digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Iran Not Building Nuclear Bomb, Ahmadinejad Tells NBC

bloomberg.com — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told NBC News that Iran isn't developing nuclear weapons and the country would respond positively to a new approach from the U.S.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • WordsnCollision, on 07/28/2008, -58/+38Call their bluff - he's obviously calling ours.
    • squaredUP, on 07/29/2008, -2/+11Imagine the ***** that would ensue if they actually shot a missile into Tel-Aviv...
      • neko6, on 07/29/2008, -4/+9Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Hizbullah and Hamas all bombed, shelled and rocketed Israel in numerous occasions and nobody was "enraged" enough to do anything about it beyond apologetic rhetoric...
      • deadmann, on 07/29/2008, -5/+7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
      • squaredUP, on 07/29/2008, -1/+5Well I meant a nuke into Tel-Aviv. They are a rambunctious bunch, but letting dozens of nukes fly back isn't easily provoked in a semi-rational society. Especially when those your shooting at are your neighbors.
      • CarzorStelatis, on 07/29/2008, -0/+4As one Israeli analyst recently said, even if Iran had nuclear weapons they would never be stupid enough to fire even a single one at Israel. They know fine well that Israel has the most powerful military in the region, and could wipe them off the map (pun intended) if necessary. Plus the fact that Israel has lots of Patriot missile batteries which are more than capable of dealing with Iran's antiquated Shahab missiles.
    • duckley, on 07/29/2008, -18/+13"Not building"...

      That's right. Not yet. They need just a little more material and technology. THEN they'll "be building"...
      • floorman56, on 07/29/2008, -2/+4We are not building Nukes

        Oh and we have no gays too
      • caferrell, on 07/29/2008, -4/+7@duckley, Are you an Iranian scholar? Ever been to Iran? Know a lot of Iranians? Read Iranian history?

        Or do you just parrot the crap that you watch on American TV?
      • Brownds, on 07/29/2008, -3/+3@caferrell
        Are you a Iranian scholar? My wife's father is from Iran and he left for fear of his life. And most westerners won’t go to Iran because we would probably like to return home in one piece. So stop acting like a کیف دوش ناآگاه. (Ignorant Douche Bag)
    • humperdeath, on 07/29/2008, -1/+1Oh, good! I feel so much better now.
  • okiemike, on 07/28/2008, -61/+51We are not bluffing silly rabbit. Iran will not be allowed to get nukes no matter what.
    • firesphotons, on 07/29/2008, -13/+43The US and other nuclear nations put themselves in a difficult situation by contending we can have enormous arsenals of Nukes while simultaneously demanding no emerging countries have even one. Ahmadinejad made one good point, that nukes didn't stop the dissolution of the USSR, they didn't win Viet Nam, Iraq or Afganistan. We ought to get rid of all of them worldwide, nobody needs any...
      • Spuy767, on 07/29/2008, -13/+23Nuclear weapons are like that one pair of earrings that cost 7 grand that your wife just had to have but never wears because she is afraid that she'll lose them, the good china, if you will. Iran desires nothing more than to be in the nuclear club, and he's playing the UN like a deck of cards. He calls off negotiations, then calls them off again, over and over, every time buying himself and his military more time to spend refining uranium from the nuclear reactor that he refuses to shut down even though several countries have agreed to build another, better reactor which only has the caveat that it can't be used to refine weapons grade uranium. No country needs nuclear weapons, but some countries will always crave them, Iran is one of these countries. The simple fact is, that a country with a radical leadership and populous cannot be allowed to produce weapons capable of killing millions in a single attack.
      • ciaran036, on 07/29/2008, -14/+6Spuy767, there is no proof that Iran wants nuclear weapons. They oppose it on religious grounds. That's why the program was stopped in 2003. There is no proof that they continued it since, or intend to continue it. The evidence says they don't have nuclear weapons, they don't have a nuclear weapons program and no intention to start one. The IAEA, NIE and CIA have confirmed some of this.
      • quandrum, on 07/29/2008, -2/+8The populous is really not that radicalized. Read any of the dozens of books about the day to day life in Iran and you'll see.

        They are in fact an ultra-modern democratically-minded people who allowed their leader to use a single event and fear mongering to take away their freedoms. Sound familiar?

        (Although, to give them credit, their one event was a deranged madman using his countries military to invade and destroy the sovereignty of their neighbor, as opposed to a deranged madman scrapping together enough to make a desperate long shot attack against a major symbol)
      • rpgmaker, on 07/29/2008, -2/+5@Spuy: Like quandrum said, you have to take your own comment in perspective. Right now I would define your government as a radical leadership: Craving for wars without having *factual* reasons at hand and if they don't have it making them up as they go along...
      • trippinlikegod, on 07/29/2008, -1/+4Based on current policies some might think that the United States has a pretty radical leadership lacking the responsibility to wield "nucular" weapons (or however the hell he pronounces it).
      • xatx2, on 07/29/2008, -0/+2Hey *****, nuclear weapons didnt win us the war in vietnam iraq or afghanistan because we simply didnt use them.
    • geminister, on 07/29/2008, -9/+15Are you out of your mind? There are no nukes! And what about US nukes?
      • firesphotons, on 07/29/2008, -12/+10US nukes should be gone too, nobody should have that kind of destructive power in the world. Before you get angry, stop to realize that it's possible with current technology to verify that nobody would have these weapons. A world without nukes means a world without the possibility of an accidental launch. The world needs to become more peaceful not more angry and war prone.
      • didiman, on 07/29/2008, -5/+10fire when you're ready to join the real world let us know
      • firesphotons, on 07/29/2008, -9/+4Didi, I didn't say it was going to come true, it's just what I believe. I work with radiation, I have great respect for it's "dark side".
    • ciaran036, on 07/29/2008, -17/+18Iran does not have any nukes! And it's not up to the US who decides who gets the nukes and who doesn't. In case you didn't realise, the US has at least 9,000 nukes.
      Britain, France, Israel and about four other countries have nukes. Where are their threats? The biggest threat here is clearly the selfish, bullying, greedy, imperialistic, hypocritical US.
      They are using the same trick on you again - Iraq had no WMD's - but there are still hundreds of thousands of innocent people dead - as well as many rebels who have tried to defend their country and their freedom from the foreign occupation.
      That's why we should be totally against an attack on Iran. There should not even be a question about that. Iran is the 3rd biggest country in the world for oil. That is just one reason why those in power want to attack this country that has done nothing wrong.
      • Protuhj, on 07/29/2008, -8/+17The difference being: no one is worried about us launching all our nukes at any time without warning, at say, Mexico.
      • thecoolestguy, on 07/29/2008, -16/+13No one is worried about Iran launching its nukes at any one. Israel is simply worried about no longer being to bully and bomb any one it wants (see Lebanon in 2006 and the bombing of Syria in 2008) with impunity.
      • repins, on 07/29/2008, -9/+15Iran is not likely to launch any nukes, but they are likely to give them to someone who will sneak one into a country and detonate it.....then Iran can sit back and say "It was not us"
      • soomprimal, on 07/29/2008, -12/+5And nobody with half a brain is worried about Iran launching nukes either. Iran knows that if it launches it's a death sentence. If it looks like Iran attacks Israel, it's more likely to be a false flag designed to instigate a conflict rather than Iran doing it itself.
      • neko6, on 07/29/2008, -5/+12@coolestguy - "Israel is simply worried about no longer being to bully and bomb any one it wants" - assume Iran had nukes in 2006 when Israel was attacked by Hizbullah - what difference would it have made? Would Iran have threatened that if Israel retaliates, nukes would be used against it? If so, isn't that bullying?
        So you SUPPORT bullying?
      • thecoolestguy, on 07/29/2008, -11/+6-----"Israel is simply worried about no longer being to bully and bomb any one it wants" - assume Iran had nukes in 2006 when Israel was attacked by Hizbullah - what difference would it have made? Would Iran have threatened that if Israel retaliates, nukes would be used against it? If so, isn't that bullying?----

        You're implying Hizbollah started every thing.

        http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0801/p09s02-coop.htm ...

        ---Since its withdrawal of occupation forces from southern Lebanon in May 2000, Israel has violated the United Nations-monitored "blue line" on an almost daily basis, according to UN reports.---

        If Iran had nukes, then Israel wouldn't have bombed Lebanon's civilian infrastructure to the ground for 30 days.
      • thecoolestguy, on 07/29/2008, -6/+3Way to go Israelis, you're going straight down the path of the Nazis.

        I've had 4 buries in the last 5 minutes, showing a bunch of Israelis are telling their friends to bury my comment down. You can't bury the truth forever.
    • nycmac247, on 07/29/2008, -9/+10Mutually Assured Destruction worked in the Cold War and it can work now with Iran and Israel.
      The US should not be involved and, in fact, if we do get involved it will only be - no matter how its done - another long, protracted "war" that ends up doing nothing except enriching contractors and ensuring another generation or both physical and PTSD casualties.

      • neko6, on 07/29/2008, -4/+14MAD doesn't work with fanatics who would are willing to die for political reasons.
      • spyd3rweb, on 07/29/2008, -10/+4But we can't destroy Iran and continue our endless war if Iran gets nukes to defend itself with.
      • quandrum, on 07/29/2008, -1/+4Who are these fanatics?

        Everyone involved are smart rational people interested only in their countries best interest. (Although Israel has a pretty grandiose idea of what their country is).

        Don't believe the simple characterizations the media gives you because they assume you are stupid.
      • nycmac247, on 07/29/2008, -2/+4@neko6

        You might want to read up on Persian culture a little bit. IMHO the former Soviet Union was much more "fanatical" and willing to take heavy losses than Persia is.
    • stealthc, on 07/29/2008, -9/+3Well I guess that's fine, because IRAN IS NOT BUILDING THEM.
  • ironeus, on 08/01/2008, -59/+123Did he really say: "Nuclear weapons are so 20th century." ? It's funny coming from a guy who ran his country straight into the middle ages.
    • slayerab, on 07/29/2008, -35/+14Oh, bush said that?
      • smoothdogg00, on 07/29/2008, -3/+16There are more relevant stories that you can post this garbage on.
    • ICSU, on 07/29/2008, -8/+88He didn't run anything. Iran had and has medieval Islamic laws.
      Ahmadinejad is a puppet.
      Khamenei has the real power.
    • ciaran036, on 07/29/2008, -11/+7No he never. It's been like that for a long time and always will be. And please don't use that as an excuse to support an attack on the country.
    • geoken, on 07/29/2008, -14/+38Wierd, I thought it was CIA intervention that overthrew various progressive, democratic movements in Iran and brought back military and religious dictators that ran them into middle ages, not their current leader.
      • Naieve, on 07/29/2008, -11/+13You do understand what kind of Democracy you are talking about correct?
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/29/2008, -11/+10Yeah, if it weren't for BushCo, we wouldn't be talking about Ahmadinejad.

        Their SOP is to build up the opposition so that they can sell more war.

        I mean, 100% of the Bad guys we have been facing, were created by a Bush, or by Reagan who was run by Bush. Manuel Noriega. Saddam Hussein. OBL. And now thanks to skullduggery and the US threatening Iran they put in a reactionary like Ahmadinejad. I've missed a few on this list.

        But if it weren't for a Bush, the poor military would have run out of bad guys by now to spend all our money pretending to defend us from.
      • solid12345, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1"Democratic movements"

        Mohammed Mossadegh slid into power because his political party assassinated the then current prime minister and blackmailed the Shah into appointing him his position or else face revolt, need I mention he also dissolved Iran's parliament, won re-election with a rigged 98% yes vote, and tried to take control of the army?

        And people say Bush was shady with his elections.
      • FairDinkumMate, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1@naive - NO, what 'type' of democracy are we talking about?

        Just because the US doesn't like the results of a democratic election in another country(Iran, Palestine, etc) doesn't give it the right to remove that government. If democratically elected leaders of countries required majority support globally, Bush would have been gone a long time ago.
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1Saddam was bad too.
        We aren't debating the leader if Iran -- just the stupid next war for Contractors that BushCo is pushing us towards.
    • mohsenxp, on 07/29/2008, -9/+18The Islamic Revolution ***** Iran up. Khomeini ***** Iran up. He is seen as such a saint by many of Iran's older generation, but he was a ***** liar and manipulator and a murderer.
      The Shah ***** Iran up! It was his over indulgence in western affairs that led to him being a puppet for the west. Ignoring his own people's welfare for the sake of international diplomacy.
      The West ***** Iran up! It was their constant interference and greed over the control of oil that led to such corrupt politicians that paved the way for the revolution to take place in the first place!

      Iran's been getting ***** for a long while. To say that Ahmadinejad is responsible is ***** stupid.
      • yellowcakewalk, on 07/29/2008, -9/+12Maybe having the CIA overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953 and installing the brutal regime of the Shah and his SAVAK secret police to terrorize the population was not a good idea after all. See OPERATION AJAX.
      • solid12345, on 07/29/2008, -1/+2Greed? Iran was a metropolitan nation in a ragged region of mountains and rocks thanks to oil, the Shah modernized it and Khomeini reversed everything he did.
      • Ortheos, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1operation ajax back in the 50's ***** iran. You can thank the US and Britain for that, and for the current realities of an islamic theocracy in the country, which wouldnt have arisen had iran remained a democracy like it was before us and britain coupe'd the country.

        However today iran is rising, its economy grows at over 7% year. Of course it is once again a target of imperialist pigs, lapdog or bust, your government doesn't give a ***** about the people of iran, and neither should you, mind your own business.
    • sohailstyle, on 07/29/2008, -15/+25Middle Ages? Iran has a top 20 economy according to the most recent data. (GDP-PPP). Iran's not in the middle ages--can't just write the region off as such, tool.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ ...
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/29/2008, -12/+7Yeah, but this is the Knee-jerk reaction to anyone in the Middle East who our leaders say; "bad guy."

        Most of these knuckle-draggers don't know Iran is Persian. Was an ally of the US up until Bush's "axis of evil" speech, and lent support to our efforts to track down Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

        The US is acting like the dangerous, anti-democracy, threat in the world -- not Iran.
      • Egoist, on 07/29/2008, -8/+17You're going to claim that Iran, a country that we haven't had diplomatic ties to for nearly 30 years, was an ally before Bush came to office?

        What a surprise you're voting for Obama. Blind ignorance of world history + blaming Bush for everything under the Sun = Obama Voter
      • floorman56, on 07/29/2008, -8/+4Iran's not in the middle ages

        Yea right
        http://www.zionism-israel.com/Israel_Human_Rights. ...
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/29/2008, -1/+3An ally supports your country and lends troups on missions with your country -- YES. I'm saying Iran was very much acting like an ally -- despite Bush's rhetoric.

        Also, the Bush administration just stopped sending them F-14s last year when there was public outcry. Also since 2000, our exports to them have increased 10-fold.

        So the idea that this administration actually thinks they are a threat is an absolute lie. However, it is a popular "truthiness" that lots of paid bloggers promoting the war are pushing.
      • Egoist, on 07/30/2008, -1/+1What a sad little liar you are.

        Do you understand the meaning of the word, "ally?" You apparently don't as we have not spoken directly to Iran since 1980, using Switzerland as a diplomatic pass through. How can we have allies that we don't even want to speak to? Name one example of how Iran has been an ally in the last 30 years.

        The Bush administration did not send a single F-14 to Iran. F-14 PARTS were sold in public auctions until the GAO discovered that Iran was surreptitiously purchasing those parts at which point they stopped selling F-14 parts altogether. If Iran is a so-called "ally," why would they have reacted so?

        Your position can't be very strong if you have to lie to try to convince others.
    • lamiaconfitor, on 07/29/2008, -9/+25Why are people digging you up? Iran isn't in the ***** middle ages. Some of their laws are, and the idea that the religion trumps all is 'middle age-esque' perhaps, or in our terms, ridiculous... but they have as much of a modern country as anyone else does.
      • ciaran036, on 07/29/2008, -9/+11Cars, phones, internet, computers, video games, roads, houses, skyscrapers, helicopters, airports.... yeh it's like the Middle Ages in Iran for sure.
      • floorman56, on 07/29/2008, -5/+6yeh it's like the Middle Ages in Iran for sure.

        Then go there and have a Gay Pride Parade
      • mohtasham, on 07/29/2008, -6/+4floorman, you're a fag for sure.
      • solid12345, on 07/29/2008, -1/+3They are modern because of economic reformers like the Shah, the Ayatollahscertainly weren't the ones encouraging skyscrapers, computers and cell phones.
      • FairDinkumMate, on 07/29/2008, -1/+3So your definition of a 'middle age-esque' country is one in which religion triumphs over everything else, regardless of advances in scientific knowledge & know-how? So kind of like a country that teaches intelligent design as science ? That type of thing?
      • lamiaconfitor, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1@fairdinkum... why the hell not?! I am not claiming that America isn't falling into an intellectual abyss. I am simply claiming that even as we do there is a long way to go until we hit the feudal system.
      • kuzotz, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1You do know Iran is no where near a feudal system, and has quite a prominent middle class. IT's much similar to Turkey's middle class except without half of the problems that Turkey has.

        Though I think America is falling into an intellectual abyss. I doubt Iran is going to have a brain drain anytime soon. Trust me the moment the US economy isn't #1 is the moment the US has a brain drain. If you're an intellectual, if you are a professional, and there is no work for you in the US. You will be looking abroad. This is actually starting to happen now. I wouldn't say America is going to turn into *****. But it has a high chance of it because American mainstream culture is quite anti-intellectual, and anti-professional. Meaning yea we might start to lose white collar jobs soon, and people who have such skills.

        But you should really got Iran and realize that it really isn't in the medieval times.
    • rpgmaker, on 07/29/2008, -1/+1Now I know what I'm gonna say in my next social meeting!
    • Actual223, on 08/01/2008, -0/+0Well that and maybe sanctions...
  • AlaskaLoneWolf, on 07/28/2008, -29/+20And to think we have massive amounts of high-tech machines and most of our troops poised on both sides of his country. You'd think he'd watch his ass or get popped like prom-night zit.
    • toasterhead2k, on 07/28/2008, -12/+17"watch his ass?"

      How do you propose he do this, exactly? His country is not pursuing nuclear weapons, and hasn't since 2003. That's the consensus of the intelligence community. What more must Iran do to prevent getting "popped like a prom-night zit?"
      • DrDreyfus, on 07/28/2008, -10/+15Didn't we just find out they have 2x the nuclear centrifuges than we initially suspected?

        What else don't we know about their nuclear program?
      • toasterhead2k, on 07/28/2008, -9/+14A lot. We don't know nearly as much as we should about their nuclear power program.

        All the more reason to work with the IAEA and allow inspectors to do their job, rather than rushing to war like we did in Iraq.

        You remember Iraq, right? That little $4 trillion war we're fighting for no reason?
      • dkapuchino, on 07/28/2008, -3/+8How good was the IAEA at preventing North Korea or Lybia from getting nukes?
      • digihoffa, on 07/29/2008, -8/+3DrDreyfus: sauce please
      • digihoffa, on 07/29/2008, -5/+6dkapuchino: Good enough to remove NK from the terror list & Lybia dismantled theirs. Also see Scott Ritter about Iran's none existent nuclear programs.
      • marx2k, on 07/29/2008, -4/+5@DrDreyfus: "Didn't we just find out they have 2x the nuclear centrifuges than we initially suspected?
        What else don't we know about their nuclear program?"

        It's hard to find out about a country when you refuse to talk to them.

        @toasterhead2k: "All the more reason to work with the IAEA and allow inspectors to do their job, rather than rushing to war like we did in Iraq."

        We had nuclear inspectors in Iraq. Remember Hans Blix? He kept saying over and over that Iraq had no WMD's. Bush said he was wrong and we invaded anyway. *shrug*
    • Mononuclear, on 07/29/2008, -5/+11Yes because we need another useless war in the middle east based on false information. Why are so many people against the war in Iraq but want to invade Iran? Iran is the same story all over again.
      • marx2k, on 07/29/2008, -6/+4Because people are ***** stupid. Average IQ is at or below 100. That's my reasoning for it.
      • toasterhead2k, on 07/29/2008, -3/+5No, Iran will be much worse. Iraq will look like a cakewalk by comparison.
      • akeldama, on 07/29/2008, -3/+7There will be no invasion. Strategic bombing of nuclear facilities accomplishes the goal of resetting their ambitions. The only "boots on the ground" scenario you might see would be surgical strikes by special forces units to take out particularly hardened targets that an air assault might not be able to destroy.

        Let's dispense with this 'invasion' nonsense that appears in every single one of these threads.
      • Mononuclear, on 07/29/2008, -3/+4why didn't we just use strategic bombings in Iraq to destroy the sites again?
      • thecoolestguy, on 07/29/2008, -2/+4akeldama, in case you're too retarded to understand, an attack on Iran will result in an escalation in Iraq and Afghanistan, which will result in an escalating conflict between the US and Iran, that will devastate and destabilize the world.
      • akeldama, on 07/29/2008, -4/+3Mononuclear: So you are saying that the U.S. went into Iraq to destroy nuclear centrifuges? That's what's at play here with the Iran situation, nothing more. Destroy the enrichment facilities and tell the Iranians to have a nice day.
      • Mononuclear, on 07/29/2008, -3/+3Iraq was just destroying the manufacturing sites of their WMDs... there isn't much difference.
      • akeldama, on 07/29/2008, -2/+4thecoolestguy: Just like when the Israelis bombed El Kibar in Syria? What did the Syrians do about that; did they launch an all out offensive against Israel? You know that Iran was involved with the Syrians in constructing El Kibar right? What did the Iranians do about it?

        Oh, and thanks for launching your own immediate personal attack. I suppose there's no such thing as a civilized discussion on Digg.
      • akeldama, on 07/29/2008, -4/+3Mononuclear: If you don't see a difference between destroying Iran's nuclear centrifuges and trying to root out Iraq's (supposed) WMDs, then there is no point in trying to further this discussion.
      • thecoolestguy, on 07/29/2008, -1/+3----thecoolestguy: Just like when the Israelis bombed El Kibar in Syria? What did the Syrians do about that; did they launch an all out offensive against Israel?----

        Syria's site was secret. All of Iran's are public and under intensive inspections. If its nuclear facilities were attacked, and its engineers were killed, it would be all over the global news, and Iranian public would become radicalized, and push for a more adversarial position against the US.

        --- You know that Iran was involved with the Syrians in constructing El Kibar right? What did the Iranians do about it?------

        According to who? Israel?
      • Mononuclear, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1You are right about one thing. There is no point in trying to further this discussion since you have proven you have no clue.
    • ciaran036, on 07/29/2008, -4/+3You'd think you'd wise up and realise that they're pulling the same trick on you again and you are falling for it again like sheep.
  • alimostofi, on 07/28/2008, -32/+21Just ignore this confused monkey.
    • DangerCollie, on 07/29/2008, -5/+3This is an issue I have with some of my countrymen. Ahmadinejad may not seem to be our vision of a world leader, but let's consider that dude came out on top in a country full of some crazy ass mo'fos and a history steeped in blood. Whatever you think of him, please try to keep in mind anyone who comes out on top of that pile did not get there by accident.

      There's an outside chance he's telling the truth. Even if you have enough fissionable material, you're a long way from a high yield device. And also consider if we act stupid enough, the Russians could decide just to sell him nukes. Who's going to stop them? Our space program is going to be dependent on them for almost a decade for lift capacity. They're rich in commodities, including oil. My honest opinion...in a stand up fight, the Russians have a pretty good chance of whipping our ass. It would be a train wreck, but they have less to lose.

      And the Russians still think they owe us for Charlie Wilson's War. The neocons really slapped themselves on the back for that one, didn't they? The bear has a long memory.
  • yonoz, on 07/28/2008, -36/+142They don't have homosexuals in Iran either.
    • hadees, on 07/28/2008, -10/+48I was always a little hesitant about letting him speak freely at college when people in his country aren't afforded the same rights however seeing the look on Ahmadinejad's face when the entire crowd started laughing at him was priceless.
      • kuzotz, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1ummmmmm Most Iranians get sponsored by their gov't to goto University in The US.

        You're a hyprocrit don't call yourself American. Please don't. You said this. "Because of his country's laws I don't think we should allow his free speech within America."
    • pintomp3, on 07/29/2008, -18/+68we don't have homosexuals in our military either.
      • nastronomical, on 07/29/2008, -17/+8Like you right?
      • mike17032, on 07/29/2008, -8/+20Gays are allowed to be in our military.

        They just arnt allowed to tell anyone they are gay, and we arnt allowed to ask.
      • mohtasham, on 07/29/2008, -8/+2You mean US military is made of whole bunch of fags?
      • BoneheadFarker, on 07/29/2008, -1/+1That's only because no one asks.
      • FairDinkumMate, on 07/29/2008, -2/+4@pintomp - AWSOME reply!

        American double standards drive the world nuts & you just nailed it!
    • tsotha, on 07/29/2008, -8/+16Of course they don't have homosexuals in Iran. Not any more, at least.
    • ciaran036, on 07/29/2008, -15/+23What's that got to do with nuclear weapons? These are totally unrelated. Stop criticising Iran. We should be criticising our own countries instead of spitting out more propaganda to support an attack on Iran.
      • Quisquis, on 07/29/2008, -9/+12Yeah guys... stop being mean and saying all these hurtful things.

        Wait what?

        I'd say the connection is that he's a god damn liar, and as such can't be trusted.
      • ciaran036, on 07/29/2008, -13/+8Any quotes to prove that he has lied?
        And please don't say "Iran has no gays" because he was laughing when he said this. He was joking.

        Bush and his cronies are the real PROVEN liars. Do I have to get you quotes for that?
      • PolishLogic, on 07/29/2008, -4/+1@ciaran036

        Bush and his cronies were laughing...they were joking.
      • wtrwlkr, on 07/29/2008, -2/+0"Any quotes to prove that he has lied?
        And please don't say "Iran has no gays" because he was laughing when he said this. He was joking."

        Dude, what?

        Did you watch the same speech I did? He didn't laugh, he had a slight nervous smile right after he got his ass laughed at for making such a ***** statement. Even if it were a joke, what would be the punchline? We have no homosexuals in Iran, we simply execute them once we find out!

        I'm as anti-bush as the next guy. This administration has done some unspeakable things; but GWB isn't the worst head of state out there. Bush's administration, even in their wildest dreams can't live up to the legacies of Kim's DPRK, the junta in Burma, or the Ayatollahs in charge of Iran.

        Don't let your justified hatred of this administration blind you to the fact that there are other regimes equally deserving of your hatred.
    • rpgmaker, on 07/29/2008, -2/+4You can't freely flirt with girls on the street either.
      • marcduke, on 07/29/2008, -2/+2With the veils and full length robes the women have to wear, I'm not sure I'd want to. It would be a like a game of Let's Make a Deal - except, instead of a monkey in a diaper riding a giant rocking horse, it might be some really ugly chick behind the curtain.
      • HonestAbe, on 07/29/2008, -1/+2Evidence, please.
    • mecharabbit, on 07/29/2008, -2/+2Maybe we should drop the gay bomb on them:

      http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2007/06/sun ...
    • SohailKhanifar, on 07/29/2008, -2/+7***** you, two of my friends died trying to be homosexuals in iran.
      • PolishLogic, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1They should have tried a different hobby.....or meme.
      • ciaran036, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1That's not funny.
  • salamnder, on 07/28/2008, -45/+62Come on people. We should trust this guy. I mean, he says he doesn't have them, so just let him do whatever he wants.

    ./scarcasm
    • 4Christ, on 07/29/2008, -16/+5You can't be serious--no .Of course not. I just saw scarsasm which I think means sarcasm. So it's all good.
      • wuvamber, on 07/29/2008, -11/+0Nazi.
      • pseudononymist, on 07/29/2008, -7/+3scarcasm is actually a much more severe form of sarcasm. So biting it leaves a mark
      • geoken, on 07/29/2008, -9/+2This isn't funny, 2 of my friends died from scarcasm.
    • rexblade, on 07/29/2008, -26/+81Well lets examine national credibility for a second.... Take the are you really that stupid quiz..

      Q.What country has used atomic weapons before? A The United States B.Iran C.Other

      Q.What country has invaded another country under the claim that they had weapons of mass destruction and were a threat?
      A The United States B.Iran C.Other

      Q.What country sold chemical weapons to another so they would use them on a mutual enemy?

      A The United States B.Iran C.Other

      Q.What country has recently been found to be planting pro war commentators in the national media claiming to be neutral and credible, and has deliberately changed the translation of the other in order to trick its citizens to support more war?

      A The United States B.Iran C.Other

      Q.What country has allowed corporate entities to reap unbelievable amounts of profits through no bid contracts, weapons manufacturing overpricing goods and has sustained them by a prolonged occupation?

      A The United States B.Iran C.Other

      • Rudegar, on 07/29/2008, -3/+17when will the mysterious C.Other's true identity be revealed ? :P
      • BeefBaron, on 07/29/2008, -20/+9All B or you're anti-American.

        /foxnewsjournalists
      • NotOptium, on 07/29/2008, -11/+2Some of them require an All of the Above. Or at least an A and C.
      • ciaran036, on 07/29/2008, -9/+3All 'A'
      • GiggleStick, on 07/29/2008, -7/+5Oh my God! Corporate entities? This is way more serious than I thought.
      • ChinezePanda, on 07/29/2008, -18/+29The United States also has...

        ENDED A ***** WORLD WAR.

        DEFEATED NAZI GERMANY

        BEAT THE RUSSIANS INTO SUBMISSION
      • akeldama, on 07/29/2008, -14/+26Let's examine historical context for a second:

        Q. What empire embarked on multiple invasions, lasting hundreds of years, conquering lands and enslaving the populace at large?

        A. The Persian Empire.

        Q. What empire has been slaughtering and enslaving innocents for an order of magnitude longer than the United States of America has existed?

        A. The Persian Empire.
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/29/2008, -12/+3We won WW II without a corrupt Republican in office and without "Contractors." Further, we didn't make war millionaires.

        And "akeldama" above is going into fricken ancient history to demonize Iran. Do these people convince anyone else but each other? What third-grade kid is going to say; "Wow, when Iran was the Persian empire, they attacked the Spartans -- oh no!"

        NeoCons always make the case for us while they are a threat to decency and intelligence.
      • rpgmaker, on 07/29/2008, -2/+2I think that in the fourth question should be a 'Both'.
      • brockpetrie, on 07/29/2008, -1/+12Did you seriously just bring the Persian Empire into this?! Why not bring up the Zoroastrians and Macedonians as well.

        That isn't historical perspective, that's being a total asshat.

        And if you seriously think the Persian Empire was that terrible, you've got some reading to do. Rome wasn't too kind, or if you want present day examples, neither was Pinochet or Pahlavi.

        "Q. What empire embarked on multiple invasions, lasting hundreds of years, conquering lands and enslaving the populace at large?"

        A. Almost every single empire that has ever ***** existed. That's what imperialism is.

        "Q. What empire has been slaughtering and enslaving innocents for an order of magnitude longer than the United States of America has existed?"

        A. Almost every single empire that has ever ***** existed. That's what imperialism is.
      • smullick, on 07/29/2008, -0/+2akeldama = FAIL
      • CarzorStelatis, on 07/29/2008, -1/+6@ChinezePanda:
        Actually, it was the USSR that beat Nazi Germany. The US and UK both made huge contributions to bringing victory closer, but it was the Red Army that finally stopped the Panzer divisions and turned the tide of the war.
      • FairDinkumMate, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1@akeldama - Any example of invading a sovereign nation from say the past 400 years to demonize Iran will do. Got one?

        Didn't think so.
      • Wigmeister, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1akeldama, why dont you at least keep it in the past 100 years? Moron...

    • LenBaird, on 07/29/2008, -6/+13Maybe so, but our leaders have a public track record of lying on issues where war is concerned, so I wouldn't say that you should trust them either. The truth from both sides probably lies somewhere in the middle.
      I don't think Iran is a threat to us, and the only time they talk about war-like actions is in response to attacks, which is reasonable and justifiable. This is more than can be said of our leaders, who have threatened a war of aggression repeatedly.
    • ciaran036, on 07/29/2008, -10/+14ChinezePanda, America may have ended the war. But they ended it in the most extreme, most disgraceful way. They could have at least dropped it in ocean and taped it, and told everyone to stop fighting or we will drop it on land.

      Yes they helped to defeat the Nazis. But you're being very selective in your comparison to other conflicts. Vietnam was a massive failure and Iraq and Afghanistan were massive failures, for example.

      You can't use WW2 to justify every future war. And anyway, there was a reason for war in 1939. There is not a reason for war against Iran, because we KNOW that they do not have nuclear weapons. It is absolutely ridiculous to justify an attack against a country just because they MIGHT have a nuclear bomb, despite the fact that the US has 9,000 nuclear bombs, as well as Britain and Israel having hundreds too.

      And no they didn't beat the Russians into submission. They created a scenario whereby the world was almost annihilated by nuclear weapons by scaring each other into building bigger and more powerful murderous weapons.

      What kind of school did you go to or what stage are you in your education. You don't seem to know a lot except for what Fox News tells you.
    • dubfunk, on 07/29/2008, -10/+2ChinezePanda :"ENDED A ***** WORLD WAR.DEFEATED NAZI GERMANY,BEAT THE RUSSIANS INTO SUBMISSION"

      So typically American to claim sole responsibility for winning WW2. What about all the British, Canadian and Australian forces that were in the war and dying WAY before the US? They don't count I suppose.

      The Russians weren't "beaten" into submission. Their facade of an economy and military could no longer sustain itself. Of course Ronald "Where am I"? Reagan is given sole credit. Remember how he worked WITH Gorbachev in Iceland to make changes?

      Oh yeah, the survivors (ie "winners") get to write the history books. I think Stalin said that.
      • Egoist, on 07/29/2008, -0/+7The British were on the verge of losing the war when the US came in, so yes, the US is responsible for turning the tide in the war. Without the massive amount of resources poured in by the US, there's little doubt that the war would have been lost.

        Why is it that the Soviet economy collapsed in on itself? Could it have been a 40 year-long arms buildup with the US or are you going to say it was bound to happen no matter what? The Russians spent so much on building new bombs and maintaining control of East Germany that they couldn't even afford to feed their own people. Your ignorance of the role that Reagan played in the final years of the Soviet empire is disturbing.

        It's easy to hate the US when your knowledge of world history is mostly imaginary.
      • floorman56, on 07/29/2008, -1/+3If it wasn't us then why do we just pull our bases from Europe?

        After all we don't do anything for the defense of Europe
    • Jhiaxuz, on 07/29/2008, -8/+2Akeldama, the difference is is that what has happened in the past is just that, in the past. We will not die by reading about The Persian Empire in some history text. Compare that to nuclear threat and how the one country which is trying to police the world is the only nation in history to use an atomic weapon to solve a problem. Don't forget that the Americans are not the only ones with nuclear weapons and Iran is in close ties with Russia.
    • rpgmaker, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1FTA: "Of course he says they aren't producing a bomb, but they are producing the wherewithal to make a bomb once they have the enrichment capability.''

      The thing is not if we can trust this guy or not, is to demonstrate any claims that the US government is holding against Iran before going into war. Oh wait, that beats the purpose of a preemptive war, silly me.
    • brkhobowriter, on 07/29/2008, -0/+2I believe him. Iran isn't building a nuclear bomb. Iran is building a nuclear missile!
    • CarzorStelatis, on 07/29/2008, -0/+2Damn Digg and its stupidly complex threading system, bury please.
  • 3tcp, on 07/28/2008, -26/+35I wouldn't expect him to just confess if they were.
    • Propethic, on 07/29/2008, -2/+5Either way it doesn't matter. People still brazenly think that people are willing to use nuclear weapons as a means of first assault. Enriching uranium does not = nuclear bombs. Yellow cake uranium does not = nuclear bombs. Having both and being in the middle east does not = anybody having or intending to use nuclear bombs as a means to attack. These are all just a means to fear monger against nuclear energy generation for third world countries who could greatly benefit from it

      If anybody in the future uses nuclear bombs, they will be swiftly wiped off the pages of history in retaliation, and the world would be a much worse place because of both the bombs and the after-effects in the polical climate.
  • Patrikc325, on 07/28/2008, -34/+30Send Obama and he can woo them with a speech.
    • lamiaconfitor, on 07/29/2008, -7/+7No, we need to send someone who is belligerent and tells him we are going to ill him no matter what he does, because we are the world police, and he is evil.
    • PhilLesh69, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1We should do exactly what we are doing... Clinton and Bush both seem to think that negotiating means you send a list of demands and only when the other side agrees to your demands can you sit down to negotiate.

      Rice even reiterated this strategy the other day. Until they agree to our demands, we will not negotiate with them. (Isn't that what hostage takers in movies say?)
  • dkapuchino, on 07/28/2008, -28/+18C'Mon guys. Give the man a chance. Let's take his word for it just this once. Worst case he gets some nukes and blows up a few countries... Then we'll know never to believe him again.
    • PhilLesh69, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1Yeah, he's going to blow up a few countries. Yeah, because that's what countries do when they get nukes.

      Oh, *****, I mean, because that is what WE did as soon as we got a working nuke.
  • toasterhead2k, on 07/28/2008, -13/+69"How good was the IAEA at preventing North Korea or Lybia from getting nukes?"

    In North Korea, their ongoing monitoring campaign was an integral part of DPRK's decision to shut down their weapons program. And their inspections have confirmed the dismantling of Libya's nuclear weapons program.

    Diplomacy worked with Libya and North Korea. It's the only thing that will work with Iran, as well. War will be a complete disaster.
    • tsotha, on 07/29/2008, -12/+12"Shut down" its weapons program? You're joking, right? "Moved its weapons program underground" is a much more truthful way to put it.

      The IAEA is worse than useless. It's just a soothing balm for the west while the third world acquires nuclear weapons. I don't think we could have stopped them anyway, but at least see things for what they are.
    • fcbfan, on 07/29/2008, -6/+4i agree
    • mike17032, on 07/29/2008, -6/+9Disaster for Iran.

      Dont confuse a War with an Occupation, they are two very different things.
    • Naieve, on 07/29/2008, -6/+7LOL.

      The North Koreans are starving and their nuclear test failed.

      ROFL, give the UN credit for NK idiocy.

      Man thats classic.

      And Libya?

      Yeah, sure it was the UN that caused them to change their mind, yeah, sure....
      • boombye, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1They can reach Japan and that's enough for them.
      • diggimator, on 07/29/2008, -0/+2In theory, their Taepodongs can reach Alaska and Hawaii.
    • BobOki, on 07/29/2008, -5/+7Yeah totally different.
      What we do is Occupation.
      What everyone else in the world does is War.
      We are above petty warmongering here and only go to war if there is a clear and defined threat to our nation.
      Don't tell me you actually are ***** stupid enough to believe at this point that WE are the good guys. You can sugar coat your stupidity and morals all you want with religion and false threats, but at the end of the day we are that ***** country that decided to invade another country for profit and gains and will torture and murder anyone outside or inside our country that openly questions it.
      Wake up, we are the bad guys, the evil country. We are a few concentration camps short.. wait we have those.. POW camps...
      We are a few furnaces short of being another regime that we blasted as being evil, now we damn near duplicate their methods.
      Take your ***** holier than thou ***** elsewhere, because war or occupation, at the end of the day the women stay raped, the men and children stay dead and however you want to word it the end result is the same.
      p.s. If this is love and tolerance, ***** your god.
      • sooperspook, on 07/29/2008, -2/+4While I agreed with most of what you posted "***** your god" was unnecessary and offensive.
        My God has nothing to do with what the US does no matter what how much some people claim otherwise.

        Just because they call themselves Christians and claim to be acting in Gods name does not mean they are.
        Know a Christian by his/her actions. Their actions are by no means Christian. In fact most are in direct opposition to how we are taught to act as a Christians.
  • BillE3, on 07/28/2008, -36/+31And what about the youtube video of his speech ending with "death to Israel" just posted today?
    • decafmatan, on 07/28/2008, -14/+32That wasn't real. Israel made that video and dubbed over an existing video for U.S. support. Duh.
    • BeefBaron, on 07/29/2008, -27/+15What about the FOX News channel, with "death to everyone except the USA and Israel" posted every day?

      :P
      • HonestAbe, on 07/29/2008, -2/+1somebody knock off Osama, uh Obama. Well, both, if we could.
    • groverblue, on 07/29/2008, -3/+3you're an idiot

      http://digg.com/world_news/The_Wipe_Israel_off_the ...
    • Propethic, on 07/29/2008, -3/+4Sometimes I wish there was not Isreal or Palestine, or Tibet and people just ***** get over themselves. You are not the chosen people, god did not put you on this land. People are dying because you believe this to be true. There are no true allies in the middle east, personally they're all out of their ***** minds especially israel
      • PhilLesh69, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1Don't include Tibet. I don't think there is a tibetan insurgency. They may be protesting chinese control and being overrun by chinese migrants, but I don't believe they are blowing up cars and that sort of thing.

        Israel and Saudi Arabia are both the biggest threats to US National Security, yet they both seem to have our politicians and our media by the balls.

        So we get this sort of misinformation and propaganda.
  • BillE3, on 07/28/2008, -17/+7He isn't real, just wooden puppet of the Ayatollah.
  • schuder, on 07/28/2008, -16/+19Fool me once...
    • digihoffa, on 07/29/2008, -11/+4wtf is with all this doubt?
      • ciaran036, on 07/29/2008, -7/+7No WMD's. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people dead. No evidence of nuclear weapons in Iran. No evidence of a nuclear program and no evidence of intention of starting the nuclear program they ended in 2003, which received help from the US.
      • mmmmmbiscuits, on 07/29/2008, -2/+6"Hundreds of thousands of innocent people dead"

        MILLIONS EVEN! BILLIONS!
      • ciaran036, on 07/29/2008, -5/+4Millions of people either dead, injured, homeless, orphaned etc.
        No not billions. Too far.
      • digihoffa, on 07/29/2008, -6/+1.... I know that's what I'm saying wtf
    • GiggleStick, on 07/29/2008, -1/+17Can't get fooled again?
    • neko6, on 07/29/2008, -0/+11And millions will die?
    • Jforsyth89, on 07/29/2008, -0/+2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qDuG0ZYD5I
  • Laorir, on 07/28/2008, -24/+44In other related news, thousands of criminals in prisons protest their innocence.

    In all seriousness though, what did you expect him to say? If it's a lie, then he certainly wouldn't come clean. It would be like Iraq coming clean on the WMDs they were hiding.
    • marx2k, on 07/29/2008, -10/+10Iraq was hiding WMD's?
      • Naieve, on 07/29/2008, -7/+13We found the 500 chemical munitions we said were there and stockpiles of precursors we said were there. What was missing was the oft publicized mobile chem labs.
      • marx2k, on 07/29/2008, -4/+10I thought we were looking for nukes and not chem weapons we sold to them.
      • dubfunk, on 07/29/2008, -9/+9You people still believe there were WMDs? WTF? Go back to your factories drones!
        Just remember that RUMSFELD met Sadam in 1984. WE sold them the chemical weapons (WMD) so that they could gass the ***** out of the Iranians. Oh *****. I just realized why Bush KNEW there were WMDs. We sold them to Sadam

        http://www.horsesass.org/downloads/rumsfeld-saddam ...
    • jgzman, on 07/29/2008, -7/+11I note they are still managing to keep them hidden...
    • PhilLesh69, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1And all of Bush's administration said that waterboarding isn't torture, and that none of them leaked the identity of a non-official cover CIA agent risking her and all of her sources' lives, and all of them claim that they need to listen in on our phone calls and emails in order to stop the terrorists.

      You're right, it would be like Iraq coming clean on the WMDs they were hiding. Oh, hang on, which Iraq are you talking about? Maliki is in charge, and he has nothing to do with the guy we had him execute.

      Arguing that you shouldn't believe someone at face value because obviously they wouldn't come clean if he were lying is like saying that I can arrest you for saying you didn't rob the bank because you told me you didn't, because obviously you wouldn't admit it if you did.

      You are not using logic, you are trying to justify your preconceived judgment.
      • Laorir, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1Sorry, perhaps a bit too subtle for you. Iraq didn't have WMDs, in case you missed it. The last sentence was thrown in there to try to show that just because someone denies something, it doesn't mean that they're guilty of the accusation. That is, the point was that Iran would deny making nukes whether they were building them or not and that him saying this doesn't mean we can draw any conclusions about whether it's true or not.
  • piattorney, on 07/28/2008, -31/+28Oh yeah I believe the former hostage taker.
    • ciaran036, on 07/29/2008, -13/+8He didn't take anyone hostage. It was the Iranian army. And it was because they had entered Iran's waters. If an Iranian warship was as close to America as the Brit ship was as close to Iran, the Americans would bomb them. Actually Ahmadinejad treated them well and personally give them gifts as an apology. Of course when the Brits got back to the UK, the MOD wrote their press scripts for them. When they started blabbing about how well they were treated, the MOD banned them from talking to the press.
      • mmmmmbiscuits, on 07/29/2008, -5/+16ciaran036, piattorney is referring to Crazy Mahmoud's participation in an event that occurred in 1979. Probably long before you were born.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis
      • CourtesyFlush, on 07/29/2008, -3/+9If it happened before you became aware of the world around you, it never happened, right?
      • ciaran036, on 07/29/2008, -2/+3ah.. rite. Thanks.
      • SquigglyP, on 07/29/2008, -9/+3and nevermind the fact that those hostages were taken during the backlash of our failed attempt to take over Iran. Install a puppet government to do the bidding of a foreign interest and you'll find the people living there will become pretty upset. No, the only thing we learned from that incident is that if you want to take over a country it's best to do it right out in the open by bombing the ***** out of them, rather than trying to do it with subterfuge or trickery. If those backfire then you aren't allowed to go in a fix things physically, and you have to just take the ass kicking you get. With Iraq we've proven that it doesn't matter how many people die, nor does it matter what the people in Iraq want, so long as you have some kind of legitimate sounding excuse to breach the borders, then anything else at all can happen and no one else will get too riled up at you.

        You don't give a ***** about Iran and nuclear weapons enough to really look into the situation... the guys in the whitehouse tell you they must be wanting to enrich for a bomb, but they don't go into details. Go get the details about Iran's enrichment program and the details about how an atomic bomb works, and you'll see that the likeliness of Iran being able to enrich uranium to be usable in a bomb is about as likely as us getting out of Iraq in the next month. We're going to go in there and blow the ***** out of another country and make another whole population hate use and wish us dead, and then our great leaders will tell us "oops, I guess they were just going to use it for power... our mistake!!"

        And then you guys will do everything you can to help the president cover up his scheme, because you can do illegal things while you're president, so long as you disguise the things with a veil of terrorism or some other threat. We don't have anything to fear from Iran.
    • CourtesyFlush, on 07/29/2008, -3/+11Digging down history is for simple minded tards.

      Oh, wait. This is the intarwebs.....and Digg.
      • ciaran036, on 07/29/2008, -9/+1The versions of historical events that we read from textbooks are not always correct.
      • CourtesyFlush, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1Because you say so?

        Apparently, you believe I'll trust you just as much as you trust Ahmadinejad.

        I was a young adult during the hostage crisis. I watched the whole thing.

        What were you doing to become such an expert on what really happened?
    • HonestAbe, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1You're being sarcastic, right?

      They don't look anything alike. The CIA agrees that it wasn't him. Even his political opponents swear it wasn't him. Where have you been the last few decades?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_a ...
      • CourtesyFlush, on 07/29/2008, -1/+1I've been reading key hostage accounts.

        They were there.
      • HonestAbe, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1Many of the former hostage takers have stated that Ahmadinejad was in no way involved in the Hostage Crisis. Bijan Abidi, one of the hostage takers, said that "There was no one by that name (Ahmadinejad) among the students who took part in the U.S. Embassy seizure." Mohsen Mirdamadi, one of the student leaders, and Masoumeh Ebtekar, the spokeswoman of the students who later became a Vice President under President Khatami, have also denied Ahmadinejad's involvement. Abbas Abdi, another leader of the embassy takeover, and subsequently a political opponent of Ahmadinejad, expressed certainty that Ahmadinejad was not involved. "Definitely he was not among the students who took part in the seizure," Abdi said. "He was not part of us. He played no role in the seizure, let alone being responsible for security [for the students]."
  • NacaV, on 07/28/2008, -28/+55Kinda surprised with these comments above, Jewish Internet Defense Force now posting on Digg?
    • onetimer, on 07/29/2008, -25/+22Oops, you meant "zionist" internet defense force, right? Because you're only "anti-zionist"...
      • krnldmp, on 07/29/2008, -2/+6No, Jewish, because that's the name the JIDF chose for themselves.
    • HumanCattle, on 07/29/2008, -23/+16I think you've just proved his point, onetimer.

      Are you now going to organize with your pals to have NacaV banned for using the J-word?
      • rexblade, on 07/29/2008, -16/+12Don't even feed this troll HC. They really arent worth putting in the time and effort they do. If anyone does believe anything they say then its probably fair to say their opinions have already been implanted. The world around them is irrelevant and to get informed they turn on the tv. If what you are saying is not followed by an anti depressant commercial or a preview of this weeks American Idol then its not information, or credible.
      • Waiting2awake, on 07/29/2008, -14/+7Human, as Rexblade said - the usual suspects are too far gone. Just ignore them(Not block them - their comedy is too good to miss). When you find one that seems reasonable discuss and share ideas - see how long it takes before the name calling starts.

        To continue discussing things with people that have already turns off their minds, is like giving medicine to the dead.

      • buddarien, on 07/29/2008, -2/+6Mirror, meet rexblade and waiting2awake, and even humancattle for that matter.

        They are very interested in shutting down freedom of expression and aren't really all that interested in facts in the first place. Just the opinions, ma'am.

        Anyone that finds themselves outside of the collective groupthink, beware! You will be branded a troll because your thought may actually differ. That troll moniker is pretty serious guys.

        And certainly, do not call them out for what they ACTUALLY are doing. How dare you trust your lying eyes when they can just tell you what you should believe?

        The world really could be a perfect place. If only the masses would stop thinking for themselves and allow the intelligentsia to make decisions for them.


    • mike17032, on 07/29/2008, -16/+14Yes, because its always the dirty jews fault right?

      Anti-semite jackoff.
      • pintomp3, on 07/29/2008, -11/+6maybe he's not referring to all jews, but to groups like this:
        http://www.thejidf.org/

        or the people who use software like this:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaphone_desktop_too ...
      • onetimer, on 07/29/2008, -3/+11^^ It's not so much the fact that the group doesn't exist, but the fact that anyone who criticized Ahmadinejad *must* be part of the JIDF.

        Kind of like if you accused anyone who critiqued the US as being part of a "Muslim internet defense force". That would be just as bigoted (and if said on digg, dugg *down* instead of up)

        Your political prejudice has blinded you...
      • Propethic, on 07/29/2008, -3/+4It's a shame that Isreal can't wake up from the middle ages
    • bepart, on 07/29/2008, -3/+16funny because it's Israel who has hundreds of nukes
      onetimer: I think referring to Jewish IDF is not antisemitic because the group does exist
      http://digg.com/world_news/Jewish_Activists_Hack_A ...
      • onetimer, on 07/29/2008, -6/+6It's anti-semetic to assume that any criticism of ahmedinejad *must* be from members of a "jewish IDF"

        In the same sense, it would be bigoted for me to assume that say, criticism of the unites states *must* be from members of a "muslim IDF"

        Only in the case of the former, this kind of bigotry is accepted on digg for the most part.
  • Surferess, on 07/29/2008, -28/+27It is funny to hear him say it with a straight face.
    • geoken, on 07/29/2008, -8/+10It's funny to see people like you who still believe Bush's 'gut' above and beyond his own CIA and the rest of the world's intelligence community.
      • mmmmmbiscuits, on 07/29/2008, -4/+10You mean the same CIA that already missed other country's nuclear tests, like Pakistan and India? The same CIA which said in August of 1978 (right before the 1979 revolution and hostage crisis) that Iran "is not in a revolutionary or even a prerevolutionary situation." The same CIA which in 1990 (two days before he invaded!) dismissed the likelihood of an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait? The same CIA that didn't even predict the fall of the Soviet Union? You need to watch fewer bad Hollywood movies, dude.
      • justinx0r, on 07/29/2008, -1/+2It's funny to see people like you to make baseless accusations and ridiculous straw man arguments when Surferess didn't say anything about Bush, the CIA, or the world's intelligence community.
  • BowieX, on 07/29/2008, -31/+80Can someone explain to me why everyone is so dismissive towards Ahmadinejad? Why is he a "confused monkey" for calling out the hypocrisy of other nations to possess a nuclear arsenal but threaten war against Iran if they start following suit?

    I mean, I'd be pretty worried if the members of the Bush administration talked like you guys above... oh wait...
    • dorsey47, on 07/29/2008, -18/+26Because he is a dictorial puppet of a theocratic government that is bent on distroying entire nations of people in Allah's name. It would be like the Spanish having nukes when Columbus came to America.
      • phoenixshard, on 07/29/2008, -4/+8Could very easily have that same thing in Pakistan soon, with the exception of they already have them.
      • toasterhead2k, on 07/29/2008, -9/+9The Spanish didn't need nukes. They had guns and smallpox. Did the job of killing Indians just as well as nukes, though much more slowly.

        Oh, and he's not a dictator and their country is not bent on destroying nations. He's a two-bit hack of a president who will be kicked out of office by a reform candidate next year. He only makes threats against us and Israel to distract his people from the crushing economic situation in their own country.

        Hmmm... Sounds like someone I know.
      • marx2k, on 07/29/2008, -10/+13Which nations are they bent on destroying in Allah's name? And cite a source.
      • chrillen, on 07/29/2008, -11/+5"It would be like the Spanish having nukes when Columbus came to America."

        What? That's the worst analogy I have ever seen. Also, isn't the US a goverment bent on destroying any country that poses a even far away indirect threat? Technically, if Iran used the same kind of thinking then the US would be a danger, wouldn't it?
      • ciaran036, on 07/29/2008, -15/+13Don't be ridiculous. Iran has a democracy. Ahmadinejad was elected as democratically as Bush was.
      • neko6, on 07/29/2008, -3/+12ciaran - Iran has a democracy, where the religious zealot Ayatollahs have a veto on contenders. If Pat Robinson and Ann Coulter had the power to veto anyone running for US presidency for being Jewish/Catholic/Mormon/Atheist/Black/Homosexual/Arab/Muslim/etc., would the US have been a democracy?
      • wpi97, on 07/29/2008, -1/+14"He's a two-bit hack of a president who will be kicked out of office by a reform candidate next year."
        Do you really believe the Supreme Leader of Iran will approve a reform candidate? You do not seem understand how the system government of the Islamic Republic of Iran works.
      • toasterhead2k, on 07/29/2008, -11/+4ciaran - Iran has a democracy, where the religious zealot Ayatollahs have a veto on contenders. If Pat Robinson and Ann Coulter had the power to veto anyone running for US presidency for being Jewish/Catholic/Mormon/Atheist/Black/Homosexual/Arab/Muslim/etc., would the US have been a democracy?
        ______

        Oh, good point. That's why our history is filled with Jewish, Mormon, Atheist, Black, Homosexual, Arab, and Muslim presidents.

        Face it, our democracy has its own Guardian Council. Only instead of religious zealots, its made of corporate CEOs who select which Republicrat candidates will rock the boat the least.
      • DreadPirate, on 07/29/2008, -2/+5wpi97 - good point. Many people do not seem to realize just how much the "democracy" in Iran is controlled by the Ayatollahs. There were many student demonstrations in Iran a couple of years ago when many of the more popular reform candidates were not allowed to run for office.
      • Propethic, on 07/29/2008, -6/+2And the jews think it's their birthright to live in Isreal and keep the area in utter ***** turnoil for the rest of their existence
      • wpi97, on 07/29/2008, -2/+3@Propethic
        And your mom is ugly. And it's IsrAEl.
      • valkyries, on 07/29/2008, -1/+3@Propethic
        Israel looks like a really nice place to visit, the "utter ***** turnoil" areas are were the arabs like to live and keep blowing up each other and Israels
      • diggimator, on 07/30/2008, -1/+2"Because he is a dictorial puppet of a theocratic government that is bent on distroying entire nations of people in Allah's name." You say that straight in a reply to a comment that mentions US hypocrisy. Oh the irony.
      • PhilLesh69, on 07/30/2008, -1/+1is dorsey47 Michael Dorsey? Or his father over in Bethesda? I'm guessing it's his father, with the 47 part being his birth year.

        Spell check much, little guy? dictorial, distroying?

        If your logic is as good as your spelling, and your ability to raise a son who gets herpes and then lies to women about it, you shouldn't comment in a public forum. I think Tiffany should have your son charged under the patriot act for infecting her with a biological weapon, *****.

        I guess it is fitting that you think that way, your son Pat Dorsey used to be on Fox and Friends on Sunday Mornings, but that also shows your skill as a parent, you raised a dweeby fool and an idiot who works for an aftermarket mod shop who spreads herpes.
    • nastronomical, on 07/29/2008, -13/+12 mindless liberal coward
    • breezytrees, on 07/29/2008, -8/+22Some countries are not fit to wield nuclear weapons. Iran, with its Internal strife, lawlessness, mass genocide, and a small population willing to die in God's name is a perfect example of such a country.

      That last bit is the most pertinent. Mutually Assured Destruction (the only thing that prevented the whole world from blowing up in the cold war) means nothing under those circumstances.
      • toasterhead2k, on 07/29/2008, -15/+12"Some countries are not fit to wield nuclear weapons. Iran, with its Internal strife, lawlessness, mass genocide, and a small population willing to die in God's name is a perfect example of such a country."
        ______

        So you agree, then, that the United States is also unfit to wield nuclear weapons. We have high rates of crime and gun violence, economic mayhem, have committed mass genocide in several parts of the world including Iraq, and have a small population of crazy evangelists like Erik Prince, after all.
      • ciaran036, on 07/29/2008, -15/+11Willing to die in God's name? Any proof of that? When was the last time you saw an IRANIAN suicide bomber?
      • writie, on 07/29/2008, -12/+6When did they carry out "mass genocide"? Iran's history is very bloody. Most of that was due to the Iraqi invasion, with some pretty heavy revolutions in there as well. But mass genocide?
      • mmmmmbiscuits, on 07/29/2008, -4/+9"Willing to die in God's name? Any proof of that? When was the last time you saw an IRANIAN suicide bomber?"

        Suggest you read some history and/or news more recent than a few months ago.
        http://www.meforum.org/article/1059 (current)
        http://www.israpundit.com/2006/?p=934 (past...not suicide BOMBERS but essentially suicide cannon-fodder brigades)
      • HonestAbe, on 07/29/2008, -0/+3Good thing they're not building nuclear weapons, then.
      • toshibu, on 07/30/2008, -0/+3Mass genocide? What?
      • PhilLesh69, on 07/30/2008, -0/+3breezytrees, you are so ashamedly misinformed.

        Internal strife? Lawlessness? Mass genocide? a population willing to die in God's name?

        I can only think you are confusing the problems of the greater middle east with a nation that is actually quite stable and very law abiding.

        Sure, they do some crazy things like hanging little girls for being sexually active, and they held a bunch of Americans hostage back in 1980, but to say they are a nation of lawlessness and internal strife is pure ignorance. Our good friends in Saudi Arabia do even crazier ***** in the name of the koran, like chopping your hands off for stealing a loaf of bread, but we accept that because it's part of their religion and we need their oil.

        I worked in the same building with el Alam, a small satellite news agency from Iran, less than a block from the White House. The people there were more westernized than even Saudis. They actually love America, and they are all very educated, very civilized people.

        You must live in some rural backwater town, and believe that you are more civilized than the rest of the world because you are an American, or something.

        Did you know that in Tehran, there are shopping areas where you can buy Gucci, Hermes, Bulgari, etc? They have a high literacy rate, and a highly educated population.

        Most Iranians do not like the ayatollahs running their country, but they are not lawless or insurgent, they just want to work, raise their families and not be bothered with the crazy religious leaders. It is actually a very orderly country.
      • breezytrees, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1Educate yourself. Iranian state-funded terrorism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbolla

        more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_Hezbollah

        FTA: "Hezbollah receives its financial support from Iran, Syria, and the donations of Lebanese Shi'a."
    • sodade, on 07/29/2008, -16/+16Gee, what ***** put religious people into power in Iran?
      http://digg.com/politics/US_Intervention_in_Iran

      "is bent on distroying entire nations of people in Allah's name."
      I love how armchair idiots in America are suddenly experts in the mentality if the Iranians.
      • toasterhead2k, on 07/29/2008, -8/+5Historical myopia is so cute, isn't it?
    • krnldmp, on 07/29/2008, -3/+5Because Ahmadinejad's Iran has the potential to prove that a nation's power doesn't necessarily have anything to do with military might, and the current US administration can't have that because they've got nothing else. They need to get Iran into a war right away before the gig gets busted.

      "The big powers are going down," Ahmadinejad told foreign ministers of the Nonaligned Movement meeting in Tehran. "They have come to the end of their power, and the world is on the verge of entering a new, promising era."
      • PhilLesh69, on 07/30/2008, -1/+02012. December 20th, 2012, to be exact.

  • ryan83189, on 07/29/2008, -20/+30So, Ahmadinejad is going with the Jedi mind trick technique?
    • Renian, on 07/29/2008, -0/+4These are not the nukes you are looking for.
  • onetimer, on 07/29/2008, -26/+17Of course plans for iran to build a nuclear bomb don't exist. This guy is the expert on what doesn't exist. I didn't even know homosexuals don't exist in Iran until he said so!
  • finethug, on 07/29/2008, -14/+55I believe them
    • ciaran036, on 07/29/2008, -6/+16Thank god because you're bloody right.
    • manifest020, on 07/29/2008, -4/+7The probability of our government lying about it and Iran lying about it is probably swayed toward our gov't I hate to say it.
    • Jeffler, on 07/29/2008, -1/+12I do too, merely because a lot of the stuff we hear about Iran here is complete *****. One of my friends is living in Iran, and he's in the top high school in the country for two years, so he couldn't really say no to going back for grades 11 and 12 then returning to Canada again, and usually when I talk to him about what its like over there, its a completely different story.
      • moonlessrat, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1There are so many uneducated ignorant cowboys in here. It doesn't matter what you say to them, they are always going to believe that Iranians ride camels to work, live it tents, and plan acts of terrorism in their spare time.
        While many others (generally those who have travelled further than the next town over) know that such isn't the case. Iran is in fact quite modern, with some obvious cultural differences but otherwise with a quality of life not unlike any western country.
    • spkrcity, on 07/29/2008, -0/+8I do too...

      ESPECIALLY SINCE OUR OWN ***** CIA SAYS THEY STOPPED DEVELOPING A NUCLEAR BOMB IN 2003!!!
  • doshindude, on 07/29/2008, -18/+4Someone set up us the bomb?
  • Awspire, on 07/29/2008, -8/+15"Nuclear weapons are so 20th century."

    Yep, thermonuclear weapons FTW.
    • rexblade, on 07/29/2008, -9/+4Im more of a singularity pulse implosion ftw myself. On HBO right now is a great documentary about war profiteers.
      • rexblade, on 07/29/2008, -6/+3My bad its on starz.
      • rexblade, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1Lol yeah digg me down for that. its almost like some assholes went through here and dugg down every comment. Strange isnt it?
    • rayraym0fucka, on 07/29/2008, -5/+3What's the difference?

      (I'm serious)
      • rilarios, on 07/29/2008, -5/+3Nuclear bombs, in simple terms, is when the explosion was made of a fission reaction, thermonuclear in simple terms, is when the explosion was made of a fusion reaction.

        Search wikipedia for fusion and fission and you'll see the difference
  • 0Xonox0, on 07/29/2008, -29/+22Germany not going to conquer Europe, Hitler promises.
    • dorsey47, on 07/29/2008, -3/+12I guess you could say Hitler was right, thanks to the Allies.
      • govsucks, on 07/29/2008, -5/+6Oh no, he conquered the euro pussies(Except the English, who actually have nuts), and we un-conquered them.
      • sonaboy, on 07/29/2008, -0/+2"Oh no, he conquered the euro pussies(Except the English, who actually have nuts), and we un-conquered them."

        Spoken like a guy who has no real clue when the US got involved, how many troops the US lost, and WHO ACTUALLY DID THE MOST WORK to combat HItler.

        hint: It wasn't the USA.
  • jlhoben, on 07/29/2008, -18/+6Who the hell would want to attack the US? Seriously?
    • Scottc320, on 07/29/2008, -10/+10...remember 9/11?
      • toasterhead2k, on 07/29/2008, -8/+9Funny you should mention that. You know who Iran's real #1 enemy is?

        Al-Qa'ida. Remember them?

        And their #2 enemy is the Taliban. Which is why Iran provided us with intelligence info and contacts among the Tajiks in the Northern Alliance when we invaded Afghanistan.
      • chrillen, on 07/29/2008, -10/+7ONE attack, a miniscule one at that, not even a lot of people got killed. Honestly, could people just drop it? No-one talks about the Madrid bombings anymore, not the London bombings either, they have moved on. But you keep pulling the 9/11 card like many people use the race-card.
      • Naieve, on 07/29/2008, -4/+10chrillen, do you understand the difference?

        Let's forget the billions of dollars of buildings and businesses collapsing into the ground with a death toll far less then anyone could have hoped for.

        Let's move on to the shutdown of all air travel and the security cost implications for everything else.

        There is a BIG difference.
      • ciaran036, on 07/29/2008, -10/+2Possible inside job.
      • mmmmmbiscuits, on 07/29/2008, -2/+13"Possible inside job. "

        Probable head up ass.
      • chrillen, on 07/29/2008, -0/+2Naieve

        I don't see Spain acting all paranoid with their flight control? They don't go out waging a war on terrorism, they got over it.
    • Rudegar, on 07/29/2008, -6/+13since he always go "death of Israel" i suspect his target lies elsewhere then USA...
      • marx2k, on 07/29/2008, -11/+3'since he always go "death of Israel"'

        Source?
      • Rudegar, on 07/29/2008, -1/+10http://www.google.dk/search?hl=da&sa=X&oi=spell&re ...

        hope you're kidding otherwise this must be the first you have heard about good Old Ahmadinejad
      • ciaran036, on 07/29/2008, -7/+4No he does not. Name the date and time where he or anyone in Iran said anything of the sort. I know you're wrong.
      • ciaran036, on 07/29/2008, -7/+5You absolute dumbasses I just watched that video where he supposedly said "Death to Israel". He said that people all over the world are saying "Death to Israel". He did not say it himself he was merely quoting others.

        For ***** sake who isn't saying that these days anyway!

        And try the other way around - Iran has been threatened dozens of times by Iranian and American officials. Including threats of "obliteration" and to "destroy" the "rogue regime".
      • marx2k, on 07/29/2008, -0/+2http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/article ...



    • mike17032, on 07/29/2008, -1/+11Some people are damn slow learners.
    • ciaran036, on 07/29/2008, -12/+6Nobody. Neither does Iran. The Iranians have never threatened the US or Israel. US and Israel have threatened Iran dozens of times.
      • neko6, on 07/29/2008, -2/+7Source of an Israeli/US threat to Iran?

        Here's a "death to Israel" video for you:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FckLO8HcNyo

        I've never seen a clearer threat on any national television since Hitler.
      • zaptoman, on 07/29/2008, -2/+2Wow. Do you smell what you're shoveling? I sure do.
      • ciaran036, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1As already explained neko6, Ahmadinejad actually said that people all over the world want "Death to Israel". He did not say it himself and if you had a clue about the man you would know that death to anyone is the last thing on his mind.

        You have to be twisted if you support a war on Iran based on these lies.
    • anxcaptain, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1bush would? are you trying to be funny
  • dorsey47, on 07/29/2008, -16/+3What is Iran going to use against the Zionists?
    • neko6, on 07/29/2008, -5/+7Who are these "Zionists" you speak of? Zionism is a movement established ~1890 and reached its goal in 1948. If you think Iran should kill people who have not been politically active for 60 years, you're even crazier than Ahmed here.
    • krnldmp, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1The truth would be the cheapest and most effective thing.
  • SuperVepr308, on 07/29/2008, -12/+13Well, that's that. He said they wouldn't do it so we can just fold up and ignore them now.

    *future SuperVepr308* Hey folks, he was lying.
  • danielkempkens, on 07/29/2008, -9/+13http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release ...
    • toasterhead2k, on 07/29/2008, -6/+7-5 Diggs. Wow. A lot of people hate facts, huh?
      • danielkempkens, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1Yep, you're absolutely right.

        "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program"

        Must be hard to unterstand ...
    • zaptoman, on 07/29/2008, -0/+4Not really sure why you got dugg down for that.
      • danielkempkens, on 07/29/2008, -0/+2I think toasterhead2k is right. "A lot of people hate facts"
      • mikestrawman, on 07/29/2008, -0/+3War Propaganda Works!
  • Rudegar, on 07/29/2008, -32/+4***** you 2 of my friends died not building nuke!
  • Trifold, on 07/29/2008, -19/+21What'd NBC think he was going to say? "Oops, you got us. Bombs are right here"? You can't trust him even as far as you could throw him...the dude looks pretty launchable.
  • gta3uzi, on 07/29/2008, -12/+18He's just afraid now that we have all of those fancy military bases next door in Iraq :)
    • Frostek, on 07/29/2008, -8/+7I think anyone would be worried if a country with the US's history started building miltary bases on all of its borders. It's not the sound military strategy it seems to be. Put people in a corner and they will fight that much harder.

      I'm very concerned that this contention is not being handled correctly, or more likely that it is being handled in this way for several groups own purposes.
  • thegrantman, on 07/29/2008, -11/+19Fine.......then he won't mind having it monitored.
    • Waiting2awake, on 07/29/2008, -14/+13So far they don't seem to mind at all. What they seem to mind, for some unknown reason, is being threatened by America and Israel. Looking at recent history I can hardly blame them.
    • LenBaird, on 07/29/2008, -9/+11What would you say if someone from our government insisted on monitoring and inspecting your house regularly "just to be sure" you aren't planning crimes. Hopefully, you'd tell them to eff off and mind their own business.
      • neko6, on 07/29/2008, -6/+8If I threatened to murder you for years, and held conferences on why you should be murdered, and gave prizes to students who create art showing how the world would be better without you and how you're lying about things (that you show documentation for), and intel reports show I'm building a rifle in my basement - yes, I would expect the government insist on inspecting my house.
      • Waiting2awake, on 07/29/2008, -0/+2Neko - even after they had insisted the same thing, the police bought it, even killed the old terrorist that lived in those other houses - to find ...nothing?

        See, here is the thing. Either the American intelligence community is good and can be trusted - in which case explain 911 as anything other than an inside job. Or, the intelligence community failed(thus leading to 911, Iraq, etc, etc) and that has lead to the deaths of half a million innocent people, in which case it shouldn't be trusted again....Either way you are *****.
    • geoken, on 07/29/2008, -10/+8They are already heavily monitored. Maybe you could try switching off Fox news for a couple of minutes and trying to find out what's actually happening in the world.
      • thegrantman, on 07/29/2008, -0/+0I don't watch Fox news. Maybe you could switch off the "jump to ***** conclusions button" and listen to someone elses opinion.If they are so well monitored,how does Iran continually surprise us after the fact?
    • AAK15, on 07/29/2008, -1/+2lol sure monitor everyone else but when we get slightly monitored all hell breaks loose
  • TaLoNxNL, on 07/29/2008, -10/+14dorsey47
    What is Iran going to use against the Zionists?

    Hopefully only kisses and hugs, otherwise the US and Israel will probably attack Iran and put the blame on Iran...
  • dorsey47, on 07/29/2008, -7/+15do politicians lie?
    • n0tquitehuman, on 07/29/2008, -1/+16are they talking? then yep... they are lying.
    • Waiting2awake, on 07/29/2008, -7/+8Remember that when you hear the same people that told you about Saddam are telling you about this guy.

      • mmmmmbiscuits, on 07/29/2008, -2/+7Obviously you're talking about the CIA who dismissed the likelihood of an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. 2 DAYS before it happened?
  • govsucks, on 07/29/2008, -16/+28OOOOOOO, now Obama gets to play the part of Chamberlain and say "See, they just want to love us and change."
    • rabidjester, on 07/29/2008, -10/+2He's not the president yet, but it's good to see you guys finally accepting the inevitable :)
    • stealthc, on 07/29/2008, -9/+4Change? From what? Iran has done nothing. Iran exhibiting some aggression would be a change!
  • chase001, on 07/29/2008, -15/+7This won't stop Dubya from sending someone to the UN and saying they do have "nukular" weapons and then invading.
    • repins, on 07/29/2008, -3/+9it cracks me up when people make fun of W because he does not pronouce "nuclear" correctly bet Ted Kennedy drives around all day