digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

Bush gives Isreal the OK to bomb Iran

timesonline.co.uk — Well, *****.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • lordfoul, on 07/13/2008, -162/+131Israel never needed anyone's permission to do anything in defense of their borders.
    • 2bsbc, on 07/13/2008, -34/+161Your right; however, they sure seem to like our money, weapons systems, and troops.

      From: http://www.aipac.org/694.asp#12669

      Support Security Aid for Israel

      "The administration has requested $2.55 billion in security assistance for Israel as part of the fiscal year 2009 budget. The aid request reflects the first year of a 10-year plan to gradually increase U.S. security assistance to the Jewish state in order to meet increasing threats. American security assistance is essential in helping Israel face a potential nuclear-armed Iran, daily rocket attacks from Gaza and a rearmed Hizballah. Please urge members of Congress to support this vital aid to Israel and the overall fiscal year 2009 foreign aid bill."

      "For more than half a century, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee has worked to help make Israel more secure by ensuring that American support remains strong. From a small pro-Israel public affairs boutique in the 1950s, AIPAC has grown into a 100,000-member national grassroots movement described by The New York Times as "the most important organization affecting America's relationship with Israel."

      If Israel is such a strong and determined country that doesn't need anyone's permission to do such simple, but costly things as defend their own borders; then by all means please tell AIPAC to get their noses out of our Congress's ass so they can go back to doing what we the American tax payers pay them to do.
      • Equinox2012, on 07/13/2008, -3/+3If you stare at Bush's nose in the picture... the microphones and tie look like a ***** & Balls going into his mouth.
    • solistus, on 07/13/2008, -35/+105Israel doesn't border Iran, *****.

      http://quranbible.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/midd ...
      • unreg, on 07/13/2008, -32/+24Borders have little meaning when one possess ballistic missiles.......ass munch
      • ciaran036, on 07/13/2008, -8/+31He didn't say Israel borders Iran
      • Ryan2845, on 07/13/2008, -4/+27America has been "defending our borders" from countries we don't border for decades
      • solistus, on 07/13/2008, -8/+7He said Israel would be "[defending] their borders." A rocket from across the Middle East is not a border incursion. There's a difference between a threat and a _border_ threat. And there's an even bigger difference between terrorist guerrillas launching mortars right over your border and a sovereign nation separated by a vast swath of territory that could, theoretically, if for some completely mystifying reason it wanted to, attack Israel. You can see my other posts on this story for my views on that, but to sum it up: even the NIE admits Iran isn't actively designing weapons; the best we've got is that they might be using enrichment techniques that could potentially allow them to start doing so in about another decade. Iran has not attacked another country in centuries at least (unless you count them attacking back in the Iran-Iraq war, but he had just ***** invaded them with US approval and US chemical and conventional weapons; that was an actual case of border defence, unlike this). The only scenario likely to provoke an attempted Iranian attack on Israel is if Israel preemptively strikes Iran. Iran is Shi'a and is thus quite strongly at odds with Al Qaeda and other Wahhabi extremists. And, last but not least, bombing a nuclear enrichment site could have horrific consequences for the civilian population, which has done absolutely nothing wrong (and that's giving Israel credit for highly targeted bombings that didn't just blow civilians up directly, which history shows is far from guaranteed).

        I'm all for the Israeli peoples' right to safety and security. Bombing Iran does not contribute to this in any tangible way.
      • humperdeath, on 07/13/2008, -3/+6Maybe this is why we created Israel in the first place? I'm not saying I agree, but think about it.....
      • chillmandan, on 07/13/2008, -0/+7defending one's borders is more a statement of "defending one's sovereignty"
      • Brad324, on 07/13/2008, -1/+3Canada needs to defend its border
      • solistus, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1chillmandan: No, it's a statement of protecting territorial integrity. It's not "defending the borders" to preemptively attack another country because it may be in your country's geopolitical interests to do so. Hell, it's not "defending" anything when you're the aggressor.
    • brstilson, on 07/13/2008, -29/+40Borders imposed upon the Palestinians by Europe as they carved up the middle east after World War II and justified by an irrational religious crusade. The Jewish state has no right to be there. They lost their claim to that land after being defeated by the Romans. The creation of Israel would be like me going to Scotland and seizing a plot of land by force because it belonged to my ancestors.
      • unreg, on 07/13/2008, -6/+35Tell that to the Native Americain indians
      • 1of42, on 07/13/2008, -10/+38... if the Jewish state has no right to be there due to their defeat thousands of years ago, why should the Palestinians have any right to be there? This argument cuts both ways. Personally, I think both have the right to be there.
      • 1longtime, on 07/13/2008, -11/+23Stupidly, naively, and inaccurately simplified history of the Middle East. Thanks.
      • ExaltedDragon1, on 07/13/2008, -23/+15Isreal and Palestine were given the same amount land after WWII, the palestinians and other abrab nations attacked Isreal as soon as it was formed. Isreal was able to defend itself.

        If the situation were reversed, the palestinians would wipe out every jewish and christian soul living in Isreal.
      • faatbuddha, on 07/13/2008, -7/+11Dugg for "abrab" and "IsREAL" and amazing hypothetical knowledge.
      • solistus, on 07/13/2008, -6/+18unreg: Yeah, they got a pretty raw deal, too. That's why many academics who study it call our depopulation of the US the American Holocaust. We killed 99% of the indigenous population of the continent. Some was unintentional, but much was not, and after the deed was mostly done, we forcibly relocated them to the ***** land we could find.

        1of42: Funny story. Greece often angrily demands that various territories once conquered by Alexander the Great be returned to Greek control. Places like, say, Istanbul, the capital of modern Turkey. Can you imagine the geopolitical chaos that would be caused if ancient land holdings were accepted in other cases? Virtually every piece of land worth controlling has changed hands at least a few times over the course of history. I agree that the people living in the region now, whether Jewish or Muslim (or neither), Palestinian or Israeli, have the right to be there and should not be forcibly deported. However, that doesn't mean Israel's initial claim to the land as sovereign territory based on ancient history should be considered legitimate. We can be reasonable and have empathy for the people living in Israel now while recognising that the initial creation of Israel was unjust.

        ExaltedDragon: By 'given equal land,' you mean that half the land currently occupied by Palestinians was given over to the Israelis. This is in addition to the small tracts of land controlled by the early Zionist settlers who started colonising the region in the late 19th century.

        Your ignorance of the Six Day War is astounding. Two obvious things jump out just from your brief statements on it. First of all, PALESTINE WAS NOT A NATION in 1967. It's not even a full nation now, but Palestinian lands were under Jordan's control primarily at the time. Egypt, Jordan and Syria were the allies against Israel, although other countries (such as Iraq) contributed troops. The biggest issue, though, kinda sinks your whole "everything was fair until Israel was forced to defend itself" *****: THE SIX DAY WAR WAS INSTIGATED BY ISRAEL. Israel launched preemptive strikes amid mounting tensions on the Egyptian air force. Egypt responded by declaring war, and Syria and Jordan joined in as Egypt's allies. Egypt did close access to a strategic strait to Israeli ships beforehand, but that is not an act of war under international law; it's legitimate economic pressure. Israel responded with bombers, sparking the war. Syria had a binding mutual defence agreement with Egypt, and Jordan was dragged in at fear of a civil war if they stayed neutral due to the population's outrage. You know Nasser's infamous "our objective will be to destroy Israel" comment? It was made as an explicit threat IF Israel attacked Syria or Egypt: "If Israel embarks on an aggression against Syria or Egypt, the battle against Israel will be a general one and not confined to one spot on the Syrian or Egyptian borders. The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel." Israel chose to attack Egypt anyway, knowing that Syria had a defence pact and had pledged to uphold it. In the course of its "self-defence," Israel razed many Palestinian villages, not for strategic reasons but as a form of collective punishment and to chase the Palestinians away. Google "Qalqilya" for but one example (luckily, the destruction of Qalqilya was halted about halfway through by desperate appeals to the government from Israeli activists and intellectuals, but not before nearly 900 homes, businesses and public buildings had been destroyed by the Israeli military. Qalqilya was already subdued and under Israeli military occupation, and there is no evidence that the decision to raze the town had any strategic purpose or merit.
      • TheLoneHoot, on 07/13/2008, -2/+6@ solistus - BRILLIANT!

        If I could digg you a thousand times for this I would. Well done and thank you!
      • brstilson, on 07/14/2008, -3/+5"Isreal and Palestine were given the same amount land after WWII,"
        The Palestinians owned all that land until Britain took half of it away and gave it to Jewish settlers. That's like saying the Native Americans and the European settlers showed up on American soil at the same time and nobody was living there before.

        "the palestinians and other abrab nations attacked Isreal as soon as it was formed."
        False. As someone else elegantly pointed out, the six day war was caused by a PRE-EMPTIVE attack by ISRAELI forces. I wonder where the current neocon doctrine of Pre-emptive war comes from...

        "Isreal was able to defend itself."
        From being attacked after instigating it to begin with? Sure

        "If the situation were reversed, the palestinians would wipe out every jewish and christian soul living in Isreal."
        Enough of them would, that's for sure. You seem to be confusing my attack of the jewish government with an endorsement of palestinian terrorist. It is not. They are both wrong.

        However, Israel is here now, and Israelis have made a home in that land. Kicking them out now would be just as wrong as wedging Israel into that land in the first place. That still doesn't make the reasons for Israel being there automatically just. I'm just acknowledging that the palestinians have legitimate reason to be upset with the West and Israel, which they see as a puppet government of the West. It is the Zionist interests in Washington that keep us mired in these wars. Men like Joe Lieberman should be wearing an Israeli flag pin, since his loyalties seem to lie more with Israel than they do the country he's supposed to be serving.

        Keep in mind when I talk about Zionist interests, I'm talking about organizations like AIPAC that want to keep this country a slave to Israel's interests. They are parasites that leech our tax dollars, funneling them to a regime that can be just as repressive as their Islamic neighbors. I'm talking about the people who are Jews first and Americans second, a small minority compared with the community of average Jewish-Americans. AIPAC is essentially the KKK of judaism.
      • zeabu, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2@Solistus: Istanbul is NOT the capital of Turkey. Ankara is.
      • solistus, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1zeabu: *slaps forehead* Jeez, it must have been a long night. You're absolutely correct. Istanbul is the largest city in Turkey, however, which is the point I meant to make. Thanks for the correction.
    • m0n0kr0m3, on 07/13/2008, -9/+28When has Iran invaded another country that wasn't attacking them?
      • blackjack75, on 07/13/2008, -1/+21I think the movie was called 300.
      • m0n0kr0m3, on 07/14/2008, -0/+5Great Answer!!!!! :D
      • sadafali, on 07/14/2008, -1/+0that was more that 2500 years ago.
      • solistus, on 07/15/2008, -1/+2sadafali: It was a joke. The aggressor in that scenario was the Persian Empire, at any rate. Blaming modern-day Iran for that would be like blaming Mexico for the Aztec Empire's human sacrifices.
      • sadafali, on 07/21/2008, -0/+0I'm well aware it was a joke!
    • Corrosionx, on 07/13/2008, -11/+13Then why beg the US for military money every year?
    • lukas88, on 07/13/2008, -6/+6How well did Israel respect borders in 1948? Not trying to take sides but at the same time, it is not as simple as you make it out to be.
    • Mikhail101, on 07/14/2008, -4/+2To defend them from what? A country with no nukes?
  • Conspiracy20, on 07/13/2008, -59/+393Where ARE their borders? No war for Israel. No more dead US boys.
    • schweinehundXX, on 07/13/2008, -12/+146BUT THEY HAVE PHOTOSHOP!
      • Colesif, on 07/13/2008, -1/+27***** WMD's, it's the PSD's that are really scary!
      • mostfynest, on 07/14/2008, -4/+0Guys this is history in the making, this is all about oil, total control of the middle eastern oil will offset your quasi recession state, support this, with Iran out of the way there will be less hurdles to cross, Syria will be next and all the other funny sounding country names like Oman and Yemen, we need that oil, they don't deserve it, better we take pre emptive control now before the likes of China and Russia do something drastic... we control the oil... we control the world. This is the way it should be, the UN countries and it's allies the US etc and New Zealand where I'm from have proven throughout history to be responsible non waring pro democracy countries, so think about this before you digg me down, I mean why do the Arabs and Islam deserve OUR cash just because they settled on land that contains commodoties that drive our economies? What have they contributed to us in the way of science, medicine, technology etc? Thats right, nothing we owe these wars to our future generations. Get educated and think openly before you digg me down. Haliburton Bush Cheney Obama blah blah may profit somewhat from this, but look at the big picture here... IT IS WHAT IS BEST FOR THE WORLD.
    • InetRoadkill, on 07/13/2008, -6/+67I might point out that The TimesOnline is a Rupert Murdoch rag, so treat the article as you would FoxNews. The disinformation is apparent starting in the headline "As Tehran tests new missiles, America believes only a show of force can deter President Ahmadinejad". First off, the missiles aren't new and secondly Ahmadinnerplate doesn't control Iran's military. He's just a noisy figurehead with little actual power.

      On the other hand, I don't think there's any doubt that Bush is looking for an excuse to get his war on once again. It's unfortunate that Iran is playing into their hands with this display.
      • rpgmaker, on 07/13/2008, -1/+18That's what I keep saying. Those missile testing footage could be very old in the hands of the government but they are releasing it now in order to push forward their agenda. Those missile footage aren't even a reason to go to war, is amazing how the media can actually convince people that it is. We're so screwed. A part of me is very thankful that my country isn't an oil producer giant, it would be a bitch to deal with the US on that respect.
      • OHaloThar, on 07/13/2008, -10/+2"I might point out that The TimesOnline is a Rupert Murdoch rag, so treat the article as you would FoxNews."

        Fair and accurate?
      • Myonosken, on 07/13/2008, -1/+5Eh....Lets not be so harsh on The Times. Because of the way the British media is, they are not ever anywhere near as close to Fox News as they'd like to be.
    • Idiggapony, on 07/13/2008, -22/+15Conspiracy20 believes that Israel is responsible for the 9/11 attacks. If that were true, there would be a few thousand Americans who died for Israel. Other than them, which dead US boys is he or she talking about?

      Conspiracy20 does have one point though. There has never been any agreement about where Israel's borders lie. Most Arab states, Iran, and the many terrorist groups that now attack Israel have declared that they will not recognize the existence of Israel within any borders.
      • Conspiracy20, on 07/13/2008, -5/+16Conspiracy20 believes that Israel is responsible for the 9/11 attacks. If that were true, there would be a few thousand Americans who died for Israel. Other than them, which dead US boys is he or she talking about?
        YOU said this I didn't. It is interesting to note you dismiss US soldiers deaths as only a "few thousand". I doubt their families would appreciate that.

        Israel is drawing secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with nuclear weapons, claimed a report in British newspaper Sunday Times. (This is just one of many)

        I'll repeat the question though, Where do the ISRAELIS consider their borders?
      • rpgmaker, on 07/13/2008, -7/+15They are not considering any borders, they just want to be the giant of the region and since the the US really needs them as an ally on the region they're furthering their agenda. It would be fun if the Israelis get big and powerful enough to be a threat to the US and they start to run the propaganda machinery against them.
      • InetRoadkill, on 07/13/2008, -4/+18The US doesn't need Israel as a strategic ally. The reality is that Israel is more of a liability to the US than an asset. If it weren't for the religious ties to Christianity and the fact that Christianity is the dominant religion in the US, Israel would have been dumped a long time ago.
      • d3lta, on 07/13/2008, -2/+9What on earth are you talking about? It has nothing to do with the ties to Christianity. It has everything to do with the fact that some of the most powerful (read rich corporate houses/businessmen) men in the country consider Israel to be their second home.
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 07/13/2008, -2/+10Folks, it's *all of the above*.

        The US' ties to Israel is not a cut & dried, simple affair. There are multi-layered reasons for our relationship, and they are complex, but many of them have been hit upon by the posters above me.
      • Idiggapony, on 07/13/2008, -2/+8Conspiracy20, I apologize if I misrepresented your views. I assumed that you believe that 9/11 was an Israeli plot, on the basis of the fact that one of your three "favorites" is a bizarre rant about how 9/11 was an Israeli plot. And also because I can't figure out what else you could have meant by US boys dying for Israel.

        Some of Israel's borders, such as those with Egypt and Lebanon, have been established my mutual agreement. Others have not. The Israeli government has attempted to negotiate with Palestinian Arab representatives to establish borders in the West Bank, but no agreement has been reached, and neither Israel nor the U.N. has established where Israel's border on the West Bank lies.


      • ZZeke, on 07/13/2008, -4/+7RPG - Israel already is a major threat to the US...both at home and abroad. I find it amazing that Israel can completely dominate the politics and policies of this country, yet somehow people do not see this as a threat. I'd say it's fairly obvious who wears the pants in the Israel/US relationship. They've got us jumping through higher and higher hoops all the time, and we're just supposed to ignore their policy of racial genocide, or be dubbed as "anti-semites" for calling it like it is.
        Most of the Israeli public would be happy to have it's country withdraw to the 1967 borders, which would also appease it's Arab neighbors and most likely bring relative peace to the region. Unfortunately, the government of Israel sides with these folks:
        http://zionistsout.blogspot.com/2006/12/we-killed- ...
        This story and video are available from many different sources, and it certainly puts the spotlight on what's really been going on in Israel. This kind of extremist ***** needs to be stopped at once before Israel can ever seek to describe itself as a peaceful member of the international community, and if the US had any integrity it would demand that Israel get it's own priorities straightened out before they attempt to further interfere in our country's policies. Why a nation which allows such hatred to breed openly (and protects it) should have any influence over our political system is beyond me - but then again, we did put them there to begin with, and we have supported them even when they directly attack us! (see USS Liberty http://www.gtr5.com/ )
      • zer0nix, on 07/13/2008, -3/+2it's called destabilizing the region. it's one of the key steps to imperial conquer. high risk, high gain.

        the religious angle is just a bonus.
      • solid12345, on 07/13/2008, -2/+2If America supports Israel because of Christianity than likewise Iran supports the Palestinians because they are Muslim. Don't play the "only we are the religious nutbuckets" card.
      • Conspiracy20, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1Idiggapony I appreciate your answer.
        I am confused on many issues here. Perhaps you can clarify for me. These are real questions.
        From your statement above some of the borders are in negotiation. Where do the Israelis see their borders (what are they offering the other side)? The Golan heights is also a matter of concern?
        The two stripes on the Israeli flag are said to be Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates river. What do they represent?
        Thanks
      • foopirata, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2Conspiracy20: Most of Israelis see the final borders as pre-1967 with an unified Jerusalem.

        The Golan is a huge matter of concern, given its strategic dominance over most of northern Israel.

        The two stripes represent the talit, the jewish prayer shawl.
      • Conspiracy20, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Thank you!
    • LeeSoong, on 07/13/2008, -6/+84Actually,
      The U.S.A. should be in favor
      of letting Israel deal with Israel's problems.

      There are a total of : 000,000,000.00
      Iranian threats in Texas.
      • goon5000, on 07/13/2008, -25/+6what, you dont think there are hezbollah idiots in texas?
      • NuclearIsShit, on 07/13/2008, -4/+52I agree! What does Israel need more foreign aid then all of Africa combined for anyway? That money could have been used to build more schools in the USA never mind buying Israel a bunch of fighter jets and nukes.
      • zer0nix, on 07/13/2008, -5/+22clearly, you are an anti-semite.

        /sarcasm
      • Gosroth, on 07/13/2008, -3/+8no, I think the correct term would be anti-dentite
      • Nowheredan, on 07/13/2008, -1/+2I'd be all in favor of Israel handling their own problems with Iran if we wouldn't be drawn into it within hours. And even if we weren't, we'd be paying for it by sending billions of dollars' worth of military hardware to Israel for free.
      • LeeSoong, on 07/14/2008, -0/+5Africa can deal with Africa's problems for that matter.

        If they can ever settle down and stop committing random acts of genocide and work together collectively - perhaps African nations will improve situations of poverty, food shortages, and run away inflation...

        I don't see African nations sending helpers to Montana to clear snow for the ski resorts nor fix pot holes in the roads.

        The U.S. can offer aid to real friends of the USA and do what must be done to protect American assets world wide - but sometimes people have to just work out their problems amongst themselves.
    • ciaran036, on 07/13/2008, -5/+40Don't forget all the innocent Iranians too. We don't want them dead neither.
    • IHaveCrayons, on 07/13/2008, -19/+8How does Israel going to war = dead American soldiers exactly? "No more dead US soldiers" has become a tired slogan added to anything REMOTELY political, it's sad. Actually, a lot of what conspiracy20 is saying does sound like slogans just mixed up. Such as "No war for Israel" kind of sounds like... "No war for oil" doesn't it? Ah we'll just switch up slogans and make them fit whenever we want no matter the issue.
      • ZZeke, on 07/13/2008, -4/+8I think the recurring theme goes right over your head, so let me pitch it to you real slow:

        NO MORE ***** WAR !!!

        See there? It *does* make sense....

      • IHaveCrayons, on 07/13/2008, -1/+3Ok so, Israel going to war = dead American soldiers still to you? Of course it *DOES* make sense for you in your mind consisting only of empty convoluted mantras with no hope of solid rhetoric or argument.
      • ParaSwarm, on 07/14/2008, -1/+3Yeah, IHaveCrayons, it does. Because some islamic group somewhere will retaliate with a terrorist attack on our soil. They don't attack us because they hate our freedom. They do it because we keep ***** with them first.

        We need a change in foreign policy.
      • Hangly, on 07/14/2008, -1/+2This is the first law of aspergerian politics, which states that a proposition becomes wrong (or lame) as soon as it is no longer new.

        e.g., are you guys STILL talking about Ron Paul? That guy was so three months ago.

        Principles be damned, it's novelty that counts on the internets.
      • ZZeke, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1No, crayons: WAR = DEAD INNOCENTS

        Also, "no war for oil" was a perfectly legitimate slogan (maybe you didn't notice, but the oil co's just got their deal a week or two ago, and now the Iraqi's are talking about a timetable for pullout), and it has absolutely nothing to do with those who see war with Iran as war for Israel.

        maybe you should enlist, since you think opposing war is such a bad thing....
    • tunderttbrunei, on 07/13/2008, -4/+8The Times maybe owned by Rupert Murdoch, but they are an independent newspaper in the UK which have columists reporting around the world for the website and newspaper. I think there is every truth in this article and that Bush has just made another mistake. And anyway why were they waiting for Bush's permission?
      • dashboardradio, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1Without his permission, it would be easy for the US to stop supplying them with weapons, money, etc. Now that they have approval they know the funding is there.
    • ted510, on 07/13/2008, -2/+11How about no more war at all? And no dead anybody instead of only "US boys"?
    • ShimonDigg, on 07/13/2008, -13/+5Iran: Israel is a disease that will be wiped off the map. The Glorious Islamic Republic of Iran has a right to nuclear power!!

      *Israel blows Iran to ******

      Iran: What was that for!?!? EVIL ZIONISTS ZIONIST WORLD CONTROL BANKING ZIONIST LOBBY WORLD CONTROL HOLOCAUST LOBBY ZIONIST WORLD CONTROL HOLOHOAX

      16 Year old Digg'rs: EVIL ZIONISTS!!! ZIONIST WORLD CONTROL BANKING ZIONIST LOBBY WORLD CONTROL HOLOHOAX EVIL ZIONIST BANKING ISRAEL LOBBY
      • BirdCatcher, on 07/13/2008, -3/+6wtf? O_o
      • awasson, on 07/14/2008, -1/+2And there's the proof that you watch Fox.
        Read a book... Go traveling.... Learn about the rest of the world.
    • kgreen69er, on 07/13/2008, -7/+4It's not too late for one more dead U.S. boy...........BUSH!!!!...............Oh *****, gotta go the FBI just showed up at my door.
    • joshuasawyer, on 07/13/2008, -0/+4I agree with your comment, but I wouldn't call our soldiers "boys".
    • Rubiksphere, on 07/13/2008, -2/+5I don't understand why we're so supportive of Israel. I know they got a ***** deal in World War II, but they should of saw a lot of this ***** coming when they agreed to take the most holy territory in the western world.
    • Vigilo, on 07/13/2008, -2/+4Bush doesn't control jack he is a puppet. Israel does whatever it wants the U.S. is lucky they are even being briefed on an attack. Iran gets attacked the world is facked.
    • EccentricCdn, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2Russia backs Iran nuclear rights
      http://digg.com/world_news/Russia_backs_Iran_nucle ...
      • LeeSoong, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1I don't see why the USA couldn't just work with Iran to help grow their nuclear power program.

        There is plenty of profit to be made building reactors,
        and if someone needs to make a profit - it might as well be USA corporations.
      • Hangly, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2Negotiating with enemies humanizes and legitimizes them. Israel would prefer you all saw Muslims the way they see them, which is as subhuman brutes.
      • EccentricCdn, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1I meant the link as a "Oh crap what are we getting into" sort of link.
    • yuanzhoulu, on 07/14/2008, -0/+3wtf, why can Bush give the "OK" to Israel.
      Israel is a country, they can decide.
    • yuanzhoulu, on 07/14/2008, -1/+4we're going from oil to turmoil.
    • chlyon, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1There will be no stopping American aggression , (or that of its alies) when the underlying motives for said acts remain . IE Profiting from war in the forrm of weapons sales oil contracts awarded on no bid contracts , etc etc the list goes on . And all that's required to achieve billions in personal wealth and power , is that your willing to kill one Innocent person . Cos whats the difference between killing 1 innocent or 1 million ?
  • stfucupcake, on 07/13/2008, -76/+1026Bush is determined to be the downfall of America.
    • lazerflesh, on 07/13/2008, -14/+61That really is a 'no *****' by now. I hear that every time I read a political article.
      • tkstock, on 07/13/2008, -6/+2Regardless of whether or not the political article has anything to do with Bush, I'm sure you hear it in your mind anyways.
    • ZephyrNinety, on 07/13/2008, -125/+24Yes, of course. Why don't you learn something about this country and our affairs instead of just making stupid statements on the internet?
      • weech, on 07/13/2008, -15/+40you fail
      • charm803, on 07/13/2008, -9/+23Why don't YOU learn something about this country and our affairs instead of just rebutting with stupid statements on the internet?


      • Gosroth, on 07/13/2008, -3/+1eh, with the direction we are going in.. it isn't the internet but the intertubes
      • kevinwiz, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2Oh how I wish your comment had some substance so I could rip the ***** out of it
    • InetRoadkill, on 07/13/2008, -13/+55This idea has disaster written all over it. Then again, Bush's greatest talent is failure. The unfortunate part is that it seems that everyone except Bush is left responsible for the mess and has to suffer the consequences as a result.

      Pelosi has threatened Bush with impeachment if he attacks (yeah, right). I would imagine that if an attack is launched, it will be during the congressional recess in August to prevent that from happening.
      • HxChris91, on 07/13/2008, -1/+29Congress hasn't done ***** to help the situation, if anything they have fuelled Bush's fire, they are just as bad as our commander in chief.
      • AutoTom, on 07/13/2008, -14/+6TODAY WILL BE REMEMBERED... AS THE DAY THE THIRD WORLD WAR BEGAN.

        It's a sad day for all of us.
      • rearlgrant, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2Dugg for "(yeah, right)."
    • waydee, on 07/13/2008, -16/+82Bush is determined to be the downfall of the Western world, this ***** drags us all down the same slope.
    • winnestow, on 07/13/2008, -37/+12iran can do in six seconds what it took hitler six years to do
      • tkstock, on 07/13/2008, -6/+35Surrender?
      • AutoTom, on 07/13/2008, -8/+20get ass raped by the allies?

        ( HOO-RAH!! )
      • WalkerTXclocker, on 07/13/2008, -4/+2Kill themselves?
      • WalkerTXclocker, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1K, my comment was directed to what Hitler did(kill himself) not to Iran.
        Sheesh!
    • kosmoss, on 07/13/2008, -23/+3Bury this article, do not add more oil into the fire. (or you really like canned beans)
      • FFandMMfan, on 07/13/2008, -0/+8Dude, canned beans are ***** awesome.
        Don't diss the beans, especially if they have hot dogs in 'em.
    • 3amboo, on 07/13/2008, -19/+29i wanna cut his nuts off
    • DeskFlyer, on 07/13/2008, -7/+12He accomplished that task long ago.
    • lifeasariver, on 07/13/2008, -4/+25he is not alone, that's why it works.
      House H.CON.RES 362
      Senate S.RES 580

      calling for naval blockade against iran and likely to be sent to floor during the august recession (anyone has any doubts that it will pass?). check the number of democrats co-sponsors.

      Pelosi? she's just a traitor of the same fabric as Cheney.
    • masamunecyrus, on 07/13/2008, -3/+21This is more than a simple problem. A war with Iran would shed the US of all of its allies, engulf us in a war with the entire middle east, and China would have no choice but to get involved as they rely on Iranian oil (for those that doubt China getting involved, take oil away from the US and what happens? Bombs. So what happens if you take oil away from China?). Russia would, of course, love to get involved, too, seeing that Iran and China are nearly Russian allies. This would not be just another Iraq, this would not be just another war.
      • chaosblade77, on 07/13/2008, -0/+3The problem is, China also relies on the US to purchase their services; we are their biggest customer. China would more than likely be forced to stay neutral because losing the US would drastically hurt their economy.
      • masamunecyrus, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1That is true. Russia and Iran would gain from "defeating" the United States, but China has nothing to gain by a decline of the US. The problem is, they also -rely- on Iranian oil. It puts them in a tough position.
      • rearlgrant, on 07/14/2008, -0/+3And the U.S. Treasury relies on China for cash flow... I mean debt servicing.
    • ipaholic, on 07/13/2008, -6/+14And Israel is determined to be the downfall of the world.

      And I mean that literally. Google 'samson option.'
    • 4ZERO1, on 07/13/2008, -7/+5Bush has been the downfall of America.
      • kevinwiz, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1Commenter basically just said the same thing.
    • Stonekeeper, on 07/13/2008, -3/+5The agenda of those behind this sock puppet is to bring unrest to areas it wishes to introduce change. Fascism here we come.
    • N01SE, on 07/13/2008, -5/+15Correct Title: Bush gives Israel the OK to prepare for a strike against Iran
      You all should actually read the damn article, title is incorrect, quote from article:
      "Nor is it certain that Bush’s amber light would ever turn to green without irrefutable evidence of lethal Iranian hostility." Since you are children who do not know how to read or think critically of postings and information, the article states the president supported a preparation for strike, not a strike, big difference. Whether or not he will support a strike is unknown at this point and saying otherwise is mere speculation. The article also states that the pentagon told Israel that they could not look to the U.S. for any support or use any U.S. military bases if a strike occurs. DON'T READ ONLY THE TITLE THEN JUMP ON THE BANDWAGON.
    • CrushThemTorg, on 07/13/2008, -4/+5So is Bush just trying to do as much silly ***** as possible before he goes?
    • Haoie, on 07/13/2008, -7/+1At least the election for you guys is only a few months away.
      • danthemanhan, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2and what will that accomplish?
      • Hangly, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2Our oppressor will be a slightly different color?
    • tillerman00, on 07/13/2008, -1/+3Virtually the entire US government is complicit as well.
    • Iztikeit, on 07/13/2008, -2/+2If you think Bush is the key figure in the latest American downfall you're just looking for the easiest possible answer.

      The President may be much more than a figure head now but that figure head rarely makes many decisions on its own.
    • lazlonger, on 07/13/2008, -1/+3ah. I see you're just back from the future. like... next week.....
    • EccentricCdn, on 07/14/2008, -1/+3Russia backs Iran nuclear rights
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7046258.stm
    • anarcurt, on 07/14/2008, -0/+5It's so easy to blame Bush. If your looking for blame for the downfall of America it's each and every one of us. Power hungry assholes will do what power hungry assholes do. Every day we let this circus go on we seal our own fate. We are all too worried about our jobs or prison to riot at such atrocities. *****, what will it take?
    • qwertycopter, on 07/14/2008, -2/+3Stop him. Stop him! SOMEBODY ***** STOP HIM!
      • PistolFred, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1See anarcurt's comment directly above. It's not easy but if the citizenry don't do it, no one will. Yes, the Bush administration ignores protests and opposing opinions big time but, the truth is, if we don't try, nothing will get done.

        The one thing they can't ignore is the vote. I do think there was some serious vote manipulation in 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006. It will happen again in 2008. But they can only move numbers up and down a bit. *** Make sure you vote. *** If the Democrats have enough to win, the larger the margin, the harder it is for the tricks to give the presidency to the Republicans.
    • EwMo, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1*the world.
    • callampa, on 07/14/2008, -1/+2not the downfall of america, just the rise of companies that function on the same level of nations; and are run by his family and friends.
    • CVL4317, on 07/14/2008, -0/+3I wish for "Bush gives everyone the OK to kill him"
    • ansatsu29, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1Amen!

      Anyone who made a decision like this, is a recipe for disaster, or in this case, WW3. What a ***** bonehead's decision.
    • Hangly, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1Der Untergang des Mitternachtlands.
    • tehbored, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1He's doing a damn good job of it, too.
    • Xill, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1Bush is there to take the blame, they are other people behind him making the decisions that need to be trialled for crimes against humanity.
  • rexblade, on 07/13/2008, -48/+273Ugh makes me sick to think of yet another war forged on lies and manipulations. Shame on any country who lobbies to bomb innocent people. And shame on any country that considers that type of action rather then try to get along. If they do bomb Iran then I do not feel sorry for them for the retaliation they will invoke upon themselves.
    • pdarg, on 07/13/2008, -32/+25iran has been calling for the destruction of israel for quite some time now. to call open threats lies and manipulations is a little misplaced. additionally israel's goal is to destroy iran's ability to create nuclear weapons not bomb indiscriminately.

      i dont agree with us military action as we are not immediately threatened but israel is.
      • FTWmovin2canada, on 07/13/2008, -8/+15There is a difference between killing innocent people and coming to a solution about a state who's borders we drew from other countries.
      • waydee, on 07/13/2008, -10/+26Yeah because Israel has such a great history of strategically bombing her neighbours and not harming civilians.

        Get a ***** grip, this is Israel looking for an excuse to finally kick off all out war in the region.
      • humptyz, on 07/13/2008, -8/+17Who the ***** cares about Israel?
      • Noodleson, on 07/13/2008, -7/+8israelis?
      • Mushroomhero, on 07/13/2008, -12/+8RedneckFrmSouth, you're pretty damn redneck that's for sure. What do you mean no one cares about Israel's problems? You've made it clear that you don't, but I think I'm glad the rest of the world doesn't share your opinions. How about another beer?
      • ZZeke, on 07/13/2008, -3/+7@mushroom - No, really - no one really gives a ***** anymore. If Israel wanted peace, they could have had it at least a dozen times in the last 30 years. We spend billions of tax dollars - YOUR MONEY - on Israel and the "peace process", and for some strange reason, things keep getting WORSE, not better. If your boss paid you to dig a ditch, and instead you decide to build a mountain, how long do you think he would keep you on his payroll? Think about it - your government is funding an apartheid wall with military checkpoints that would make Stalin jealous, with your money! Is that something an American should be proud of?
        Just to be clear - I do not support suicide bombers or any violent "solution" to this problem. Nevertheless, it's high time Israel does something real and tangible to ease tensions, or the bombs and rockets will never fully cease, and perhaps some people feel there's a legitimate reason for that.
    • schultenick, on 07/13/2008, -7/+31most wars are based on lies and manipulations, WWI assasination, Hitler in WWII, Commies in vietnam...
      • ammundsen, on 07/13/2008, -1/+7WWII lies weren't limited to Hitler. The justification of defending Poland falls flat considering the US and Britain allied with one of the two parties that made war on Poland. Also there is considerable evidence FDR maneuvered to get the Japanese to attack us.
      • thekronz, on 07/13/2008, -6/+6What the ***** is up with you diggers and conspiracies??? Sorry that WWII started because a dictator was taking over Europe. Sorry Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand was killed. Where is the lies and manipulations there? Digg me down, I don't give a *****, but all of you guys are ridiculous. And that "considerable evidence" for FDR? We pressed sanctions because the Japanese were ***** ALLIES with the Nazis. And the leader of Iran? It's not weird that he thinks we should be completely wiped off the face of the earth??? And hes developing nuclear weapons? Yeah lets just let this one pass.

        Theres no ***** lies there. Just listen to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talk.
    • Setari, on 07/13/2008, -7/+15To be fair, the article does mention that this is only a course of action if diplomatic relations break down.
      • HonestAbe, on 07/13/2008, -6/+11*****. This is the only course of action Bush is even considering. He's just pushing any buttons he can to achieve it.
      • RobotCitizen, on 07/13/2008, -2/+6Which means the next step is to make sure talks break down.
      • hargbine, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1that is the same rhetoric given prior to invading Iraq
    • popfrogs, on 07/13/2008, -2/+34War is big business, and right now, business is booming. Never delude yourself for even a second that it's about anything other than money.
      • lifeasariver, on 07/13/2008, -1/+17amen
      • FlyingSpaghetti, on 07/13/2008, -1/+8Peace sells, but who's buying?
      • ansatsu29, on 07/14/2008, -2/+4agree with you..war is a kind of business at the cost of human lives
      • Hangly, on 07/14/2008, -1/+2Money isn't an end in itself though. Only power is its own end.
    • Technohamster, on 07/13/2008, -0/+15The real losers will be the people, don't you think? You can always feel sorry for civilians. If we get another middle east war I'll feel sorry for anyone involved. War sucks. :-(
    • RobotBuddha, on 07/13/2008, -6/+7"Shame on any country who lobbies to bomb innocent people. "

      So pretty much every single country in existence today? Civilian death is just the nature of war these days. It's unfourtunate, and I'd say that almost nothing can justify it. But to condem it as a whole is a pretty difficult thing to do as well.
    • Seng, on 07/13/2008, -14/+5Yeah, lies and manipulation... Iran has made it very public that they seek nuclear fuel, refining plants, etc. "for peaceful purposes," yet they turn around and flash their medium-range ballistic missiles for the world to see. (AND even Photoshop them to make them look like a more-successful test).

      I guess the Iranian ministry of Intelligence is run by the USA, right? I'm sick of the left-wing, liberal "Hate-the-US" Americans around right now. You don't like this country, leave!
      • quadkid, on 07/13/2008, -6/+3thank you. this country is going to ***** because of its peoples lack of support with ANYTHING involving the government. I just cant wait to see the 15% vote rate later this year, then listen to 90% of the people online bitch and moan.
      • syowr, on 07/13/2008, -1/+7You don't even know why Iran chose to test those missles when they did? If you are going to have an opinion on happenings on the world stage you need to know what is going on before you open your mouth.

        *hint* It was in response to something Isreal did a couple weeks earlier. I'll leave it to you to research it. I'm sure you would hate to come of as an ill-informed asshat who just parrots whatever he sees on FOX...

      • rexblade, on 07/14/2008, -1/+3What choice did Iran have? They have heard for years now Israel and the U.S. literally hoping for an excuse to attack them. Then arrogant Israel decides to stage a practice attack a week prior. Meanwhile the us is being all nicey nice to north Korea for deciding to stop their Nuclear weapon program. I think it was a smart move by Iran seeing how we now have a history of invading and bombing even without evidence.
    • mostfynest, on 07/14/2008, -1/+0Guys this is history in the making, this is all about oil, total control of the middle eastern oil will offset your quasi recession state, support this, with Iran out of the way there will be less hurdles to cross, Syria will be next and all the other funny sounding country names like Oman and Yemen, we need that oil, they don't deserve it, better we take pre emptive control now before the likes of China and Russia do something drastic... we control the oil... we control the world. This is the way it should be, the UN countries and it's allies the US etc and New Zealand where I'm from have proven throughout history to be responsible non waring pro democracy countries, so think about this before you digg me down, I mean why do the Arabs and Islam deserve OUR cash just because they settled on land that contains commodoties that drive our economies? What have they contributed to us in the way of science, medicine, technology etc? Thats right, nothing we owe these wars to our future generations. Get educated and think openly before you digg me down. Haliburton Bush Cheney Obama blah blah may profit somewhat from this, but look at the big picture here... IT IS WHAT IS BEST FOR THE WORLD.
      • hargbine, on 07/14/2008, -1/+2are you serious??
        "it's allies the US etc ... have proven throughout history to be responsible non waring pro democracy countries"

        Um, what about interfering with the democratically elected government of Iraq of the 50's, what about messing with Nicaragua during the Reagan administration?
      • toowired77, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1"What have they contributed to us in the way of science, medicine, technology etc?" - Wow! What ignorance. Where did we get the words Algorithm or Algebra? The first universities of the world came from that region. They were translating ancient Greek text when the Catholics still considered them a work of the devil. Read up on Islamic Spain.

        Does New Zealand even have an army? I would love to see them fighting it out in the Middle East. Or, do you expect American troops to fight your battles?
      • mostfynest, on 07/15/2008, -1/+0When it comes too it the US has 12,000 nuclear warheads so why would we bother going to the middle east? If total annihalation of these oil producing countries is what it takes then so be it, it's either that or would you prefer to be whipped in a rice paddy by some little Chinese man? Good on you Bush and well done too Obama for pulling the biggest hoax over the whole world I have ever seen, these ppl know what they're doing and unfortunatley these are the pre emptive actions we have to take before the Rise of the Dragon and Putin's Egocentricity wants to leave his mark in history by setting off WW3. We owe this war too our future generations, and to us civilized westerner's before it's too late. Thank God Bush had the insight to see this when he invaded Iraq. I Think a few million deaths far outweighs billions of deaths in the enivatable face of WW3 we face unless we CONTROL THE OIL OF THE WORLD.
      • Dquist, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1How is this self-righteous, sociopathic, foolishness not being buried? It is pure and blatant belligerence... Diggers you disappoint sometimes. Hargbine and toowired77, I thank (and applaud) you for combating such ignorance with your insights. I am simply too shocked to reply with such candor.
      • mostfynest, on 07/15/2008, -0/+0Dquist, I own more than you, I have more respect than you, I don't need to talk like a ***** dictionary either or judge someone a sociopath to get my opposing point across, just because your limited general knowledge doesn't get the big picture it shouldn't let you decry my comments, go back to your 9-5, mortgaged ass house and STFU you ignorant prick.
      • tounchin, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1report me for abuse if you want, but from me you are going to get a great, big...


        ***** YOU.
    • zekt, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1"Iran, you suck at photoshop"

      http://www.boingboing.net/2008/07/10/iran-you-suck ...

      If you wanted to adjust the price of your primary export item, all you need to do is put out a press release and the media will eat it up.
    • rexblade, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2@thekronz "Theres no ***** lies there. Just listen to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talk."

      So you speak Iranian then?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mScWWtRfGQ
  • FrankHope, on 07/13/2008, -50/+336In a sane world, Israel would become a pariah state if they attacked Iran. And the same sort of economic warfare that is being waged against Iran would be waged against Israel. But in the is-real world just as Rove and the Neocons are above US law, Israel is above international law.

    The connection between the special treatment of the Neocons and the special treatment of Israel is of course obvious to anyone who has not been brainwashed by the US MSM.
    • macweirdo42, on 07/13/2008, -6/+53Hell, even their techniques are the same. If you oppose what they're doing, you're labeled unpatriotic/antisemitic. Anything less than 100% agreement is aiding the terrorists.
      • cmackattack, on 07/13/2008, -0/+9You're not supposed to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who says it.
        -Malcolm X

        You'll never have a quiet world till you knock the patriotism out of the human race.
        -George Bernard Shaw

        To me, it seems a dreadful indignity to have a soul controlled by geography.
        -George Santayana

        Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.
        -Samuel Johnson

        I am not an Athenian or a Greek, I am a citizen of the world.
        -Socrates

        Democracy is not a state in which people act like sheep.
        -Mahatma Gandhi
      • RobotCitizen, on 07/13/2008, -1/+4Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.

        ~Albert Einstein
    • stanleyford, on 07/13/2008, -11/+14"In a sane world, Israel would become a pariah state if they attacked Iran." -- One nuclear weapon could destroy the entire state of Israel. Do you trust Iran to exercise restraint and responsibility in the use of nuclear weapons? Do you believe nuclear weapons proliferation would make Iran safer or more secure? Do you believe there is a diplomatic solution which would guarantee that Iran would not develop nuclear weapons?

      My definition of a "sane" world is one in which no nation possesses nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, barring the development of a time machine which would allow us to go back in time and disarm the world's present nuclear powers, that is impossible. The best we can do is to make sure no new nations gain nuclear weapons. If that involves limited military strikes in order to cripple the nuclear program of intransigent nations like Iran, so be it. It is far preferable to the alternative: a Middle East permanently destabilized by an unstable, hostile Iran poised with its finger on the trigger, with millions living in fear that one diplomatic gaffe or one zealous mullah could kill them and spark a worldwide conflagration.
      • curtisag, on 07/13/2008, -2/+33Israel has several nuclear armed subs off their coast. Any first strike with nuclear weapons on Israel would be followed by at least 20 to 30 nukes falling down on Iranian cities, completely destroying the entire country. It's called mutually assured destruction (MAD), and it worked for 40 years between the US and USSR. Iran is just not that stupid, this is all saber rattling in Iran to divert attention from the other serious problems that threaten Iran's Government from within. Ahmendinijad does not control the military and cannot order a first strike.
      • FrankHope, on 07/13/2008, -4/+25What's really insane is that the US continues to officially "pretend" that Israel has no nuclear weapons when Mordechai Vanunu revealed this in 1986. Even President Carter has stated that Israel has nuclear weapons, but the official policy is called "ambiguity", which means neither deny nor confirm Israel's nukes.

        So the real question is, would you be in favor of a US airstrike against Israel's nuclear facilities in order to eliminate all nukes from the Middle East?
      • p0s3r, on 07/13/2008, -15/+4MAD only works if the parties involved are rational actors. Iran isn't a rational actor.
      • orenshk, on 07/13/2008, -11/+2Yeah, the problem is that even if Israel does have nuclear weapons, it has clearly shown no intent to use. In other words, coupled with their nuclear arsenals, you will not find "Nation X should be erased of the map" statements, as opposed the the nation in discussion.
      • ubuwalker31, on 07/13/2008, -14/+4@FrankHope
        So, when Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Egypt attacked Israel during the Yom Kippur war, did that make them pariah states? And when Iran and Iraq supported terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians for the past 20 years, doesn't that make them pariah states as well? Of course not, in your view...everything Israel does to defend her existence is wrong. Israel should just roll over and die in your view.

        The fact of the matter is that Israel just wants to be left alone within its small nation. Iran wants to expand its territory into Iraq and destroy the State of Israel. Israel would never consider a nuclear strike against a country unless its very existence was threatened....if Iran had the capability, they would use a nuclear weapon against Israel or the US without a second thought. That is the difference.

        Dropping a conventional bunker buster bomb on a nuclear facility in Iran will not cause a greater war. Iran doesn't have the capability to go head to head with Israel.
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 07/13/2008, -3/+22There is *no evidence* that Iran wants to become an aggressive military attacker in the region. They have not invaded anyone in 200 years and their recent military engagements have been limited to internal schisms and fighting Saddam.

        Claiming that Iran is some kind of super dangerous maniac state ready to go on the warpath is just ***** trumpeted by scared little men who want to prove their manhood, like the chickenhawks in the Bush Administration. Apparently afraid to actually fight in a war themselves, they have to bolster their flaccid sense of machismo by forcing other poor young men & women to go out & get maimed & killed in their stead, attacking countries that are NO threat to the US.

        This is pathetic. Grow up.

        Prove that Iran is more of a threat than Pakistan, where fundamentalist Islamic maniacs are trained and fundie Moslem madrassahs predominate. Prove that Iran is more of a threat than North Korea, with a leader who is far more dangerous to the US than anyone in the ME. Prove that Iran has a leadership more tyranical than Zimbabwe, where Mugabe presides illegally and enforces his power with mass murder (after all, he's a "bad man" like Saddam, so by the metric given by the Bush Admin fans, he should be taken out, just like the Iraqi dictator, yes?).

        It is hypocrisy to cry up war with Iran while ignoring these other far more threatening states.
      • Anthet, on 07/13/2008, -1/+2I feel the same way and I hope you are right. I am currently working in the IT sector in Tel Aviv (originally from Sweden) and if ***** goes down Tel Aviv would be one of the targets. But I highly doubt it, people around here seem to be really edgy about it though. Well se whatt happens I guess. No need for more war.
      • stanleyford, on 07/14/2008, -2/+1"There is *no evidence* that Iran wants to become an aggressive military attacker in the region." -- No one can predict the future. It's possible that Iran would never use nuclear weapons if it had them. On the other hand, we know that Iran has for years been ruled by a non-democratic, theocratic regime which oppresses its own citizenry and populates its rhetoric with veiled threats aimed at Israel. Since we can't know the future, we have to assess the probability of different courses of action and plan accordingly. What do you think the probability of Iran eventually using nuclear weapons would be? One percent? Two percent? Are you willing to live with that?

        "Claiming that Iran is some kind of super dangerous maniac state ready to go on the warpath is just ***** trumpeted by scared little men who want to prove their manhood" -- Well, clearly everyone who disagrees with _you_ just does so out of insecurity. Good thing, or else you'd actually have to address their arguments instead of belittling them.

        "Prove that Iran is more of a threat than Pakistan" -- Why? Does Iran have to be more dangerous than Pakistan to be a threat to the security and safety of the Middle East?

        "It is hypocrisy to cry up war with Iran while ignoring these other far more threatening states." -- Who cares how hypocritical it is? If Iran gets nuclear weapons, the world becomes a more dangerous place. Does anyone dispute that? If not, what does it matter how hypocritical disarming Iran is, compared to the alternative?
      • stanleyford, on 07/14/2008, -2/+2"It's called mutually assured destruction (MAD), and it worked for 40 years between the US and USSR." -- We were lucky then. There is no guarantee that we'll be equally lucky in the future. Why take the risk?
      • curtisag, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2"We were lucky then. There is no guarantee that we'll be equally lucky in the future. Why take the risk?"

        Because you don't have the right to bomb countries that have not directly attacked you. And you wonder why so many people hate Israel. Install the anti-ballistic missile shield that the U.S. has offered Israel and be done with war. The US can't afford to fight Israel's and AIPACs wars for them anymore, we're bankrupt if you haven't noticed. All Israel aid should be cut off if they attack Iran.

        The Soviets screamed to the top of their lungs that, "we will bury you!". It's a good thing that cooler heads prevailed back then. There were those who believed we should attack the USSR first, because they believed war was inevitable anyway.

        If you attack Iran now, it will drive the democratic elements of Iran underground and strengthen the anti-democratic forces and radicals. Look up the term, "blowback". It was developed by the CIA.
      • stanleyford, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1"Because you don't have the right to bomb countries that have not directly attacked you." -- I don't understand why people keep talking about who has the "right" when nuclear weapons are involved. Do you people not understand how bad a nuclear explosion would be? Are you honestly telling me that you're willing to accept that risk--no matter how minute--just because you think no one has the right to stop Iran?

        "It's a good thing that cooler heads prevailed back then." -- Well, if there's one thing the rulers in Tehran are known for, it's how cool and rational they are.

        "If you attack Iran now, it will drive the democratic elements of Iran underground and strengthen the anti-democratic forces and radicals." -- Just like what happened when Israel destroyed the reactor at Osirak, right? Oh, wait.


    • DiggerUpper, on 07/13/2008, -1/+3http://www.yourish.com/2007/06/17/3306
    • IHaveIssues, on 07/13/2008, -1/+16"Power of Nightmares"
      Bittorrent it or watch it on Google Video. Griping and explains a lot.
    • Expl0siv0, on 07/13/2008, -4/+8"But in the is-real world..."

      I see what you did there.
    • smartass007, on 07/13/2008, -1/+5rove and the neocons are above the law because the democrats and the american people allow them to be.
      • rearlgrant, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1Applause...

        Take responsibility for your voting people.
    • Rocco03, on 07/13/2008, -1/+3Do you want world peace?
      Give each country a good supply of nukes.
      The US has never invaded a country with nuclear power.
      • Peetweefish, on 07/14/2008, -2/+3That is the dumbest ***** I have heard in a long time.
    • FunkyWitDaSysTm, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2so, according to you metaphor, isreal is bush and the u.s. is cheney?
    • diadem2, on 07/14/2008, -1/+3Maybe we can start passing out cupcakes and iran would breed unicorns with ranbows coming out of their assess and little pixies would turn thier dreams of a nuclear aresenal to a garden of tulips and the xenophobic genocidial rage engrained into their culture could instead be used to make chocolate and gingerbread houses so both world hunger and the housing market could be solved.

      Or maybe you could recognise a problem with an unforutnate but necessary solution to prevent a possible nuclear holocaust.
    • EccentricCdn, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2Russia backs Iran nuclear rights
      http://digg.com/world_news/Russia_backs_Iran_nucle ...
  • MarkEarhart, on 07/13/2008, -55/+316Now would be a very good time for Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney to contract a rare fatal virus.
    • girwen, on 07/13/2008, -7/+66you mean like get real brains?

      their autoimmune systems would reject it!

    • DesignNerd, on 07/13/2008, -9/+118Like a bullet?
      • waydee, on 07/13/2008, -4/+64Can't believe there hasn't been more attempts on these men's lives.
      • tazd1010, on 07/13/2008, -10/+44just so you know its actually illegal to say that somebody should kill the president of the us
      • CATSCEO2, on 07/13/2008, -5/+34I can hear the FBI van from here...
      • denizen42, on 07/13/2008, -3/+13Unfortunately, that's mostly for heroes.
      • Noodleson, on 07/13/2008, -5/+19that's ballsy dude, haha
      • du4l1ty, on 07/13/2008, -4/+27http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEQOvyGbBtY
      • Smills, on 07/13/2008, -0/+5I can believe there hasn't been more attempts, it is in the best interests for any countries that happen to dislike America to protect him. I wouldn't be surprised if he has people protecting him that he would consider his enemy.
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 07/13/2008, -3/+40Why are you lot so ***** terrified of saying "someone should shoot George W Bush"? What happened to the vaunted American courage? Like they're gonna come and knock on the doors and cart you away, and you shiver and quake and fear to even express such a concept. Wow, you're already ***** beaten down, aren't you? You're already cowardly little slaves to a bunch of elitist ***** who just stomp all over you all without a care in the world, and you are all too frightened to even say the dreaded words.

        That you fear it as a real possibility (yes, I know it is written into law) just shows what the situation really is. You're already ***** cowed like beaten dogs. It's a shameful, sad situation. There's nothing out of line with expressing amazement that Bush hasn't caught a bullet with his cranium yet, because the ***** ***** deserves it, and you'd imagine that one of the vets whose lives he ruined with his blatant lies would take the law into their own hands at some point.

        I'm against violence. I don't want Bush killed, I want him to live a long, healthy life so that one day he can see himself vilified, or even, hope against hope, carted off to the Hague one day for trials for war crimes. But if someone were to shoot the *****, I certainly wouldn't shed a tear.
      • ProgressBar, on 07/13/2008, -7/+3Amen brother. Where's an Oswald when you need one?
      • Shogi, on 07/13/2008, -1/+7I vote for Ebola.
      • mrASSMAN, on 07/13/2008, -2/+4All of you are going to Guantanamo.. me, I will only nod silently..

        Anyway, the people who assassinate presidents are probably supporters of the Bush administration.
      • Slick37c, on 07/13/2008, -3/+3>Wartyboskfapped

        It's just stupid to say that kind of stuff on the internet to no one that matters. No point in putting yourself in unnecessary danger, it has nothing to do with courage. Use your brain.
      • unknwn, on 07/13/2008, -0/+4It has EVERYTHING to do with courage. It's the FOUNDATION of this country! It's the PEOPLE'S government. If they aren't doing the right job, it's our job to install a new government.

        You didn't really think they would just walk out of the white house... did you??
    • basye, on 07/13/2008, -11/+7Isn't it eight years too late for that?
    • cutekelvins, on 07/13/2008, -8/+2he should be the last man on earth.
      • blackjack75, on 07/13/2008, -0/+2He sure seems to be doing everything in his power to reach this goal.
    • LongBong, on 07/13/2008, -0/+2/nod
    • Stonekeeper, on 07/13/2008, -2/+2lol! I read faetal.
    • Slick37c, on 07/13/2008, -0/+7I might start going to Church if that happened. lol
    • TreatsTheBear, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1And then suddenly one day Mark just disappeared. He didn't tell anybody he was leaving or leave a forwarding address. Nobody ever heard from him again.
    • EccentricCdn, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2Russia backs Iran nuclear rights
      http://digg.com/world_news/Russia_backs_Iran_nucle ...
    • drato, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2Like Anthrax?
    • origamistars, on 07/14/2008, -0/+3We are now all on a watch list... especially drato.
      • Hangly, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1If I haven't been on a watch list for over a decade, someone isn't doing his job.

        You should be proud to be on the list. The list is a list of true patriots.
  • CoolHandLuke70, on 07/13/2008, -33/+158Bush gave approval because the U.S. WILL be involved. If it was not for that, Israel could care less about permission. Israel just wants to make sure that American dollars keep flowing their way as long as they are worth something!
    • s1lentslayer, on 07/13/2008, -6/+17If you RTFA, it also says the US will not provide any forces as help. "“It’s really all down to the Israelis,” the Pentagon official added. “This administration will not attack Iran. This has already been decided.""

      If the article said Bush does NOT give Israel permission to attack Iran nuclear bases, people would be saying why does he have the right to tell Israel who they can bomb. Catch 22.
      • waydee, on 07/13/2008, -4/+12What, the US are suddenly going stop stop supplying arms and funds to Israel if they kick off a war with Iran? support comes in more forms than just troops you know...
      • goon5000, on 07/13/2008, -2/+5the "pentagon official" is the author, this is propoganda
      • HonestAbe, on 07/13/2008, -1/+14He's saying "Israel, you guys start the war, and then after it's started we can convince the American people that we should come in and 'defend' you".

        This would be so much easier with mind control drugs, wouldn't it, Bush?
      • ogremidget, on 07/13/2008, -3/+1Wow, try reading the FIRST paragraph in the article.

        "President George W Bush has told the Israeli government that he **********may********** be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down, according to a senior Pentagon official."
      • SquigglyP, on 07/13/2008, -1/+5That statement is a ***** joke. The retaliation of Iran is what they are doing this for. They are fully expecting Iran to not only retaliate against Israeli targets, but US targets in Iraq as well, since we're the real threat there. If they don't retaliate then some US target will blow up via 'Iranian Terrorists" or something. It's all just a way for us to provoke Iran indirectly into becoming a villain. Once they've done that, the US forces will be able to do whatever they want, and we WILL be attacking Iran. We will be sending troops in. We will be taking most of the casualties.
      • tsotha, on 07/13/2008, -3/+1There's no reason for us to send troops into Iran. First of all, if you RTFA you'll see the whole thing is from an "unnamed pentagon source", which is usually code for "this is what I think but who cares what journalists think". Secondly, the article actually says Bush told the Israelis not to expect any help from the US.

        And finally, why ground troops? If the US decides to hit Iran we can do it from the air. If you're not planning on replacing someone's government, there's no reason to risk soldiers. Hell, we could collapse the Iranian economy just by blockading it - they don't have a single refinery, and you can't run machinery on crude oil.
      • oscenester, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1@tsotha.......
        http://www.opec.org/aboutus/member%20countries/ira ...

        What the ***** are you talking about? No Oil refineries? I mean seriously...third largest oil reserve in the world and you think they have no refineries? You must be out of your ***** mind.

        These are just their "major refineries", with approx output in 2006 measured in Barrels per day in parentheses:

        Major Refineries (capacity, bbl/d) Abadan (400,000), Isfahan (265,000), Bandar Abbas (232,000); Tehran (225,000), Arak (150,000), Tabriz (112,000), Shiraz (40,000), Kermanshah (30,000), Lavan Island (20,000)

        http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/Iran/Profile.html

        If you actually think that they aren't going to force them into a war with us so we can "free their people from an oppressive regime" (read: illegally and unjustly oust their current government so we can get our hands on their oil), your senile.
    • PeppermintPig, on 07/13/2008, -3/+12s1lentslayer, history suggests otherwise...

      FDR talked out of both sides of his mouth, swearing the US would never get involved in a war while telling the British that he would find a way, and he did. Lend Lease violated the Good Neighbor policy, circumventing any meaning it had.

      Why should Bush be giving his consent to an attack on any country?? That's effectively throwing yourself down for one side or another, and only a fool would believe this wouldn't have negative repercussions for the US.

      When you feed guns and technology to a regime, and they start violating the sovereignty of others, that's going to come back to bite you in the ass eventually.

      "If the article said Bush does NOT give Israel permission to attack Iran nuclear bases, people would be saying why does he have the right to tell Israel who they can bomb. Catch 22."

      Perhaps it's wrong either way? Perhaps people would still consider that authoritarian and puppet-like?
    • kdefacis, on 07/14/2008, -0/+0From the Article:
      But the Israelis have also been told that they can expect no help from American forces and will not be able to use US military bases in Iraq for logistical support.

      Israel is not asking for help, they just want their ally's thoughts on the subject. They don't want to aggravate our military, and want us to be aware of what is going to happen.
    • sfvgdfgdfgdfg, on 07/14/2008, -0/+0Bookmark: http://www.AnonTalk.com/
  • achatterbox, on 07/13/2008, -67/+18Buried. Israel does NOT need the approval of a jackass to defend themselves. Go back to Texas, Bush! No one here wants you in Washington!
    • pintomp3, on 07/13/2008, -12/+41how about i defend myself by stealing your home and punching you in the face?
    • solistus, on 07/13/2008, -9/+52Defend themselves against what? Iran poses no threat to Israel. It's got barely functioning rockets and no nuclear weapons program; our own government admitted this in the NIE report, which Bush loves to pretend was never released. Iran has not been actively pursuing the bomb on a large scale since 2003.

      Also, what's with the presumption that a nuclear Iran would be any more threat than a nuclear France is now? Is it because they're brown? Muslim? Or the blatant mis-quotation about wiping Israel off the map (he said he hoped the regime occupying the holy city would fade into the sands of time, explicitly referring to the government and not the country, and didn't even use the words "wipe," "map" or "Israel" in the entire speech... But that doesn't make nearly as good of a quote for warmongering)?

      There is no evidence that Iran has violated the NPT or any other relevant prolif agreement since 2003, if ever. There is incredibly strong evidence that the US has violated the NPT by supplying nukes to Israel, and Israel isn't even a ***** member to the treaty.
      • FTWmovin2canada, on 07/13/2008, -2/+17Iran even voluntarily joined the NPT. They could just withdraw from it and develop on their own, but they're trying to cooperate.

        The "wipe off the map" comment is one of several possible translations, but that phrase is an American idiom that has no implication of physical violence in Persian.
      • keithburgun, on 07/13/2008, -2/+11Well said, solistus.
      • DrDreyfus, on 07/13/2008, -13/+6"It's got barely functioning rockets and no nuclear weapons program"

        Who gives a ***** about your perception of Iran' threat towards Israel.

        The fact that they have missiles and have the capability to build nuclear weapons AND have threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth gives Israel EVERY RIGHT to defend itself.

        You have no idea what it's like to live in constant fear.
        It's not like the Arab nations haven't attacked Israel before. The 1948 War of Independence - the Arab nations attacked Israel with all they had the FIRST day of Israel's existence. Next, the Yom Kipur war where Israel's surrounding nations attacked on the holiest day of the Jewish calender.

        So please, shut the ***** up. Israel isn't going to wait because they know what happens when they let the threat come on its own.
      • spawnfree, on 07/13/2008, -2/+10DrDreyfus your reasoning justifies any unprovoked attack by anyone towards anyone.

        congrats on being part of the problem
      • quaxon, on 07/13/2008, -2/+7Dryfes, I'm ashamed that America is filled with misinformed, willfully ignorant idiots like you.

        "The fact that they have missiles and have the capability to build nuclear weapons AND have threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth gives Israel EVERY RIGHT to defend itself."

        Nice job completely ignoring the poster you're responding too as well as all FACTS that Iran has never said the want to destroy Israel. The US empire has millions of bombs able to wipe out the entire world and has started 2 unprovoked wars around Iran in the past few years. Iran is more than justified to stick up for itself. In fact they are more than justified to nuke several US cities for all our past atrocities in the middle east, and specifically in Iran (though i doubt youve ever been educated in anything but hate on the subject).

        "You have no idea what it's like to live in constant fear.
        It's not like the Arab nations haven't attacked Israel before. The 1948 War of Independence - the Arab nations attacked Israel with all they had the FIRST day of Israel's existence. Next, the Yom Kipur war where Israel's surrounding nations attacked on the holiest day of the Jewish calender."

        You have no ***** idea either. You also have no ***** idea about anything in the middle east other than the hateful propaganda that's brainwashed your simple mind. ***** dude, you have no ***** idea what you're talking about at all! Get out a notebook and write this down 'Not all middle eastern countries are Arabs!' 'Iran is not an Arabic country, they are Persian.' Now repeat. You are right, Arab countries have attacked Israel, but please show me any evidence as to when Iran has, what, you dont have it? yea i figured that. Congratulations on showing what retarded little kids our education system spits out, now go join the army and die for your lies.
      • shayben, on 07/13/2008, -2/+2Yeah, Ahmadinejad is really calm, just look at all these peaceful statements about Israel:
        http://www.google.co.il/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=h ...

        Also, Iran has one of the strongest and biggest armies in the middle east, and no one suspected Libya to have such an advanced nuclear weapons program either, It's very hard to find a smoking gun on one of the most secret projects in the world.
        Oh and by the way, Iran has also violated the NPT - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Prolifera ...

        Read a little before you go around spreading misinformation.
      • tehbored, on 07/14/2008, -1/+3Iran has rockets, jet fighter and a well equipped army. Israel's military is of course better equipped than Iran's, and probably much better trained as well, but Iran is still very powerful militarily.
      • DrDreyfus, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1@spawnfree

        "DrDreyfus your reasoning justifies any unprovoked attack by anyone towards anyone.

        congrats on being part of the problem"

        If someone with threatened to kill you and your family, you'd do nothing?
        Cool. Good for you. I guess you're a better man than I?

        Being liberal doesn't mean letting people walk all over you.

        @quaxon

        Disregarding the bulk of your retort which was mainly ad hominim...

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_a ...

        According to Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as:

        The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[12]

        Norouzi's translation is identical.[11] According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian". Instead, "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[13]

        The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly.[14] On June 2, 2006 The Guardian columnist and foreign correspondent Jonathan Steele published an article based on this reasoning.[15]

        "but please show me any evidence as to when Iran has [attacked Israel]"

        http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/c.hsJPK0PIJpH ...

        http://terrorism.about.com/od/iran/p/Iran2.htm

        http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/2006/04/us-ta ...

        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6112036.stm

        http://www.businessweek.com/mediacenter/podcasts/i ...

        Iran funds Hezbollah. Hezbollah blows up Israeli citizens. A terrorist organization targets citizens.
        Therefore: The Iranian government is a conduit for terrorism.

        I actually do know that Iranians are not of Arab dissent but rather are Persian , however for all practical purposes it doesn't matter in relation to Israel when they fund Arab terrorists.

        Brainwashed?
        You obviously are.
        You have made such blatant claims that are simply not true. Feel free to check out the links above!
      • solistus, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Just block Dreyfus. He's a troll. I also don't think he realises that all those quotes he cited for the 'wipe off the map' bit do NOT support his position in the slightest. Newsflash, Dreyfus: IRAN HAS NOT THREATENED TO KILL ANYONE'S FAMILY, your own quotes prove this! If funding groups that commit acts of violence is the same as being a military aggressor, Israel and the US are military aggressors against most of the world. Funding Hezbollah is hardly evidence that Iran would nuke someone.

        shayben: point taken. I should have said, they are not currently violating the NPT. In the past, they violated its requirements for full disclosure. At any rate, the US has violated it in far more severe ways (by providing fully weaponised nuclear materials to a non-member), and Israel has refused to join. Why did you use a google redirect to a long and convoluted wiki article? Cite an actual source, please.
      • DrDreyfus, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1"Dreyfus: IRAN HAS NOT THREATENED TO KILL ANYONE'S FAMILY"

        I apologize. I thought you could see that indirectly this is the case. Ready?

        "I'm going to obliterate your home; the place where you live"
        How else would you interpret this threat?

        "Funding Hezbollah is hardly evidence that Iran would nuke someone. "

        Regardless of the immediate "good" Hezbollah has done for the Lebanese people (i.e. rebuilding homes and schools, neighborhood watch), Hezbollah, far from only attacking military targets (an act of war) has attacked CIVILIAN TARGETS (an act of terror).

        Why would you ever trust a nation that provides the funding (and direction) for an organization that attacks civilians? Why would you ever entrust them with a NUCLEAR WEAPON? (Nuclear energy is a completely different subject)

        How am I being a troll? What you all are posting is complete ***** meant to delegitmize Israel. If you're spreading lies, why is it considered trolling to dispel them? And if they're true, it shouldn't it be quite simple to prove them?
      • solistus, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1OK, I cheated and read your post. I'm a bastard, aren't I? It's just too tasty to pass up. Here goes nothing:

        You are a ***** idiot. Read all the sources I cited, hell, all the sources YOU cited. Ahmadenijad said nothing about obliterating anyone's home. He explicitly referred to the regime, not the country, and none of the phrases he used in that sentence carry a violent connotation in Farsi. Iran has not threatened anyone.

        Yes, Iran funds Hezbollah, and yes, Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation that murders innocent people. If you had even the slightest grasp on Israeli or US history, you would not make claims like "Why would you ever trust a nation that provides the funding (and direction) for an organization that attacks civilians?" I guess you've never heard of the paramilitary groups common in the illegal Israeli West Bank settlements? Or the right wing death squads the US funded in Latin America? Or Pinochet? OR ***** BIN LADEN, who we trained to attack Soviet civilians to destabilise the Soviet Union during their war in Afghanistan? Hell, both the IDF and the US military routinely attack civilians. The US has bombed schools, hospitals and apartment buildings full of innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan based on intel that a high value target might also be inside. The IDF regularly targets civilian infrastructure in its reprisal attacks in Palestine, which have killed thousands of innocents. Israel has been repeatedly condemned by the international community for its use of collective punishment against Palestinian villages in which a handful of individuals may have participated in or offered support to terrorists. Google "Qalqilya" for an example, from the 1967 war, of an entire town that was ordered destroyed after it had already been occupied and subdued, in order to chase the Palestinian civilians away. Every single one of the things I've listed here satisfies your "we shouldn't trust this country" requirement, so I take it you don't trust the US or Israel with nuclear weapons either, right?

        You've continued to ignore the quite damning fact that there is NO EVIDENCE that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon. The NIE report, a summary of the opinion of all US intelligence agencies, concluded that Iran suspended its weapons program in 2003 and has not restarted it. You admit yourself that nuclear energy is a completely different subject. Iran has offered to follow all relevant international law to pursue its enrichment and energy program, just like Western countries are allowed to do without anyone batting an eye.

        You're the only one posting complete ***** here. Every time you make a claim, we tear it apart, then you move onto a new ***** claim. Either that, or you continue to spew your ***** while completely ignoring all those pesky "facts" and "warranted arguments" that the rest of us have already spelled out for you. You keep pretending that Iran has the bomb (or even an active weapons program) and has threatened Israel, yet you haven't responded to our numerous claims as to why neither is true.

        You're also the only one posting here that is delegitimising Israel. I'm Jewish. I certainly support the Israeli peoples' right to live in peace, and I think the terrorists who attack Israeli citizens are committing acts of evil, just as anyone who kills innocent people is. Not agreeing with your opinion of who Israel should be allowed to slaughter is not delegitimising anything. Suggesting that Israel is only legitimate when it is bombing someone is offensive to me, both as a Jew and as a decent human being. Get your far right paranoid politics out of my holy land, *****.
      • DrDreyfus, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1"Get your far right paranoid politics out of my holy land"

        I consider myself (moderately i guess) liberal and I'm Jewish.

        Have you ever been to Israel?
    • yellowcakewalk, on 07/14/2008, -4/+4How about sending us back all of our hard-earned tax dollars, and we'll send you back your spies Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Steven Rosen, and Keith Weissman.
  • pintomp3, on 07/13/2008, -54/+237the US giving israel permission to do something is like a whore giving her pimp permission to do something.
    • punkcat, on 07/13/2008, -4/+36yeah i somehow doubt israel even asked for permission.

      • lifeasariver, on 07/13/2008, -2/+21they must. us controls the iraqi air space up to 30,000 feet.
    • ZenMojo, on 07/14/2008, -0/+5This is all part of the new humanitarian project "Warmongers Without Borders."
    • burnin8r28, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1exactly
  • Rotzooi, on 07/13/2008, -23/+60Since US troops are stretched already, this time Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice and the other Republican criminals will have to manipulate others to do their bidding for them. Israel has always been ready to strike Iran, and now they've been given carte blanche by the largest military presence in the region, us.

    I expect Bush will want them to wait until after the elections and give the go-ahead if Obama gets elected. Otherwise, he'll leave it for McSame to do the honors.
    • MASTERPL, on 07/13/2008, -11/+6largest military presence in the region....
      I think Iran could crush US forces in Iraq pretty swiftly. Who is going to watch your back when you have enemies all around?
      • goon5000, on 07/13/2008, -6/+9are you an idiot?
      • Scaryclouds, on 07/13/2008, -4/+4Whoa, you greatly overestimate the capabilities of the Revolutionary Guard. The Guard is primarily a defensive force and while they do have some modern fighters their planes are nowhere near as capable or pilots as competent as our own. If Iran tried to invade Iraq there military would be utterly destroyed within a week, perhaps even sooner.
    • ambrosious, on 07/13/2008, -5/+20Hello did anyone RTA? I know this is scary, but let's not get too ahead of ourselves.

      "“It’s really all down to the Israelis,” the Pentagon official added. “This administration will not attack Iran. "

      "But the Israelis have also been told that they can expect no help from American forces and will not be able to use US military bases in Iraq for logistical support."

      "Nor is it certain that Bush’s amber light would ever turn to green without irrefutable evidence of lethal Iranian hostility. Tehran’s test launches of medium-range ballistic missiles last week were seen in Washington as provocative and poorly judged, but both the Pentagon and the CIA concluded that they did not represent an immediate threat of attack against Israeli or US targets."
      • Scaryclouds, on 07/13/2008, -2/+10Agreed the title was sensationalist.
      • kcap122, on 07/13/2008, -2/+4“This administration will not attack Iran. "
        Well, of course, this administration won't. But then of course, the U.S. attacking Iran by proxy via Israeli forces isn't TECHNICALLY this administration, anyway.
      • rearlgrant, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1Already contrived...

        Video, for those that don't want to read the New Yorker...
        http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_cont ...

        This is what happens when you don't impeach Presidents for contriving evidence of WMD....

        And when the next President that is not Republican behaves this way (b/c, ya know, the Republicans did it), I'm sure you will support him -- kinda like Clinton bombing Bin Laden and the Republican House passing a resolution claiming it was to distract people from "Lewinskygate".
    • Taggart, on 07/13/2008, -3/+4The US has the largest US presence in the area. It does not have the largest military force in the area.

      I do not agree with what the US is doing, but I would rather people fight with the facts, not just go on what they learned by hearing skewed facts... I understand the irony, but I do not attempt to portray facts that are otherwise false.
    • oldgal, on