digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

See the original image at guardian.co.uk —

Déjà vu all over again - Iran has NO nuclear weapons!

guardian.co.uk — The US is smearing IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei for not finding evidence of Iranian nuclear weapons. Sound familiar?

show profanity settings
expand all
  • westbay1, on 06/06/2008, -8/+39Round 2... fight!
    • MiddleOfNowhere, on 06/07/2008, -2/+11Who really thinks that John "Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran" McCain would let the facts - or painful lessons learned in Iraq - get into the way of the American Empire Express?
      If US voters follow the old man, they'll learn far more about Iran than they ever wanted.
      • TheMime, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1Bomb Ira-a-ann.
        That's pretty catchy.
      • Jexie, on 06/07/2008, -1/+2Lesson #1: Iran has an air force. No real match for the US obviously, but America will get a dose of what casualties of war can really mean before they get rid of it.
      • 4d669, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1Obama one day after getting the nomination at AIPAC: "I will do anything necessary to disarm Iran of nuclear weapons."
    • NoStoppingUs, on 06/07/2008, -5/+5then heres an idea for all of you diggers out there who for the past 8 years have constantly bitched about bush.

      DO SOMETHING.

      i know i know, it's easier to come onto digg and bitch and whine and moan and complain without taking action so you can point the fingers at everyone else, but even YOUR candidate (obomba) has talked about a military option with iran. so get off your lazy asses and start doing something productive. otherwise, shut your mouths and stop bitching.
      • bluntphallus, on 06/07/2008, -6/+0I thought you were onto something then, but you ruined it with your completely unnecessary "obomba" comment.

        So, ***** you.
      • kurttrail, on 06/07/2008, -4/+1Stop me, I dare you!

        Oh, that's right you are just a pussy complaining about people who are expressing their opinion that run contrary to yours.

        Yep, there is no stopping you making a complete ass out of yourself.
    • sylvok, on 06/07/2008, -1/+1Old article but still a really good read.
    • xsquirrel378x, on 06/07/2008, -1/+2hadoken!
    • pidgas, on 06/09/2008, -2/+1Iran has no nuclear weapons...no ***** Sherlock. They're working to create the nuclear fuel for one.

      The IAEA has changed their position 180 degrees since this article was written.

      It's hard to know that the world has left you behind when your head is in the sand.
  • lundeja, on 06/06/2008, -30/+113Not to be "That Guy" but aren't "Deja vu" and "all over again" pretty much the same thing?

    Other than the interesting choice of words in the title, this is a good article, though.
    • yellowcakewalk, on 06/06/2008, -2/+78N.B. @lundeja ( it's a reference to baseball player Yogi Berra, who was famous for such quirky phrases as "Déjà vu all over again" ).
      • lundeja, on 06/07/2008, -2/+6Interesting... I had never heard that before. Thanks for the heads up.
      • chancesarent, on 06/07/2008, -0/+13here's some more of his quotes for all you non-Americans out there who have no idea who he is.
        # "This is like deja vu all over again."

        # "You can observe a lot just by watching."

        # "He must have made that before he died." -- Referring to a Steve McQueen movie.

        # "I want to thank you for making this day necessary." -- On Yogi Berra Appreciation Day in St. Louis in 1947.

        # "I'd find the fellow who lost it, and, if he was poor, I'd return it." -- When asked what he would do if he found a million dollars.

        # "Think! How the hell are you gonna think and hit at the same time?"

        # "You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might not get there."

        # "I knew I was going to take the wrong train, so I left early."

        # "If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else."

        # "If you can't imitate him, don't copy him."

        # "You better cut the pizza in four pieces because I'm not hungry enough to eat six."

        # "Baseball is 90% mental -- the other half is physical."

        # "It was impossible to get a conversation going; everybody was talking too much."

        # "Slump? I ain't in no slump. I just ain't hitting."

        # "A nickel isn't worth a dime today."

        # "Nobody goes there anymore; it's too crowded."

        # "It gets late early out there." -- Referring to the bad sun conditions in left field at the stadium.

        # "Glen Cove." -- Referring to Glenn Close on a movie review television show.

        # Once, Yogi's wife Carmen asked, "Yogi, you are from St. Louis, we live in New Jersey, and you played ball in New York. If you go before I do, where would you like me to have you buried?" Yogi replied, "Surprise me."

        # "Do you mean now?" -- When asked for the time.

        # "I take a two hour nap, from one o'clock to four."

        # "If you come to a fork in the road, take it."

        # "You give 100 percent in the first half of the game, and if that isn't enough in the second half you give what's left."

        # "90% of the putts that are short don't go in."

        # "I made a wrong mistake."

        # "Texas has a lot of electrical votes." -- During an election campaign, after George Bush stated that Texas was important to the election.

        # "Thanks, you don't look so hot yourself." -- After being told he looked cool.

        # "I always thought that record would stand until it was broken."

        # "Yeah, but we're making great time!" -- In reply to "Hey Yogi, I think we're lost."

        # "If the fans don't come out to the ball park, you can't stop them."

        # "Why buy good luggage? You only use it when you travel."

        # "It's never happened in the World Series competition, and it still hasn't."

        # "How long have you known me, Jack? And you still don't know how to spell my name." -- Upon receiving a check from Jack Buck made out to "bearer."

        # "I'd say he's done more than that." -- When asked if first baseman Don Mattingly had exceeded expectations for the current season.

        # "The other teams could make trouble for us if they win."

        # "He can run anytime he wants. I'm giving him the red light." -- On the acquisition of fleet Ricky Henderson.

        # "I never blame myself when I'm not hitting. I just blame the bat, and if it keeps up, I change bats. After all, if I know it isn't my fault that I'm not hitting, how can I get mad at myself?"

        # "It ain't the heat; it's the humility."

        # "The towels were so thick there I could hardly close my suitcase."

        # "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours."

        # "I didn't really say everything I said."
    • ciaran036, on 06/06/2008, -4/+11Wasn't me! It was the title on the Guardian's home page. Never caught up on that one when posting the article!
    • BishkekBuddy, on 06/06/2008, -4/+7petty...
    • Hefelumpman, on 06/07/2008, -4/+5Not if you have deja vu twice!
    • spinchange, on 06/07/2008, -2/+3http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A
    • sdfguy, on 06/07/2008, -13/+2By "That Guy" do you mean "I'm a douchebagge who over uses finger-quotes, I'm a tool, I'm a tool, oh god kill me, I'm a tool." or do you mean, "I'm a douchebagge who bitches when I don't get references to things, I'm a tool, I'm a tool, oh god kill me, I'm a tool." Your poor diction makes it hard to tell, sorry.
    • insanebrain, on 06/07/2008, -4/+1contradition in termino
    • shotgunl, on 06/07/2008, -1/+2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkazf7znllQ
    • kopernican, on 06/07/2008, -9/+3Have you never heard the phrase before!?
      It was intentional, dumbass.
      Also, you are being petty.
      Try to focus on the subject of the article.
      The Neocons want to invade Iran and they are implementing a massive propaganda campaign of lies exactly like the one before the Iraq invasion. Geez. Watch for 'Operation Iranian Freedom' on CNN and FOX.
    • JohnnyHotballs, on 06/07/2008, -0/+6"deja vu all over again" is a quote from yogi berra, a yankees catcher and manager, who is famous for his malapropistic remarks.
      • ghostoftomjoad, on 06/07/2008, -1/+1Dude, we know who yogi berra is
        • JohnnyHotballs, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1the assholes above me didn't.
    • rawheadrex, on 06/07/2008, -1/+3In other words, it's repeatedly redundant.
      • BiggestofMikes, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1...just like this thread! =P
      • rationalist, on 06/07/2008, -1/+2You must be from the Department of Redundancy Department.
        • HMMcKamikaze, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1Shoes for Industry!

          Glad to see someone else listens to Firesign Theatre.
      • mlhams, on 06/07/2008, -0/+3you can say that again
  • cointelproof, on 06/06/2008, -8/+50Add this to the fact that there is no evidence of Iranian weapons in Iraq and you've really got to wonder what the purpose of this sabre-rattling and war rhetoric is all about. I reckon it's those pesky hydrocarbons.
    • BishkekBuddy, on 06/06/2008, -4/+32I truly fear that it's the Bushies wanting to stay in power... call me paranoid but I will cross my fingers that if there is another attack on American soil before November that the military will prevent Bush & Co from declaring martial law...
    • 1randomguyO8, on 06/07/2008, -1/+15Yep is near $140/barrel. I wonder what a war with Iran would send it up to $200, $300?
      • BeefBaron, on 06/07/2008, -1/+14Mr Bushies' friends at Exxon-Mobil would love him even more!
        Can you say free retirement island?
      • ciaran036, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1And the silliest bit of it all - there are dozens of ways to run a car without using oil! Where are the electric cars and hydrogen cars?
      • Sil369, on 06/07/2008, -0/+11400$
    • Tanktunker, on 06/07/2008, -8/+2This is just a wild guess, but maybe Bush has a gut feeling.
      Well, a gut feeling coupled with the fact that they're enriching uranium and yet have no civilian nuclear facilities like, say, power plants or, uh, power plants, of which they have none.

      So think for a moment before you accuse me of fear mongering or some such thing, what DO you do with enriched uranium when you don't have any power plants to use them in, and you're not building any either?
      • Sverre, on 06/07/2008, -1/+2Yes, Bush has a good track record of being right about his gut feelings on these matters...
        • Tanktunker, on 06/07/2008, -5/+3Oh how fun, at least 4 people dugg me down and I even got an almost political joke response.

          Come on digg, at least tell my WHY I'm wrong :(
        • FairDinkumMate, on 06/07/2008, -1/+3"what DO you do with enriched uranium when you don't have any power plants to use them in,..."
          Maybe you'd like to do some research before you post this crap. The BIGGEST complain that the US has about Iran's nuclear program is that they are building a HEAVY WATER reactor. If you did ANY research, you'd find that heavy water reactors are favoured by many exactly for the reason that such reactors can be fueled with unenriched uranium. The weapons issue with heavy water reactors is primarily that they produce more plutonium as a by-product of normal use, which can THEN be used in nuclear weaponry. The deal with Russia(to supply their reactor) includes a clause that Iran must give to Russia all spent fuel rods from the reactor(the bits that could be treated & used to make a bomb). So even the US is less worried about what is being enriched now to use in a reactor when ready & primarily concerned with the output of the reactor.

          and you're not building any either?"
          Iran's first Nuclear Power plant(supplied by Russia) at Bushehr is due to come online in 2009. Iran desperately needs new power supplies. The currently rely on oil & gas but they can't produce enough primarily because their oil fields need repair & they can't get it because of US sanctions! Without new power sources, Iran will become a net IMPORTER of oil as soon as 2010.

          Iran has offered(the US has rejected!) to ratify the 2 additional protocols of the Non-Proliferation treaty that it hasn't signed and to increase its reporting & inspections ABOVE the level required by the International Atomic Energy Agency. In return it wants the sanctions against it lifted. England, Germany & France have all promised technical cooperation with Iran's civil nuclear program in exchange for full nuclear transparency.
      • purzzzell, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1You're wrong b/c that's what weapons inspectors are for. That's why these things are investigated. That's why we have people doing things like the NIE.

        You're saying "this is logical" - the evidence is being written that it doesn't make sense. That's okay, though the reports are there.

        Like Sverre pointed out in his "political joke", though - Bush is saying "I don't give a ***** what evidence you find, PERIOD, we're going in there b/c there's nukes whether it's true or not."
    • oldgal, on 06/07/2008, -1/+2It was all laid out in the PNAC website well before the invasion of IRAQ. The website account is now suspended or I would have included the link. Wikipedia gives a good rundown: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_A ... Although the website is gone, the policy seems to still be alive and well and promoted by the Bush administration.
      • sodade, on 06/07/2008, -1/+2Oh man. the PNAC website is down. How far the neocons have fallen. I was reading that crap 8 years ago wondering what these thugs would do. I am hardly a tinfoil hat guy, but they laid it out pretty clearly in their manifesto, then you have 9/11 and we watch them justify Iraq. I knew it was criminal when they were pushing for it and finally the American people are beginning to realize it. Am I claiming 9/11 was a neocon job? No, but it seems more plausible with every piece of evidence that the neocons are just criminal thugs.
    • ElAssoWipo, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2It's Israel.

      Iranians have nothing to do with Iraq or anything, but they support Hamas.
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4739900.stm

      • solid12345, on 06/07/2008, -1/+1Israel can fight its own battles, I hardly think it was in Israel's best interest for us to carve out a radical Shia state in Iraq led by Muqtada Al-Sadr
      • solid12345, on 06/07/2008, -1/+1I seriously doubt Israel is behind the war, what does Israel hope to gain by a Shia superstate in Iraq led by Muqtada Al-Sadr?
        • Abomonog, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1Israel would see the second of 5 countries who tried to get their land back in the 50's fall. That's enough for them.
    • jblen, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1I ready an article recently on Peak Oil and for the first time I felt it likely that we went to war with IRAQ over oil. Not to keep prices down or make money, although I'm sure the latter was a fringe benefit, but rather to protect the future of our oil dependent country when oil supplies turn detrimental. I truly believe we are more dependent on oil than most believe. Transportation is just the tip of the oily iceberg.

      http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie ...
    • mirunit, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2So, with thousands of centrifuges and the ability to produce weapons grade plutonium, surrounded by Nuclear neighbors (US in Iraq, Israel, Pakistan) Iran is not trying to obtain nuclear weapons? The really sad part about this is some of you honestly believe that Iran would only be nice a produce LEU, not using it overtly against its enemies. Alot of you are caught up on the past, things change and Iran is not Iraq. The United States would never attempt another full scale invasion of a Middle Eastern nation - this is something that Irag has taught the pentagon. A campaign against Iranian nuclear assets would result in a collapse of their program and the start of more intense proxy wars against the US/Israel via Hezbollah and Shia militias. While I think the scrutiny is welcome, trying to compare every situation to Iraq is ignorant as every situation is not Iraq. While the fear with North Korea, which did in fact produce quantity's of plutonium sufficient for several nuclear weapons was proliferation the fear with Iran are regional ambitions with overt threats of nuclear retaliation.
      • Abomonog, on 06/07/2008, -1/+1Iran today is a LOT nicer than the past. But you would be mean too if you were enslaved for 20 years by the very people who don't want you to have the weapons. From 1919 to 1939 The entire region was a British protectorate. The British treated them so badly that the arrival of Hitler into the Middle East was an improvement for them. Hitler was nicer to them than Churchill. And people wonder why the Middle East countries hate the west so much.

        When the bad guy treats you good you know you've been treated badly by the good guy.
    • pidgas, on 06/09/2008, -1/+1"No evidence of Iranian weapons in Iraq" - what color is the sky in your world?
  • SaraLiberty, on 08/16/2008, -11/+62"Scott Ritter - the Sequel".. soo ***** transparent what they're setting this guy up for. Thankfully there are still some humans with conscience left and he's not caving to political pressure from the war criminals demands. If he doesn't end up 'missing' or suddenly disappears due to "unexplained circumstances."

    Phase II of the all-out smear blitz campaign will see him propagandized on their controlled networks and print media: "he's aiding TERRORISTS!" "he is on the side of EVIL!" "well he could be a terrorist himself!" "he's not qualified for the position" "working for 'THE ENEMY" "enemy of freedom" "he's in bed with Iran's president" "he cut a deal with the DEVIL!" and likewise similar administration rhetoric to market their hostile corporate takeover (war) alongside carefully chosen emotional triggers for a knee-jerk conditioned, soundbite addled, non-critical thinking populace that eats up the ***** like candy. They don't even have to try anymore since people have become so dumbed down, apathetic and conditioned they will believe anything without question, without further thought. As they laugh from the sidelines at how stupid the serfs are. When are people ever going to wake the ***** up and realize they are being lied to and deceived by this administration *big time*.

    The war criminals and profiteers now want Iran because Iran's local central bank is not under control of the Federal Reserve.

    The corporation of the US (under direction following orders from the Federal Reserve banking cartel) is after Iran to get control over their local central bank to integrate into the Federal Reserve system. They want Iran and Syria because they are not under control of the Federal Reserve. Control the currency and the flow of money, control the entire country in the palm of your hand. It's yours to do whatever you please. Oil is secondary. A "fringe benefit" icing on the cake.

    The hostile corporate takeover (war) against Iraq, the war against Afghanistan, the war against the Balkans, Bosnia, were all to get the control over their *local central bank* under the Federal Reserve system monetary powers. This was the real issue. This was one of the primary reasons for the hostile corporate takeover (war) on Iraq. to get the control over Iraq's local central bank under the Federal Reserve system. The central bank in Iraq is now completely under total domination of the Federal Reserve. Not of the corporation of the United States, but of the Federal Reserve system. Mission accomplished.

    That's why the administration doesn't like Iran, Syria, Venezuela, or North Korea. The central banks in those countries are not part of the (corporation of the) US Federal Reserve monetary powers banking system. Yet. We serfs are sold lies about "WMD" under the myth of "protecting us from evildoers who hate our freedoms" etc. enough to make you puke. If they really cared about our safety, our borders would have been protected a loong ***** time ago. 7 years after the "surprise" 9-11 attacks, real border security has yet to happen. It makes ZERO sense to claim you're "fighting terrorism" abroad while leaving your own front door unlocked, unprotected. Think about it..Are they THAT concerned about our "safety" ?

    When a country has control of their own money, they can do what they want. They are FREE. The people that are behind the control of the Federal Reserve System monetary powers don't want countries that are "free" from their system. Their intentions are of a global rule and one currency. It's economic slavery and a one world currency. They have been breaking and bankrupting third world nations for generations. Now that they are getting the unions, EU, NAU, AU, etc. the truth of their plans is seeing light of day.

    This is one of the biggest reasons behind the corporation of the United States (under direction of the Fed) working feverishly to fabricate hostile corporate takeover (war) on Iran. 'WMD' 'protect from terror-its" are false front lies they sell to market their hostile corporate takeover (war) just like any good advertiser would. As with everything else they do, they will eventually get it. NONE of the so-called 'high profile' "change candidates" (puke..) will do anything to prevent it either. They will function as their front person, a presence, a face to dangle in front of the idiot consumers of the treasonous television and print media to sell the lies and further the 'agenda.' The OWNED by greater masters puppets run nothing. They are merely a presence to market the plan. Why do you think none of the OWNED puppets on strings candidates will even MENTION the word "Federal Reserve" much less talk openly about abolishing such a Ponzi scheme fraud ? Is it any wonder why the government sponsored controlled media promotes these marionettes on their propaganda orifices 24/7, giving them constant FREE AIR TIME every single day of the week including weekends, while a good man like Ron Paul who pledges to abolish the sham Federal Reserve, who tells the truth about its real functions and agenda, gets shut out of media coverage all together? He becomes viciously demonized, ridiculed, censored, and blacklisted. It's no mystery. Anyone who doesn't play ball with the criminals will suffer such fate. Time will tell what becomes of the IAEA chief for his opposition to the grand plan.
    • RainbowApe, on 06/07/2008, -2/+9your not wrong, however you missed the most important reason "behind the corporation of the United States (under direction of the Fed) working feverishly to fabricate hostile corporate takeover (war) on Iran". YOU LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT. it's a democracy, you can fight them, but you have to make it hard. they are elected officials and as such are subject to pressure. fill capitol hill with everyone who doesnt want to go to war with iran, for any reason as long as it's there own. camp out for a week. keep it in the media and call for more support. then see what happens.

      ...it worked for the Uikrane and the orange revolution. non-violence is the way to change things. you just need numbers and you are a big country and a lot of you dont want this war. someone needs to organise it, you have the brain, so do it. it'll work.

      peace!
      8)
      • SaraLiberty, on 08/16/2008, -0/+3'Any government in the world can be brought down if a mere twenty percent of the people will march in the streets and demand change. A majority is unnecessary. Eighty percent can sit home and do nothing if just twenty percent will march.

        Votes mean almost nothing in this two party system. Both major parties are controlled, bought and paid for by lobbyists of corporations, the wealthy and foreign interests.

        So, your party got fifty-one percent of the votes? That just means that it's your turn to be betrayed. It only means that the people you voted for get a chance to loot and mislead, while the people you voted against see their share of the loot diminished until it's their turn to 'lead' again.

        The Democrats will not stop the Iraq War, or prevent the coming attack on Iran, unless tens of millions of Americans march in the streets.

        We saw recently that when La Raza took to the streets -- although many Americans were outraged at the sight of all those Mexican flags, the politicians took serious notice. Now both parties are fighting for the Latino vote in November, 2008.

        When tens of millions march to City Hall, and to the Governor's mansion, and to the White House, then the politicians will change, or be thrown out of office.

        If tens of millions march on, say, this July 4th, then the Bush Regime will be removed from office and the war will end.

        If you want your America back, we will have to take it ourselves -- in the streets, one block at a time. We'll have to shock and awe these cowardly little men who order soldiers to war, while hiding behind their desks and security guards.

        These war criminals, these lying, deceiving, murdering thieves who ***** on our Constitution, who sent our soldiers to die for Exxon's oil, who stole our tax money, who sent our jobs overseas and rewarded the job-shipping corporations with tax breaks, those people understand nothing but power and force.

        http://tinyurl.com/6maxhd
    • quesi, on 06/07/2008, -0/+11"propaganda orifices"
      You kick SO much ass, I swear...
    • sonnybobiche, on 06/07/2008, -11/+3tl;dr
    • treelovinhippie, on 06/07/2008, -1/+13Well put. I'm just hoping we see the day early enough where this information moves from the realm of "conspiracy" into the realm of fact. But with a disillusioned public, that day may never arrive.
    • bjornski, on 06/07/2008, -0/+6@sonnybobiche

      You're proud of that?

      *****, I'd be hiding my face if I admitted something was "too long" to read....

      "It's too hard, I don't get it! I'm bored!"

      /shakes head sadly
      • sonnybobiche, on 06/07/2008, -4/+2It wasn't too hard, it was just too chock full of tinfoil bumflufferies.
        I read long articles all the time, just not ones written by people who appear to be in need of psychiatric consultation.
        • bjornski, on 06/07/2008, -1/+4So did you read it then?

          You must have to come to those assumptions.

          Some if it IS a bit far out, but you wouldn't know that. You didn't read it.

          Go be proud of your ignorance elsewhere.
    • barbiesnow, on 06/07/2008, -6/+1Gee, How do you really feel?
      • SaraLiberty, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2Cheap shot...figures you'd take it.
    • maiku00, on 06/07/2008, -3/+1I didn't even have to read this wall of text to know that it was about Ron Paul
      • SaraLiberty, on 08/16/2008, -0/+3Reading for comprehension is a skill best learned early.
    • jf518, on 06/08/2008, -3/+1too long, don't care enough
    • pidgas, on 06/09/2008, -2/+1A number of two word phrases come to mind: fever swamp, tinfoil hat, black helicopters, incoherent ranting, etc.
  • DearSergio, on 06/06/2008, -6/+19Deja Vu, all over again
    Gonna be my pal?
    My bestest friend?
    Long white lies, tied to the track
    Long white lies, no looking back.
    • Amadeus2490, on 06/07/2008, -3/+1. . .What what? In the butt.


      Such a moving poem. . .
    • xs11ax, on 06/08/2008, -0/+0first it was iraq now iran will be attacked,
      just one more stage in the US global hijack,
      keep the nukes for US and keep the world unbalanced,
      so when they take the world they will remain unchallenged.
      Urban Guerilla.
  • loganhid, on 06/07/2008, -4/+7Of course we're going out tonight...Its Hitler's birthday
  • Shogi, on 06/07/2008, -3/+20Does anyone in their right mind actually believe that they do?
    • wreckosaurus, on 06/07/2008, -7/+2http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008 ...

      Well the IAEA says Iran is still stonewalling them. I have no doubt they are pursuing nuclear weapons. But before you call me a neocon, let me say that I'm a liberal and completely opposed to war, I'm just not blind.
      • Shogi, on 06/07/2008, -1/+10I'm not blind either, but stonewalling is hardly damning evidence, as we saw with Iraq.
      • bjornski, on 06/07/2008, -2/+6@wreckosaurus

        Israel is stonewalling any investigation into their nuclear program too.

        What's your point?
      • FairDinkumMate, on 06/07/2008, -2/+1And one daily newspaper in Pakistan was the only source you could find to support this point of view?
    • antipoet, on 06/07/2008, -1/+2I think the last part was a great case for why they're stonewalling:

      "Iran should accept the additional and more intrusive inspections that it did before, and throw open its program to the IAEA inspectors, but the war talk in Washington and Jerusalem gives it a plausible excuse not to, since it would be tantamount to offering them a list of targets."

      I think this is a very large piece of the reason that pursuing diplomacy before saber-rattling is such a good idea.
      • Psi57, on 06/07/2008, -0/+4The ONLY reason they are going after nuclear weapons is to try and stand up to the West. Given how much we have ***** them over in the past can you really blame them for wanting some dignity? Despite the hard-line stance taken by Iran's political and religious leaders, the common Iranian not only doesn't hate us (on a personal level), but probably has gotten to like us by watching so much American TV. If we would only offer an open hand instead of a fist to them, for once, they would likely vote out their current party in favor of one willing to talk instead of shouting jihad.
    • raysaagar, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2well, who in the gov't is in their right mind?
      certainly not Mr. President
  • bossm4n, on 06/07/2008, -9/+11Why link to an article that is 7 months old? This issue is evolving much more quickly than that. This article spells out the current climate there and the concerns the IAEA has regarding Iran's nuclear program. http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/26/iran.nuc ...

    FTA-" But the report, dated May 26, hints at the frustrations of the IAEA investigators seeking clear answers about the program. The report said Iran still has not disclosed full information about its work on high-explosive testing and missile design work, as well as the "green salt project" studies -- research involving uranium tetrafluoride, a precursor to uranium hexafluoride, which is used in gas centrifuges to make enriched uranium."

  • Dysarthria, on 06/07/2008, -16/+10Don't the French, British, and Israelis think they may have them as well? Didn't Clinton threaten to bomb them off the face of the earth?

    Why would a country with vast oil reserves pursue nuclear power?

    I think you have to be an utter retard not to believe that the Iranians are trying to build a bomb.
    • yellowcakewalk, on 06/07/2008, -9/+15Ask Henry Kissinger about why he supported nuclear power plants for the USA puppet dicatator Shah Reza Palavi. Please try to grasp the historical context of all of this.
      • solid12345, on 06/07/2008, -5/+2Did Shah Palavi send weapons and money to terrorist groups like Hezbollah to bomb embassies, destabilize governments and spread an "Islamic" revolution either? No.
    • Viend, on 06/07/2008, -2/+9The British maybe, the French I don't think so.

      The Israelis? No ***** right, any stupid thing like Iran having nuclear weapons that we believe is probably a myth the Israelis made up.

      I think you have to be an utter retard to believe that the Iranians are trying to build a bomb.
      • solid12345, on 06/07/2008, -3/+1I think you'd have to be retarded to NOT believe they are pursuing the bomb, every nation with a strong military emphasis wants the bomb, the Soviets raced to get one, as did the Indians and Pakistanis.
      • Dysarthria, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1I guess the centrifuges are all just for show.
    • leexy, on 06/07/2008, -1/+2It has never been about attempting to build a bomb. It's about having the ability to build one. And any country with an independent nuclear civil program is technically only a decade or so from making a bomb.

      The Bush doctrine, if followed to its logical conclusion, would require the annihilation of every single country with a decent biological university dept. Lest they build WMDs...
    • ciaran036, on 06/07/2008, -1/+3and don't the US, British, French and Israelis have nuclear weapons? Be fair.
      • Dysarthria, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1Sure. But we are not a country run by religious fanatics with a leader calling for the obliteration of nations off the face of the earth.
    • localzuk, on 06/07/2008, -2/+1Hmm... A country that relies on oil. Reserves are going to start to drop. Prices are increasing. My guess would be that they need some form of infrastructure in place for when oil runs out! Pretty simple really.
    • oldgal, on 06/07/2008, -0/+3In the rest of the world it is believed that the U.S. does not invade countries that have nukes. If your country had been named by the U.S. president as part of the axis of evil along with North Korea and Iraq, then Iraq was invaded and occupied (North Korea has nukes, so no threats of invasion there), wouldn't you at least want the U.S. to think you have nukes whether you do or not? If Iran does have nukes, do you really think they would preemptively or covertly (via terrorists) attack Israel or the U.S. and risk total annihilation? If you were a terrorist trying to get your hands on nukes would you go to a country that has a few highly guarded ones that nobody can find or a country that has a stockpile and has recently accidentally transported them across the country and accidentally shipped fuses to Tawain?
    • paigeinphilly, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2Hey...Ive got some lush swamp land in FL to sell you...cheap cheap I tell ya.



      Obama/Webb 08
    • Intercon, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1Dysarthria,

      Iran has vast crude oil reserves. However, Iran does not have a vast technologically modern infrastructure for refining that crude oil. Subsequently, they export their crude, and then buy back fuel-grade petroleum (i.e., petrol or gasoline) which they then subsidize to keep the cost low enough for the people of the country to afford their fuel and utilities. Iran is losing billions every year due to a short-sightedness in developing infrastructure. Remember, until the Iranian revolution that diposed the Shah, most of the crude oil was leaving the country and heading to Britain and the U.S. No need for oil refinery when you're looting the country; too volatile a region to entrust with this critical link in the supply chain.

      Nuclear energy for electricity production is at the top of the list for the current regime. It will save them from bankrupting their economy as oil prices surge. Personally, if I lived in Iran, I would hope that my government was also involved in developing a nuclear deterrent to Israel's arsenal as well as the imperialistic manuevering of the United States government. After all, most world resources are in decline. The idea of sovereignty of nations is a tenuous hold on resources as it is today. Imagine what will happen with a billion more people on the planet vying for those resources.

      While you might have to be "an utter retard" to think that Iran isn't seeking a nuclear deterrent, you might want to look up some history before you post.
      • Dysarthria, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1Instead of asking you read a history book, I'll ask you to use the logic of a child and ask yourself why they don't simply build a few refineries?

        Iran is a nation run by religious fanatics stuck in the 7th century, Get over the Shah, that was 30 years ago.
  • kraller22, on 06/07/2008, -6/+34OH! lets have an INVASION!!!! then several weeks later, declare our VICTORY! while slowly our economy dies, house values plummet, unemployment rises, and gas prices skyrocket. All in the name of freedom and to be sure that no one but AMERICA (THE MOST AMAZING COUNTRY EVER) has nukes! It sounds exciting. Lets make a movie.
    • JKC349, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1"OH! lets have an INVASION!!!! then several weeks later, declare our VICTORY! while slowly our economy dies, house values plummet, unemployment rises, and gas prices skyrocket." - karma...funny how that works... :)
  • mit7, on 06/07/2008, -2/+8We give them the plans, we sell them the equipment to make it, we help them build the facilities to make it... *sigh*
    do we have to help them steal a few from us too?!?!!

    Would somebody please think of a good excuse so we can go there and free them already.

    Déjà vu all over again since the article is from Saturday November 3 2007...
  • fr0ng, on 06/07/2008, -2/+7I hope his wife doesn't work for the CIA.
  • ryan83189, on 06/07/2008, -14/+2How about we go in, but not with the UN or anybody else,too much bias, just some good old boys with geiger counters, and try to find these suckers. They will need protection, so a sizable army is going with them in the (very likely) event that we find weapons. We won't find any, but that sneeky son of a bitch < strike >Sadam < /strike > Ahmadinejad is abusing his power and is probably hiding them. One month later, "We couldn't pull out now, the whole country would crumble". "We are fighting them over there so we don't fight them over here." This war is not about weapons of mass destruction, iranq was harboring terrorists and we need to make sure we kill them. Folks if you disagree with us you are un American and a terrorist sympathizer. The bill is called the PATRIOT II act, how can you love your country and vote against a bill named like that?
    • bjornski, on 06/07/2008, -0/+6"We"?

      Are you enlisted? No?

      Then shut he ***** up.

      /you're ***** 18, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You'll outgrow your ignorance eventually.
    • ciaran036, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2eejit
      • Mercedes383, on 06/08/2008, -0/+1Me thinks he was taking the piss. Lighten up.
  • Berkana, on 06/07/2008, -0/+26Only a fool would have us bomb Iran:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XQan1qo8T4

    On Iran's nuclear program:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XctgkYj5aVk
    • had3l, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2Thank you for those videos. Everyone should watch it.
  • Toqueman, on 06/07/2008, -0/+6Here they go again.....
  • sonnybobiche, on 06/07/2008, -9/+5As was said before, this article is quite old-- over half a year. Hopefully Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, but you can bet your ass they're trying to get them.
    • overtoke, on 06/07/2008, -2/+6You are a moron.
      • arpad, on 06/07/2008, -3/+4I'm impressed by the depth of your point of view.

        Perhaps you'd be even more convincing with artful variations of the names of those with whom you disagree and top it all off with a psychiatric evaluation.

        The Iranians want nuclear weapons and when/if they get them they'll use them.

        I'd rather take the Iranian regime at its word and make sure they can't implement the threats they've made then hope they suddenly acquire wisdom and tolerance.
    • ciaran036, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2and i can bet my ass that America already has them!
      • sonnybobiche, on 06/07/2008, -1/+2Right. They're not the sort of thing you share with the rest of the playground, though.
        • ciaran036, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2True. But the playground bully should have its toys confiscated!
  • 1randomguyO8, on 06/07/2008, -2/+17Attack on Iran = all out war = cut it world oil supply = higher oil prices = market crash = recession = US broke?
    • ciaran036, on 06/07/2008, -0/+7not to mention all of the men, woman and children ripped to pieces by bombs and bullets and innocent people left starving to death...
      • 1randomguyO8, on 06/07/2008, -3/+1Yeah I wonder if Iran and Hezbollah would then rain missiles onto Israel.
      • NightVortez, on 06/07/2008, -1/+1Yes but what matter is that for our government? Just label them as terrorists and keep it in the dark.
    • Pixelpaws, on 06/07/2008, -2/+7Attack on Iraq = all out war = cut it world oil supply = higher oil prices = market crash = recession = US broke.

      It worked pretty well in that case.
    • themachine, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1You forgot "= Cheney the richest man in the world" in there.
    • Intercon, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1

      You have the math, exactly. You might wonder why intelligent people running a country would drive it into this sort of arrangement. I'd start by looking at whose interests might be served if this scenario continues...
  • smacksaw, on 06/07/2008, -1/+6Now all we need is Jack Straw with some fake intel and we're ready to go.
    • leexy, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2Don't forget a Powerpoint presentation at the UN, and the complicity of the media.
    • ciaran036, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1Maybe from the Central "Intelligence" Agency?
  • LimeParrot, on 06/07/2008, -5/+31As an Iranian, I beg all Americans to take notice of what the warmongers running your country are trying to do... only you can stop another Middle East invasion and the destruction of thousands of lives (Iranians, and soldiers from BOTH sides...)
    • ciaran036, on 06/07/2008, -0/+3As David Icke says, watch what they do, NOT what they say.
    • nutellabot, on 06/07/2008, -13/+0Beg your scientists instead, please. The most ensured way you can avoid being invaded, is to get stronger yourself or total surrender of course. Just get the friking thing as soon as possible. You don't want to possess something so valuable yet you can't protect it, you know what I mean. Now good luck.
  • icegoddess13, on 06/07/2008, -1/+12With the military having a hard time recruiting (my friend is a recruiter and has told me how difficult it is), I have no doubt the congress will bring about another draft to provide troops for this fiasco. Not only that, but going to war with Iran is guaranteed to officially be World War 3. I really don't want to be in the States when all this goes down...
    • bjornski, on 06/07/2008, -0/+9A Republican ballot should include a mandatory recruitment form.

      A vote for McCain is a vote fore more, and longer wars.

      There is NO WAY IN THE WORLD that the McCain plan can be worked without a radical, RADICAL "keeping" of enlisted forces.

      So go ahead, vote McCain, but you better enlist first.

      Unless you have "other priorities".

      How patriotic.
    • stainsteelcrown, on 06/07/2008, -1/+2Do you realize how many people in the US would be eligible for the draft? The United States wouldn't be able to provide them all with socks let alone equip them for war.
    • ciaran036, on 06/07/2008, -1/+2Has your friend ever thought about the morality behind roping people into war?
    • paigeinphilly, on 06/07/2008, -1/+4When is Dumya's time up in office again?.....



      Obama/Webb 08
  • mokodo, on 06/07/2008, -0/+5If the US would have bought all oil from Iraq, how much it would cost? more than the war? I am really curious on that.
    • bjornski, on 06/07/2008, -0/+8It would be much less, but Lee Raymond might not have gotten his $400million golden parachute.

      It's not about cost, it's about who controls, and who earns the profits.
    • diablozx9, on 06/07/2008, -1/+3Why does everyone talk like there will be no more oil if war expands in the middle east?
      Look at the oil import numbers for the US...
      The Mexico and Canada provide more than you think.

      Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
      (Thousand Barrels per Day)
      Country Mar-08 Feb-08 YTD 2008 Mar-07 YTD 2007

      CANADA 1,795 1,920 1,886 1,780 1,825
      SAUDI ARABIA 1,535 1,614 1,541 1,216 1,325
      MEXICO 1,232 1,231 1,220 1,621 1,475
      NIGERIA 1,154 982 1,102 1,290 1,156
      VENEZUELA 858 945 980 1,036 1,033
      IRAQ 773 780 697 523 464
      ANGOLA 384 341 433 696 570
      ALGERIA 247 191 269 501 484
      ECUADOR 231 169 217 191 214
      KUWAIT 199 261 232 288 208
      BRAZIL 188 169 175 209 174
      COLOMBIA 135 220 174 108 107
      RUSSIA 108 80 68 193 92
      CONGO 105 97 98 79 58
      CHAD 101 89 103 66 74
      • Sverre, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1No-one is saying there will be no more oil, just that the oil price will go even higher.
  • draculthemad, on 06/07/2008, -4/+10Of course iran is going after nuclear weapons. They would be retarded not to.

    We've already proven we are willing to invade countries that have oil but not the means to defend it at all costs on the thinnest of pretexts. We've also proven that as soon as a country DOES get the bomb, the kid-gloves come out, and military action starts getting pushed off the table.

  • coffee200am, on 06/07/2008, -2/+6I say we just give em one....Then we can end all this bitching.
    • krusader3z, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1There is some academic study on this, see:

      Kenneth Waltz, “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better,” Adelphi Papers (1981)
  • MacintoshSauce, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1Oh Jesus... Here we go again.
  • amdees, on 06/07/2008, -0/+5hmm, date of the article "Saturday November 3 2007"... still a good article.
  • Hangly, on 06/07/2008, -0/+13Of course they don't. We wouldn't dare invade anyone who had nuclear weapons.
  • crackberri, on 06/07/2008, -8/+0So why is he enriching uranium DEMOTARDS?
    • blacktriangle, on 06/07/2008, -1/+6I suggest you try reading a book.
    • 15charmaxwtf, on 06/07/2008, -0/+3Uhmm, perhaps nuclear power. And I'm most certainly not a democrat or a Democrat.
  • dmkirt, on 06/07/2008, -2/+2Bull!
  • baller90210, on 06/07/2008, -3/+6Why the ***** are we looking at articles that are 7 months old...The IAEA has taken a different stance since then
    • mirunit, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1Because it supports a certain political viewpoint?
  • IIAmusedII, on 06/07/2008, -2/+5You want another costly war that resolves nothing? Vote McCain. He'll bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran.
    • Abomonog, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1If only we had actually done that to Iraq. The war would have ended in a week.
  • Pixelpaws, on 06/07/2008, -2/+4The current story is this: The IAEA isn't being given access to the facilities that could potentially produce nuclear weapons. In other words, Iran is holding back information. While that alone isn't a sure-fire guarantee that Iran is making such weapons, it is highly suspicious that they would keep inspectors out of those facilities. If Iran has no intention of making nuclear weapons, why are they making it so difficult for the inspectors to see that?

    Buried for being old news.
    • Sverre, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1Do you remember that Saddam played the same game?

      60 minutes had an interview with the US officer who "debriefed" Saddam. He got a lot of interesting thoughts out of him: A complete lack of understanding of the US intentions and political will, plus a deep-seated feeling that WMD's were extremely important for region politics - a deterrent for "local" foes like Iran. According to this interview, Saddam complied to UN by destroying his weapons, but didn't want to openly declare that, as he felt this would be suicide for his country's local power.

      I don't think it's far-fetched to imagine that Iran has similar feelings.
    • mirunit, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1Because since Iran and Iraq are close to each other they are obviously the same. I think we should ask ourselves if the IAEA has ever, on their own, brought to light and shut down a modern nuclear facility.
      • Abomonog, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1Iran and Iraq are not the same. With Iraq we betrayed and attacked an ally for personal gain.

        Iran is an old school Muslim country that we want to wipe out for personal gain.

        See, they're nothing alike.
  • BillE3, on 06/07/2008, -6/+0I do not believe that Iran has any nuclear weapons "now", I do believe that they would love to have at least one to drop on Tel Aviv. I do believe they would like to see one delivered somewhere in the U.S. So who gets to fry first?
  • jooje, on 06/07/2008, -1/+8It is really frustrating how easily some people talk about a country and 70 million people living in it as if it was a trivial object.

    posting this comment from Iran.
  • Babazoz, on 06/07/2008, -0/+5Well, no *****, sherlock. Iran has NEVER had nukes.
  • Ablue, on 06/07/2008, -1/+1What can be done about this? The international community needs to find their balls and do something about the US.. Do they need to annex Poland before people will stop talking and start doing.
    Fascism is back and going strong people..
  • solid12345, on 06/07/2008, -2/+2We don't need to bomb Iran, but what we should be doing is hitting hard against Iran's proxy military groups like Hezbollah.

    Hezbollah would have never dared pull that ***** in last year's summer war with Israel or try to attempt a coup in Beirut last month if the Lebanese government was properly armed and given the power to crush that rogue militia once and for all.

    The Phalangists and the Sunnis militias (officially anyway) gave up their weapons, by allowing Hezbollah to maintain a private army the Lebanese government will never be truly democratic
    • ciaran036, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1Hezbollah - I thought they were Palestinian?
      • solid12345, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2? No, they are Shiite Lebanese fighters armed and funded by Iran's Revolutionary Guard.
        • ciaran036, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1how do you know they were funded by the IRG?

          (By the way, American businessmen funded the IRA terrorist organisation during the troubles...)
  • pablo0713, on 06/07/2008, -3/+3I think the US and its allies SHOULD own the Middle East. The world NEEDS empire!!!
    • ciaran036, on 06/07/2008, -1/+2So, you advocate the murder of millions of innocent men, woman and children?
  • justice7, on 06/07/2008, -3/+1Here's the thing about Iran .. they're causing problems in Iraq: Likely true.
    They have WMD: Likely false

    If you want a war with Iran for whatever pretext reason (oil?), use a real excuse; such as their meddling in Iraq.
    • ciaran036, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1What?? How are they causing problems in Iraq? It's the US army causing problems in Iraq!
    • digitronix, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1The Iranians have more right to be there since Iraq is their NEIGHBOR
      • justice7, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1Hey, i was just giving a better excuse than WMD .. why lie?
  • WTFppl, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2I like how the United States Gov totally forgets about all those IAEA reports, such as the latest one dated in may were Iran invited the IAEA to inspect all of their facilities after installing three more centrifuges. Anyways, the U.S. needs to ask it's self one important question, "If we invade Iran, what US city are you willing to lose? Because one US city will be nuked if we invade Iran"!
    Believe it, or not!
    • misterrock, on 06/07/2008, -0/+0Iran doesn't have the ability to nuke a US city.
      There is not a chance in hell that they have ICBMs. And I doubt they have the tech to build a suitcase nuke, especially seeing as they can't even refine weapons grade Uranium beyond 3% purity.

      So I guess the question I should ask you is, who will come to Iran's aide with nuclear weapons in the event of a U.S. led invasion? What nation would be dumb enough to detonate a nuclear bomb on the soil of the country with the largest nuclear arsenal? We half-assed Iraq. We hit Iraq with a fly swatter. In the event the United States is nuked, in place of that fly swatter will be an M16.
      • WTFppl, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1You must have a great misunderstanding or forgetfulness of the amount of enemies that 'people' inside the U.S. government have made over the last 50 years!
      • Abomonog, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1I think the U.S. city he is referring to is Baghdad.

        Sooner or later it's going to get nuked.
    • xsquirrel378x, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1thats because this article is older than those reports ;-)
  • Gloogle, on 06/07/2008, -2/+2They just have nuclear power plants to generate electricity, thats about it. Who ever said they had nuclear weapons. WTF!!! I knew this like from 2 years ago, come on people!
    • Abomonog, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1To Alfred E. Bush nuclear power plant= nuclear bomb production facility.

      That is why we are trying to force North Korea to shut down its only 3 power plants. They are all nuclear.
  • duckyinc, on 06/07/2008, -4/+1Lets bring democracy to them and if they nuke us we know
  • lolwell, on 06/07/2008, -2/+11░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
    ░▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░░▓▓▓░░░░░▓▓▓▓▓░░▓▓▓░░░░░░░▓▓▓▓░
    ░▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░░▓▓▓▓▓░░░░░▓▓▓░░░▓▓▓░░░░░░░▓▓▓▓░
    ░▓▓▓░░░░░░░░▓▓▓░▓▓▓░░░░▓▓▓░░░▓▓▓░░░░░░░▓▓▓▓░
    ░▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░▓▓▓░░░▓▓▓░░░▓▓▓░░░▓▓▓░░░░░░░▓▓▓▓░
    ░▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░░▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░▓▓▓░░░▓▓▓░░░░░░░░▓▓░░
    ░▓▓▓░░░░░░░▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░▓▓▓░░░▓▓▓░░░░░░░░░░░░
    ░▓▓▓░░░░░░░▓▓▓░░░▓▓▓░░░▓▓▓░░░▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░▓▓▓▓░
    ░▓▓▓░░░░░░░▓▓▓░░░▓▓▓░░▓▓▓▓▓░░▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░▓▓▓▓░
    ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
  • mrbradg, on 06/07/2008, -2/+6Saturday November 3 2007?? WTF?
  • misterrock, on 06/07/2008, -3/+2There are a few differences between Iran and Iraq on this point:
    1) Saddam purposely bluffed having a nuclear arsenal because he feared an Iranian invasion. Our intelligence reports saw right through that, but the point remains.
    2) Iran has no invasion from neighboring countries to fear and is touting its nuclear "strength" as a point of national pride. When your nation also takes pride in the destruction of the Jews, this is a problem.


    Personally, I trust Barack's judgment on Iran. If an invasion were necessary, he would not hesitate.
    • acitcratnA, on 06/07/2008, -0/+2And I would not trust a man who would go to war without hesitation.
    • flink405, on 06/07/2008, -1/+3Obama would make a deal with the leader of Iran, then Iran would nuke Israel and Obama would say "that is not the leader of Iran I knew when I talked to him"....
  • zaptoman, on 06/07/2008, -2/+1Just keep telling yourself that and it'll make it true!
  • Mikhail101, on 06/07/2008, -2/+2No ***** they dismantled it a long time ago, and Obama wants to deal with this so called "threat".
    • mirunit, on 06/07/2008, -0/+4Iran dismantled? Did their president not maybe 6 months ago talk about the nations expanded enrichment initiatives? Also, Iran has never had nuclear weapons. The problem with international law is it grants some states the rights to own nuclear weapons (UN Security Council Permanent members) and the rest the right to pursue nuclear power. However, once you have HEU/Plutonium, you have a nuclear weapon - couple this with ubiquitous delivery systems who exactly is to say x nation cannot have nuclear weapons at that point?
  • agenthamsta, on 06/07/2008, -0/+3Can these people be any dumber??
  • flink405, on 06/07/2008, -6/+2iRAN is still building them.
    Soon they will have nuclear weapons.
  • jgwirtz, on 06/07/2008, -3/+1OK, here's a plan:

    First, stand by and WAIT until Iran actually develops the nuclear ability to obliterate their enemies (this means you).
    Second, negotiate with them and try to convince them not to use it.
    Third, when they do use it, try someone in an American court for the "crime" (affording them all the rights of an American citizen), obtain conviction (going out on a limb here), then try to find them.

    Doesn't that make you feel better?
    • Abomonog, on 06/07/2008, -0/+1You do realize that if we would have done all that with Saddam Hussein he would have been acquitted in an American court.
  • Willtheway, on 06/07/2008, -1/+2Like this really matters. Both McCain and Obama will probably attack Iran. Where's Ron Paul? :(
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 65 of 65 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.