him and feel like all he is doing is making their country look stupid.
    • fisher2, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1People like you scheibs14 gave Hitler power.

      SPEAKING WITH A FORKED TONGUE =/= RATIONAL THINKER

      I know caps lock is frowned upon on the online community, but I found it necessary.
    • jabberwolf, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4Ahmadinejad ?

      A man who was an instructor of Basij. Who taught young children to walk over landmines with plastic keys around their neck to heaven?

      THAT is rational? You sir are serious *****!
    • tenio, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4yep, there are no homosexuals in Iran...
      • bosssmiley, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1# ...and the streets are paved with cheese.
        There are no homosexuals in Iran
        And mullahs do as they please.#

        / A Mouse's Tale
  • TheGambit, on 07/08/2008, -22/+15"The Iranian nation will never accept bullying. The Iranian nation is a nation of believers which believes in jihad and martyrdom. No army in the world can confront it," he said.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7494961.stm
  • lucy22, on 07/08/2008, -8/+51Let's hope he keeps his word.
    A war would be devastating for everyone.
    • sixsixsixtimer, on 07/09/2008, -9/+10Of course there won't be any war because he knows very well that even Israel by itself could use its military to smash his military and knock his dick into his beloved sand. Iran is all talk and no action with a population that has been relegated to the stone age and savagery.
    • LSDRunner, on 07/09/2008, -2/+6The problem is...

      It's not up to him, anyway

      :(
    • CrazedLeper, on 07/09/2008, -5/+9*His* word? What makes you think it's up to him? Iran can no more disarm than Iraq could have. The US is bent on war and it will always find a way to make one and make itself look good in the process, too.
      • pickypg, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Yeah, Muslim extremists always tell the truth! They just want nuclear power in the second most oil rich nation in OPEC for energy! I'm sure it has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. Nope, nothing at all.
    • Wargalas, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3Did you even read the ***** article? He didn't say anything CLOSE to Iran not wanting to fight, it basically said that America and Israel don't have the nuts to provoke one.
    • ecod3r, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2remember that Iranian won't start the war if it did happen :S

    • jabberwolf, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1His word? Ahmadinejad a Basij instructor and bonified madman?


      You still believe in the tooth fairy dont ya?
  • donkeySays, on 07/08/2008, -18/+148That does not mean, Iran will not retaliate (and other countries side it) if attacked. Leave Iran alone.
    • pintomp3, on 07/09/2008, -3/+45the media has been covering iran's defensive missile tests as "aggressive". meanwhile there was hardly any coverage of israel's practice attack runs. it's funny how israel will be "defending itself" by attacking and iran is the aggressor for retaliating.
      • mohsenxp, on 07/09/2008, -1/+4Well thats how you go to war without declaring war.
        You attack to defend. Only problem is making it look like there was a cause to attack in the first place. That is something the Bush administration is very good at.
    • xsquirrel378x, on 07/09/2008, -4/+31LEAVE IRAN ALONE!!!

      *fixed
    • JDigital01, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Yeah, leave them alone and let them continue to support terrorism and develop nuclear weapons!
  • kojaa, on 07/08/2008, -3/+23hard to believe there would be no war when this happens

    http://digg.com/politics/Nancy_pelosi_pulled_iran_ ...
  • kevman459, on 07/09/2008, -15/+36Somehow Bush will see this as an act of war and push his preemptive strike idea.
    • mentalhead, on 07/09/2008, -15/+6I hope so, I don't want Iran to have nukes, don't know about you.
      • Waiting2awake, on 07/09/2008, -5/+10They are not going after Nukes - it is for power, which they are allowed to have.

        And

        Even if, in some future time they get the Nukes, what is the diff? Pakistan has them, as does India, as does Israel.....To suggest that if Iran gets the bomb the nuke genie will be out of the bottle is at best intellectually dishonest and worse fear mongering.
      • artfiend77, on 07/09/2008, -4/+5*****, I don't want America to have nukes.
      • feliks2, on 07/09/2008, -3/+3I don't want America to have nukes, don't know about you.
      • geddon, on 07/09/2008, -2/+2That was the sound of the point zipping right by you...
      • BlacklabelSAR, on 07/09/2008, -4/+4Iran is a sovereign nation.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_nation
        We have no right to interfere in their affairs.
      • mohsenxp, on 07/09/2008, -1/+0Waiting2awake...the iranian revolutionary guard has promised power plants for a long time. To suddenly think that they are after nuclear power is a bit misguided. The Iranian people aren't stupid. And luckily for us, we get a much more unbiased take on the news.
        There will be a nuke program, unlike the Iraqi WMD scandal, I actually am on the side of the US with this one. I do not believe they are lying.
        But the more important point to recognise is that anyone who happily believes that Iran + Nukes => US + Israel, Dead. is simply showing him/herself to have a very questionable grip on how the world works.
        Do not let war profiteers make you think that Iran is a threat to your national safety.
        If there is one thing that Iraq is a threat to, it is to American soldiers in Iraq. But ask yourselves this, should those soldiers be in Iraq in the first place?
        Just remember you are safe where you are, in the US. Perhaps not safe outside it, but then don't go where you don't belong.
      • mentalhead, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1mohsenxp, don't you remember September 11, 2001? We were attacked here... in America... we are safe where we are? How foolish.

        Waiting2awake, it wouldn't make a difference to me if they said it was for making toilet paper, what makes you trust Iran? We have proof that they are killing our soldiers in Iraq and they deny it for Pete's sake!
    • geddon, on 07/09/2008, -1/+4What are you blaming the dancing monkey for?
      Didn't you see all THREE presidential hopefuls pledging their undying support to Israel?
    • PolishLogic, on 07/09/2008, -3/+1He's probably more likely to see this as an act of war:

      http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/07/video-irans- ...
  • chaddles, on 07/09/2008, -3/+61'He urged Washington to heal its image by "relying on (the) basis of justice, humanitarian acts and respect for human beings."'

    Hear, hear.
    • Waiting2awake, on 07/09/2008, -3/+17Somehow he doesn't seem like the crazy in this situation....
      • bemenaker, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Oh, you mean ANOTHER diplomat trumped Bush on politics?
    • psg188, on 07/09/2008, -7/+16Now I don't support any war against Iran, but how hypocritical is that statement.
      Humanitarian? Iran? Give me a break.
      • pintomp3, on 07/09/2008, -4/+13the iranian government abuses it's own citizens, the US government abuses everyone.
      • relic180, on 07/09/2008, -3/+8Possibly hypocritical, but also correct. It would be AWSOME if the U.S. gov would put the interests of real living people (and not just the rich ones) at the top of their list.
      • Xihix, on 07/09/2008, -3/+6Hey, the humanitarianism has gotten better since the early years of the revolution. Gays, of course, will probably never be accepted under the current regime, but the woman in Iran are probably the best treated woman in the region.
      • Meep3D, on 07/09/2008, -1/+5Best treated outside of Israel maybe.
      • mohsenxp, on 07/09/2008, -3/+2Ahmadinejad is an idiot who is a sweet talker. It is what got him elected by us in the first place.
        I find it funny that there are a certain amount of diggers who seem to be pro-Ahmadinejad. The guy is more hated than Bush by Iranians.
        Do not be fooled by his speeches, admittedly they are convincing and make a point, but his actions tell a different story.
      • arplayer2k, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Probably about as hypocritical as the US and Humanitarian.
      • bemenaker, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1How self-serving is the US? Does this country do anything that it can't gain from anymore? This country has too many political thinkers that still haven't lost the Cold War mentality, and moved beyond that. The world has changed drastically, and you can't think of our domination is better than theirs' anymore.
    • pickypg, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2His country executes bloggers that disagree with them. That's justice?

      They support honor killings, and say they have no gay people (it's just a fad, right, Ahmadinejad?). That's humanitarian and respect for humans?

      I love how liberals think. They hear one thing they like, and they ignore the facts. No wonder Iran seems to think that America is starting to seem weak.
      • chaddles, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1I'm not ignoring any facts... I think that quote would be good advice for both the USA and Iran, it just happened to be Iran's leader who said it, not USA's leader. I'm not exonerating Iran or suggesting the USA should become like them. The fact is, both sides are acting somewhat hypocritical and unnecessarily judgemental of each other. Both lack justice, respect and humanity in certain areas.
        Washington does need to heal its image if it is to regain the international stature it once held. It's not just Iran who seems to think that the USA is getting weaker. The whole world can see this in terms of things like the falling value of the greenback, the fact that the military has been over-stretched for so long, the dismantling of long-held legal principles, the desperate tactics of torture etc... Perhaps more importantly though, America no longer holds a moral high ground in the eyes of the international community. And no, that doesn't mean that Iran holds the moral high ground instead.
  • greengarfield, on 07/09/2008, -13/+118Number of nuclear warheads
    US: between 4000-5500
    Israel: between 100-200

    Iran: 0

    Well DUH!
    • zolthar, on 07/09/2008, -35/+6going down to your level of logic,
      Nazi Germany (which had an active nuclear research): 0

      DUH yourself.
      • greengarfield, on 07/09/2008, -6/+33idiot!!! the nuclear bomb was created by the US during WWII by fear the Nazis create it first...hint...it did not exist when Hitler declared war.
      • gaqua, on 07/09/2008, -1/+26In 1776

        United States - 0 nuclear weapons
        England - 0 nuclear weapons

      • rabidg00se, on 07/09/2008, -1/+9Are you joking?
      • jabberwolf, on 07/10/2008, -2/+3Actually he is right. USA, Germans, and USSR were all attempting to create nuclear weapons.

        Where do you think the USA and USSR got most of their nuclear scientists from?
        As well as rocket scientists ?

        The German nuclear energy project was informally known as the Uranverein (Uranium Club) and began just months after the discovery of nuclear fission. The first effort ended in months, but the second effort began under the auspices of the German Army Ordnance Office on the day World War II began, 1 September 1939.

        Seeing how the Germans treated their own people, or ones they didn't like.
        What do you think they would have done with nuclear weapons if they felt lack of pride or beaten back?
        Now make that same comparison to Iran who has much more crazy of a leadership!!

        ""idiot!!! the nuclear bomb was created by the US during WWII by fear the Nazis create it first...hint...it did not exist when Hitler declared war.""
        Now who is the idiot for opening their mouth, using no brain, and not checking their facts?
        YEP greengarfield = ONE ***** IDIOT GALORE!
      • pickypg, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1Not only was Germany trying to make nukes (though they were doing it with "heavy water" and did not feel it would be completed by the war's end, so they did not invest quite as much as we did), but Japan was also trying to make nukes as well. Fortunately, Japan split up their job and did twice as much work by allowing their Army and Navy to work on the bomb completely separately. Many historians believe that if Japan had only worked on it with the combined force of those scientists, then they might have beaten us to making it.

        Regardless, both Germany and Japan (a nation that literally knew they could not beat the US in a war, and simply hoped they could hold us off until the German's beat their Western front and moved on to us; not to mention that Germany wanted Mexico to attack us and keep us busy) would have both definitely nuked us given the chance.

        As jabberwolf said, Iran would unquestionably nuke us. We are the great Satan, and he talks about us as that every other speech. If you're too stupid to think back one or two speeches, then please, move to Iran where it's always sunny, the money grows on trees, and no one is mistreated.
      • zolthar, on 07/10/2008, -2/+1greengarfield - I gave an irrelevant example in order to show how your example is irrelevant, that's what 'going down to your level of logic' means.
        Not only that you missed the point, you actually are trying to explain why what I wrote is irrelevant.
        DUH again.
    • lukemann, on 07/09/2008, -4/+3It's kind of like a little league team vs the Yankees. Press one button and instant glass parking lot.
      • mllawso, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Followed by a very pissed-off Russia, very well armed Russia.
      • medfreak, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2A very pissed china. A very well armed and can destroy the dollar in a second china.
    • mummbleswers, on 07/09/2008, -7/+26Number of countries that have actually used nuclear warheads on innocent civilians: 1
      • arplayer2k, on 07/09/2008, -3/+2Was that................. THE US?
      • jabberwolf, on 07/10/2008, -7/+2Number of Countries that actually stood up against Japan and defeated it?
        1
      • mummbleswers, on 07/10/2008, -2/+5jabberwolf, bro, c'mon dude, you're not trying to justify that ***** are you? That's like bragging I won a fist fight by shooting the other guy.
      • rabidg00se, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2Because wars are just like fistfights. We totally should have just kept at it with infantry and bombings until...until what? Until there was no one left standing?
      • pickypg, on 07/10/2008, -2/+2Are you serious mummbleswers?

        Japan would have slaughtered many more people on the beaches and we would have destroyed almost all of their cities, including the civilians that the, by comparison to modern ones, small A-bombs destroyed, in a land war (through carpet bombing and napalming in circles to suck out the oxygen).

        If you don't understand the logic of it, then you really need to go back to school.
    • flibuste, on 07/09/2008, -3/+11Typical cold war reaction.
      You however should know that one nuke is more than enough. 4000 or 12000 nukes are totally useless since you can wipe the whole planet with less than a hundred.

      More than that sounds like you got ripped off with taxes.
      • sodade, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2I agree with both of you, but I think the real point is that, with a well planned nuke armory, you don't really need much more ground forces to defend the US.
    • pixelguru, on 07/09/2008, -3/+2OK smart guy, care to take a guess at the amount of economic carnage the US or Israel would inflict on themselves and the world if they exploded even one of those nukes against a non-nuclear country? Can you count that high?
    • jabberwolf, on 07/10/2008, -4/+6Number of nuclear warheads
      US: between 4000-5500
      Israel: between 100-200

      Number of times either country threaten to make another country "dissapear":
      0

      IRAQ number of nukes: 0
      Number of times either country threaten to make another country "disappear":
      About 100 times
      ( actually underestimating - they basically begin and end each speech with some prayer alluding to Israel and the West's destruction)

      Now if you gave Iran a Nuke = would you like to start a new math of how many dead there will be because or retarded thinking like yours?
      • originaldna, on 07/10/2008, -7/+1The numbers of khazars who would die in the war between Iran, Israel, USA. 0
        The numbers of Americans getting killed for the Khazars, thousands.
        Watching America, Israel and white supremacy die, priceless.
      • pickypg, on 07/10/2008, -1/+4Funny how you throw in white supremacy in there, especially given that Israel is the only country that allows Palestinians to get citizenship in the middle east, and the U.S. is certainly a bit more diverse than Iran.

        I'm not going to touch the rest, but I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out who would win a war between Iran versus Israel, or Iran versus U.S., or Iran versus both. A few rubber boats aren't going to stop our naval fleet, and their joke of a military isn't going the stop any ground force either Israel or the U.S. would throw at them.
  • mentalhead, on 07/09/2008, -22/+10I find it humorous how arrogant Ahmadinejad is. Saddam Hussein was the same way and look what happened to him.
    • Waiting2awake, on 07/09/2008, -4/+16The difference is that Saddam was a US installed madman.I guess he figured after all the time, feelings and weapons that had changed hands between Iraq and the US that he was somehow going to be allowed to have the UN finish their weapons inspections.....

      Unfortunately for him the US decided international law didn't matter.
    • Chassit, on 07/09/2008, -4/+12He is not nearly as arrogant as GW Bush and infinitely more intelligent.
      • relic180, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3well.. more intelligent. I don't know about infinitely.
      • monsieurx, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2nah, i think he's more arrogant than you think... otherwise why else would we be laughing our arses off these bozo's arses?

        Look at arrogance statistics:
        Arrogant culture = stone age or war losses + war crimes...

        It's all a question of intelligence and lack of superstitions obsessions (aka religions)...

        Do the right thing...

        As to iran should stop uranium enrichment? Let them fail graciously with Allah's concent!

        You can't fight idiots, just let them fall...
    • mitikomon, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5Saddam was a dictator(president) for ever. he was in charge of everything. Ahmadi-nejad is not in charge of army or Sepah. A.N. would be president just for 1 more year(hopefully) and at max 5 year. he even can't spend the oil money. it needs the parliament authorization.
      the dog barks but the caravan continues.
      • mentalhead, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jews and take over the world. Ahmadinejad wants to exterminate the Jews and take over the world. I don't know how any of you can defend [Hitler].
  • BillE3, on 07/09/2008, -14/+23If there will be no war in the future, then why did he just test fire 9 ballastic missiles? One of which can travel easily to Israel. Is it that he expects to vaporize the Israelies and prevent any repsonses from them?
    • purkel, on 07/09/2008, -5/+25Iran is scared as hell that the US is going to invade them. Iran is surrounded by pro-US countries.
      • Aadain, on 07/09/2008, -4/+13You are right on the money. Iran is not the aggressor here, is the US/Israel. Wouldn't you be a bit nervous and start preparing your military when someone like Bush keeps talking about how we have to invade Iran to secure peace, even though they have done nothing to us by shout some angry words?
      • mummbleswers, on 07/09/2008, -2/+5By pro-US countries do you mean the ones we've invaded? Iraq, Afghanistan, hmmmm.... what's missing here for the hat trick?
    • pintomp3, on 07/09/2008, -4/+12hope for the best, prepare for the worst. btw, he didn't test fire anything. he has no military authority. mccain has already started painting as a 2nd holocaust.
    • inphu510n, on 07/09/2008, -2/+4The best offense is a good defense.
    • Picer, on 07/09/2008, -2/+8He rattled his Sabre in response to Israel having a practice strike.
    • feliks2, on 07/09/2008, -4/+16How about America stops all military research? No? Well okay, then shut the ***** up and stop complaining when other nations do it.
      • lukemann, on 07/09/2008, -2/+4I think these test fires are the perfect chance to test our missile defense shield for free.
      • mummbleswers, on 07/09/2008, -1/+4haha! I like your style dude. (in old raspy country guy voice)
    • kevinwiz, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Because they have the right. Why do Americans and the media hold Iran to a double standard?
      • mentalhead, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1Because Iran supports terrorists.
    • medfreak, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3Because Israel the "peaceful neighbor" of Iran just did one of the largest war games in history directed against Iran less than a week ago?

      http://rawstory.com/news/2008/US_Israeli_military_ ...
  • aghati, on 07/09/2008, -12/+2This is the FIRST comment that he says which would please the west ! ! !
    • Jexie, on 07/09/2008, -4/+3The west is desperate to control Iranian oil to save the crashing economy. Talk of peace from Iran is what will displease our war monger leaders the most.
    • monsieurx, on 07/09/2008, -2/+1no matter what is agreed, iran will continue to enrich uranium and idiots to blow up their brains against western culture (and any other culture that is not precisely theirs)... And the US will bully around the world with their overpriced mortgage loans.... The vatican will be outraged at anything not catholic and casinos and porn will continue to flourish...

      Let's get real TODAY please! This is 2008, not 8 BC!
  • NikkiA, on 07/09/2008, -7/+45Sadly, I suspect its not his decision to make :/
    • feliks2, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1Yeah, I'm surprised no one mentioned Khomeini or whatever yet.
      • medfreak, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Actually, it means that it is the US /Israel's decision since they are most likely to attack first.
    • mummbleswers, on 07/09/2008, -1/+4Yeah, I almost feel sorry for the guy, doesn't he know how much money Bush's homeboys make off of war?
  • xyllar, on 07/09/2008, -8/+24Unfortunately, if there is a war I have a feeling America will be the aggressor, so it doesn't really matter what the Iranians say.
  • soniclove, on 07/09/2008, -28/+1of couse there will no war, we'll just nuke them from orbit. btw Israel haters, go back and play with your own poo.
  • vexingmodstwo, on 07/09/2008, -33/+26There's only two ways you can read this:

    1) The diplomatic and economic pressure being place on Iran by the US, EU, and UN is working.
    2) He's lying.

    Either way there's really no rational way to turn this into a Bush bash. But you will anyway. Which is why I, for one, can't take the majority of you loons seriously.
    • RogueGenius, on 07/09/2008, -8/+9There is only one way to read this.

      1) He isn't, and never had been, the problem.
      • vexingmodstwo, on 07/09/2008, -9/+6If that makes you feel better about being irrational, more power to you.
      • gcnaddict, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Ahmadinejad is a nut.

        That having been said, he isn't crazy enough to start a war. He utilizes brinksmanship to the max, but he isn't actually into wars. If he was, Iran probably would've had a Russian nuke (or similar) by now.
    • relic180, on 07/09/2008, -2/+8What do you mean, no rational way to turn this into a Bush bash? The leader of the country Bush has been dying to attack comes out and basically states publically (whether it's the truth or not doesn't really change things) that he doesn't want a war with the U.S. or Israel.

      Do you think it will come anywhere close to stopping this administration from searching for an excuse to attack them?
      • Monk22, on 07/09/2008, -3/+2id like to see a source where bush is "dying to attack iran"
      • tkstock, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2Monk, I'm sure it's on HuffPo or DailyKOS somewhere...

        To the left loons, leaving the possibility of military action on the table means "dying to attack".

        Of course, the fact that they're willing to talk to Iran with preconditions means they're "dying to settle this diplomatically" too, but that's not the way the lefties see it.
      • RogueGenius, on 07/12/2008, -1/+2Id like to see the source where bush was dying to attack Iraq. ... But he was, wasn't he. We are yet to get a reason for it, but we are there. I've learned to believe Bush's actions. If he starts 'finding' reasons to attack Iran (like he has been doing lately) then he is dying to attack Iran.

        I'm with Bill Mahar. Bush isn't out of office yet and I think he has one more giant ***** in him. What do you want to bet it'll be Iran
    • cvelusc, on 07/09/2008, -5/+7You Republicans consistently make the issue black and white. It's not that simple. It's made this simple so that your party's agenda can be espoused without deep reflection on what's really happening. George is a bully, liar, and has surrounded himself with like-minded individuals. The Iraq war was unnecessary, but because he wanted to create a dynasty, spread democracy, and steal American's tax money through war funding, he went ahead and invaded. George and his staff are the most selfish people I have ever known.
      • tkstock, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1And this pertains to Ahmadinejad how, exactly?
      • RogueGenius, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1They have to cvelusc. It all boils down to what I've been saying all along: they just aren't that smart. If they don't cook it down to near mindless broth, they will confuse their electorate. Democrats view the world as it is: complex, intricate and with a lot of colors. Republican can only handle black and white, on or off, one of us -- one of them, etc. They're stupid.
    • feliks2, on 07/09/2008, -1/+4Or how about he just always knew war was never going to solve anything, at least not one with the US. But if he attacked Israel it would be the same as attacking America, so basically he just knew that war was never going to solve anything.
    • CrazedLeper, on 07/09/2008, -4/+2Dugg down for using the insanity defense.
    • AnarchoGoth, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1I would rather turn this into a Mainstream Liberal Media bash.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onNzrNEFs1E
  • Sluglas, on 07/09/2008, -17/+3Whatever...
    • Me1000, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1"They hate us because we're free"
      -Sluglas
  • purkel, on 07/09/2008, -18/+8seriously, Bush just wants Irans oil... Bush is using the same fear tactics to try and start a war.

    I bet the Germans thought Hitler was a pretty patriotic dude who was just watching out for Germany too... Really, whats the difference with Bush invading Iraq and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for Oil.
    • PolishLogic, on 07/09/2008, -1/+5Actually Hitler was loved by his people for his work, Bush isn't.
    • PabloMac, on 07/09/2008, -2/+3Just to clarify: who killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for oil? And don't forget to indicate your sources.
  • subliminali, on 07/09/2008, -10/+19i really am disgusted by everyone's skepticism here... you act as if there's been a recent example of a head of state of a major country deceiving their citizens about their intentions regarding war. shame on you all.
  • ff4marvel, on 07/09/2008, -13/+98you KNOW something is ***** up when this guy is the voice of reason
    • slvrbullet87, on 07/09/2008, -12/+7Voice of reason? how about full of *****
  • Badandy127, on 07/09/2008, -11/+8Oh God, there will be war.
  • ChillEnt, on 07/09/2008, -18/+25That's what Japan said right before the bombed Pearl Harbor...
    • Zain123, on 07/09/2008, -11/+7What a stupid comparison.
    • xander, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Really? Link please.
    • Butros, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Yeah there ambassadors were like in DC discussing a peace treaty or something. It was a huge black eye for Washington.
      • BillE3, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1The Japanese abassador delivered their ultimatum threatening an attack on U.S. soil about an hour after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. They had forgotten the time differences. That angered our government the most. Washington D.C. already knew of the attack and was planning the response.
    • mllawso, on 07/10/2008, -3/+1I though the Germans bombed perl harbor.
  • Dralite, on 07/09/2008, -9/+10Yeah, we all know thats not his decision to make... If The W wants a war, he gets a war...
  • RogueGenius, on 07/09/2008, -14/+53Unfortunately, Ahmadinejad isn't the warmonger in this piece. He's a nut, but not a warmonger. He's never started a single war. Bush, however, is a proven warmonger and he is the one I'm worried about starting a war.
    • CrazedLeper, on 07/09/2008, -11/+3In what way is he a "nut"? The man is a university professor and a head of state. You know nothing about him.
    • ancientshoes, on 07/09/2008, -2/+3yeah, bush is wrong for not wanting Iran to have nukes...I mean, it's not like Iran would ever threaten its neighbors
    • Natya, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1There's more to it than Ahmadinejad having never started a war: Iran hasn't started a war in over a century. Can we say that for the countries claiming to be threatened by Iran? (I realize it may be an unpopular statement that Israel has started any wars, but by definition preemptive strikes qualify, given that 'striking preemptively' is a politically correct way to say 'attacking first.')
  • sixsixsixtimer, on 07/09/2008, -18/+4Of course there won't be any war because he knows very well that even Israel by itself could use its military to smash his military and knock his dick into his beloved sand. Iran is all talk and no action with a population that has been relegated to the stone age and savagery.
    • CrazedLeper, on 07/09/2008, -3/+2Buried for being a stupid American.
    • paperboy6645, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Buried for not understanding what "terrorism" is
  • RationalXubrnce, on 07/09/2008, -4/+23Billionaire Globalists: "That's what you think!"
  • londubh, on 07/09/2008, -13/+2Ahmadenijad sure is trying to goad the US and/or Israel into attacking. Even if they aren't developing nuclear weapons, it'll be easier for them to do so by having nuclear power. Now he's testing missiles that can hit Israel. He underestimates Israel's and Dick Cheney's resolve. It's not a question of if the US will it attack now. It's a question of when. It'll happen when it hurts Obama's chances of winning the presidency the most.
    • cvelusc, on 07/09/2008, -2/+2You people are disgusting. You and your party would purposefully cause civilian deaths (which is what happens with bombs, regardless of their sophistication) and immeasurable hardship so that Barack's chances of winning the presidency are diminished.

      I really wish you would sign over your bank account and life to the military considering you'd kill civilians all over politics. The Army's recruiting. Sign up quickly so that it's not just your mouth making the noise.
      • londubh, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1I hope you aren't talking about me. Dick Cheney is a war criminal. I'm just saying this is how the neocons think and nothing will get in their way. Thank you, Nancy Pelosi for taking impeachment off the table.
    • Aadain, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2I don't think a majority of the US wants another war, considering how long the Iraq war has gone on and its very negative public support. Basically, ANY attack on Iran that is not in response to a real (not perceived) attack on the US will give a HUGE number of swing votes to Obama and pretty much guaranty his victory. The US people are tired of war, and I think even Cheney/Bush know this.
    • Ortheos, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1I think America needs to think hard about how many more 9'11's you can take before seeing your economy collapse in on itself and your society turn to authoritarian fascism all in the name of security.
  • kolinkoolface2, on 07/09/2008, -5/+18i think Iran needs to think about how much damage they can take. If this war were to go down, it would be the US and Israeli's leveling everything in Iran in thee most extensive air campaign to have ever been executed. There would be no invasion, just a badly badly disarmed Iran with the Israeli's waiting for them to retaliate so they could hit even harder. Bottom line, do not play with fire when it comes to Israel, you will get burned and then torched if you don't learn. I am not saying i condone Israel, just looking at their history.
    • purkel, on 07/09/2008, -4/+4Why does Iran need to think about taking damage? they aren't trying to start anything.
      • akamurph, on 07/09/2008, -8/+5Read something besides digg retard... They have basically been provoking the West for the past year. UN sanctions, nuclear facilities, etc. etc. etc.
      • rexblade, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4They are permitted to have those facilities and the US has ***** with Iran for decades. Don't get on here with yer Fox news propaganda and call people retarded. How have they been provoking the west? Good grief people like you are scary. I suppose you would also argue that Saddam had WMD and that we are "liberating" Iraq.
    • slvrbullet87, on 07/09/2008, -5/+3The US doesnt destroy countries any more, we go in with ground troops and try to "spread democrocy". I wish we would go back to the days of leveling cities
      • rexblade, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4How bout minding our own business and tacking care of our country? Not invading for corporate profits?
    • toowired77, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2If Iran is attacked by Israel, Israel will suffer. This idea that you can achieve regime change from the air is *****. Sooner or later, you have to send troops in.
      • kolinkoolface2, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1it's called no more threat. Israel doesn't care as long as Iran is not nuclear. You are sounds really stupidddd right now.
      • Ortheos, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1But I thought Al Qaeda was the biggest threat, considering they have attacked the US on it's own soil, yet you can't fight al qaeda without ground troops/men on the ground.

        Iran has many such covert groups that could give Israel hell as Hezzbollah did then simply fade into the shadows after each attacks. You're an idiot if you think threats can be eliminated from the air.

      • toowired77, on 07/11/2008, -0/+0You can set them back a couple of years, but what happens in a couple of years? You bomb again? Regime change is the only way to truly eliminate a nuclear threat. You know what really sounds stupid? Getting other people to fight your wars. American troops should fight for America first. If you want them to fight your country, pay taxes in America.
  • Chassit, on 07/09/2008, -11/+3Let us hope he is being honest (he may be). Regardless, the neocon liberals will still bomb him because they hate. That's what they do.
  • krnldmp, on 07/09/2008, -8/+7Well I wish Israel would hurry up and collapse so the United States will quit getting pounded with "news" about Iran.
  • curtisag, on 07/09/2008, -2/+7Someone tell this news to the oil speculators.
    • PolishLogic, on 07/09/2008, -2/+3Yes. I mean, why on earth would they drive up oil another $2 after Iran's test-firing of a measily 9 little missiles today?
  • KaivenTor, on 07/09/2008, -7/+10Middle Eastern politics 101: Talk ***** to the people coming to kill you because you might bluff them long enough to stall out the anger. Or get bombed. It's kind of 50/50.

    Truth be told, Iran has more reasons to be pissed off at the US then we do at them for funding Hezbollah and attempting to get nuclear power. I'm more than a little sick of AIPAC these days and we honestly don't need to go war with Iran. Hell, if we were worried about terrorism, why haven't we gone after Hezbollah as an entity instead of strengthening their position by intimidating Iran.

    Ahmadinejad may be crazy, he may talk a lot of smack. But I don't think he's stupid. This game of chicken may not ened well for Iran, but that doesn't exactly mean that we'll getting a hell of a lot of support to go in there. All a conflict with Iran will yield is dead people, dead cities, and more enemies against us.
    • flink405, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1What are the reasons that Iran should be "pissed off at the US"?
      • yosserhughes, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4Operation Ajax.
      • KaivenTor, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2@flink405: We installed the Shah of Iran after the elected Prime Minister stopping playing in the US and UK's best interests (we had the PM arrested). The Shah modernized the country, but at the cost of civil liberties and freedoms. The Iranian revolution deposed the Shah and stormed the US embassy, some people were killed, eventually they were negotiated for. However, at that time, we also funded and persuaded Iraq to attack Iran.

        The death toll of that war was staggering as the Iranians had little in way of armament. This was also saw the rise of the organization Hezbollah as an act of desperation. The organization today is considered to be the A-Team of terrorist organizations and reside in Iran, Syria, and Lebanon.

        In 1988 toward the end of the Iran-Iraq war, we shot down a commercial passenger jet. The carrier in question cited it as a possible F-14.

        Until a few years, we hadn't held any sort of diplomatic discussion with Iran since the Shah was deposed. You can probably look up the events from that point on, but basically the US has been messing Iran since they decided not to bend over for us. And it's just coming to a head now because our president is a jackass.

        We need to handle this diplomatically. Iran doesn't want war, but they aren't exactly going to go down without a fight. And historically speaking, I have a feeling that the entire country will fight down the las tman woman and child if an occupation occurs.
      • sodade, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1http://digg.com/politics/US_Intervention_in_Iran
  • dunderballer, on 07/09/2008, -13/+22Ahmadinejad never called for the destruction of Israel. He simply said that it will eventually be "erased from the pages of time" and Iranian expression that means that it will become irrelevant or fade away. He never said that Iran would play a role in making it go away. Politicians and the media have spun his comments to mean "Wiped off the map" and have said that he called for the destruction of Israel.
  • xen271, on 07/09/2008, -14/+6When an enemy speaks softly is when you should prepare for an attack.
    • mummbleswers, on 07/09/2008, -1/+7Someone's paranoid. So when they speak loudly you should....prepare for an attack? Moral of the story: Always prepare for an attack

      Cheney / Satan '08
  • Ph03N1X418, on 07/09/2008, -8/+3 I get a kick out of all this talk of "war" with Iran and how they, unlike Iraq, have a "real" army..
    As long as the US isn't stupid enough to try and occupy them, they can be blasted into rubble from afar.
    I don't think war is a good idea, but it doesn't matter what the regular public thinks, anyway.
    And as for all the Bush haters/Obama lovers, etc..whoever is current president changes absolutely nothing. It's not like the US stopped supporting Israel when a more-loved president was in power. Those aspects of US foreign policy will always be in effect for as long as North America depends on oil.
    • footfwd, on 07/09/2008, -1/+2You don't think that the armies in the region haven't learned a thing or two from Iraq? Attrition baby, that's the name of the new war game. Bombed from afar = what's left of your countries riches draining into the hands of no bid contractors and war profiteers. Can you say inflation on an unprecedented level in the U.S? What does Israel have to do with oil?
    • ronintetsuro, on 07/09/2008, -1/+1Doesn't matter what the public thinks?? I'd kindly ask you to stay in your hidey hole while us citizens retake our government and country.
      • Ph03N1X418, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2 Not to sound like an ignorant jerk, but people have been talking about "retaking the government" ever since Bush was elected. Still waiting...
  • Xihix, on 07/09/2008, -4/+15Of course Iran wouldn't want to START a war. But any country will retaliate, just as they have the right to. Now, Israel just had those war practices a little while ago. Wouldn't you want to test your weapons as well, just in case?
    • mzx639, on 07/09/2008, -5/+2The US should test out some new nukes on Iran.
      • McHoffa, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1you're voting for mccain aren't you?
  • socketman, on 07/09/2008, -11/+4 Yeah because he plans to wipe out Israel in on shot.
  • starbuxadct, on 07/09/2008, -11/+16Just like there are no gays in Iran...
  • gtluke, on 07/09/2008, -16/+10the hollocost didn't happen!
    this man never lies
    • mitikomon, on 07/09/2008, -2/+2As his point of view he didn't lie. he really think Holocaust is exaggerated.
      • ecod3r, on 07/09/2008, -5/+010 million jews got killed, what a ***** joke,

        the real figures are no more than 250,000
      • Monk22, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3it was about 6 million eco, the 10-12 million is including all the others (non-jews) they killed as well.
    • chase001, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2They have weapons of mass destruction - that man doesn't lie either.
  • TsuruchiBrian, on 07/09/2008, -16/+2Translation: The USA will be wiped off the map.
  • Abomonog, on 07/09/2008, -2/+4I want to bury this as inaccurate, but only because I know that Bush is currently thinking, " Not if I can help it."
  • mzx639, on 07/09/2008, -7/+5That big-mouthed little munchkin may find out the hard way.....
  • harris2004, on 07/09/2008, -6/+6I dont think its time for WW3 but lets assure that if this war starts, It will be WW3. Russia is backing Iran. India will back Russia, China will fuel the war further...and then it will keep on going until the end of humanity. Remember, Earth only needs one more WW to say Goodbye.
    • flink405, on 07/09/2008, -1/+4Russia would not back Iran.
      India would not back Russia.
      China would not fuel any conflict with Iran further.

      The world does not need a nuclear armed Iran with unstable religious zealot dictators threatening other countries and dreaming of a conservative Muslim dominated world.
      • giveupsin, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0India will back the US. They will lose massively on their economy with the way so much is outsourced there. China will also see its economy drop from 100% overdrive to nothing. Remember, in a time of war, all economic dealings are stopped, that includes electronically. US would just shut off their internet. haha
      • Ortheos, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1This is how world wars start. Arrogant morons such as yourself actually believe something along the lines of this:

        "Russia would not back Iran.
        India would not back Russia.
        China would not fuel any conflict with Iran further."

        America has no control over the Russian, chinese, indian governments. They will decide who they back. If it happens to be your enemies be prepared, don't stick you head in your arrogant arse beforehand and end up getting it kicked as a result. People like you lose wars strategically.
    • Tssst, on 07/09/2008, -0/+3Wrong on India. India will bend over backwards to support Israel. Those two have a history that goes quite far.
      • Monk22, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1and were in the middle of the nuke deal
  • digihoffa, on 07/09/2008, -1/+9http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mScWWtRfGQ
  • espresso0, on 07/09/2008, -9/+3With his pretty brown eyes, butter pecan thighs
  • TheSexyGeek, on 07/09/2008, -10/+4A question. . . .how the ***** did the US get to be so scared of Iran.
    • Jhiaxuz, on 07/09/2008, -1/+4The Russians and Chinese.
    • mohsenxp, on 07/09/2008, -1/+3answer: It isn't scared of Iran. It just made its people get scared of Iran so they wouldn't give them a hard time when they went to war.
      Question - Did the US do the exact same thing before invading Iraq?
  • whatthefu, on 07/09/2008, -1/+4People are saying Iran is a threat (it isn't) and people are saying Iran IS a threat (only if we provoke them). Of course the US could defeat the country in war easily, but imagine what such an unjustified invasion would do to the entire Middle East. It would cause turmoil for decades and decades.
    • Ortheos, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Iran does not exist in a vaccum. Defeating it would not consist of only fighting their army. It would involve fighting it's people, and the supporters of it's people. You lost in Vietnam on this same assumption. You thought winning battles conventionally with ease would equal winning the war. You thought wrong. Geo strategic politics is a tangled web. Be careful which thread you decide to cut, the rest might fall down on you and you will become tangled for a very long time.

      For a more recent example, you have been tangled in Iraq now for years, and same with Afghanistan. These two fairy-tale adventures follow the script of Vietnam closely.
      • idisagree, on 07/13/2008, -0/+0Ortheos, you are correct. The US in fact is in the same scenario that the Soviets were in Afghanistan; fighting an unwinnable war. FEAR is all that Bush and his cronies can market in order to continue the INSANE war of terror against Islam.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 86 of 86 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.