Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.
Iran claims it was threatened, tests missiles
cnn.com — Iran says it has test fired nine missiles in response to what it says are threats from Israel and the United States. Iran tested a Shahab-3 missile and several other missiles during war games in the Persian Gulf, according to Iran's state-run media and a U.S. military source.
zaibatsu- 901 diggs
- digg it
- slen7, on 07/09/2008, -29/+84I'm sure McCain just blew a load in his pants. He's looking for any excuse to pounce on Iran. I hope he never becomes president.
- CDWMobile, on 07/09/2008, -34/+4Is Iran treating with nuclear weapons a good enough excuse?
- slen7, on 07/09/2008, -2/+17Treating with nuclear weapons? I'm going assume you mean threatening to use nuclear weapons. If you’re going to take a preemptive strike against a country you’d better damn well be sure you’ve got your facts strait.
- medfreak, on 07/10/2008, -3/+11Why? Because Bush says so so it is true? If your intelligence claims it Iran had WMDs it would be true, but if they say it stopped all nuclear military activity many years ago it would not?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/12/ni ...
Keep listening to Bush. - publiclurker, on 07/10/2008, -0/+10I prefer ice cream treats, but to each his own, I guess.
- mrsteveman1, on 07/10/2008, -1/+5Yea, the government did so well last time, lets listen to them again.
- vinod1978, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2@CDWMobile - I don't know if you mean 'threatening' or 'testing' - but in any case the answer is a resounding NO. Iran is only responding to the threats of our ally, Israel. And as I have said in other posts & comments, though I support the right of Israel to protect itself from countries that pose them a threat because they do not belive Israel does not have a right to exist as a country, I believe their actions would lead to millions of lives lost and could lead to WWIII. They know that we don't have the troops or the money to stage a war in Iran, but if Israel attacks, Iran will retaliate - and we would have no choice but to react. We need to calm Israel down, and start negotiating with Iran. That's how diplomacy works. I know it's been almost 8 years where this administration hasn't used such tactics - but try to refresh yourself of how foreign policy issues SHOULD be resolved.
- jimmiss, on 07/10/2008, -0/+6If you guys fight Iran you will get ***** UP. Vietnam style.
- vinod1978, on 07/10/2008, -0/+5Worse, by far.
- neko6, on 07/10/2008, -5/+3@vinod - as long as Iran is not nuclear, there won't be any WW3 - at worse another Iraq.
But with a large nuclear aggressive zealot nation, WW3 becomes a real option.
You might not agree with McCain and friends, but their intentions are to PREVENT WW3 by targeting the nuclear facilities. The number of casualties should me minuscule (unless Iran uses the same tactic of its allies - positioning bunkers under schools and hospitals to make their enemies look like monsters if they attack).
- rpgmaker, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1The thing is that they, as a sovereign nation, have the right to test their missiles as they please, the US media is just demonizing those test since Iran said *clearly* that they don't want to go into war with the US or Israel. I bet that the US have those missile testing footage for a long time and is releasing it now to take advantage of them.
- CDWMobile, on 07/09/2008, -34/+4Is Iran treating with nuclear weapons a good enough excuse?
- CoMpUtErITGuY, on 07/09/2008, -34/+157Iran has every right to defend itself if need be. ...and I'm American!
- projectstartrek, on 07/09/2008, -8/+52shh...the government might get you!
- compu73rg33k, on 07/10/2008, -1/+43Yeah seriously. It's not like the threats from US and Israel should be taken lightly either. Iran doesn't have to travel far to see what the US will do...invasion & lynch
- da_bradler, on 07/10/2008, -5/+23Man I still can't believe they hung Saddam. What kind of message does that send to the rest of the world? don't piss us off or we'll invade your country and hang your leader?
and yes i know technically Americans didn't hang Saddam but handing a prisoner over to a government now led by a religious group that is on opposite side of a religious civil war is a akin to throwing him into a pit of wolves. As far as the rest of the world is considered America hung him and that... is not something countries are still supposed to be doing. - Latentk, on 07/10/2008, -15/+5Who the hell are you da_bradler to give a statement like that? We caught him, and after a brief stint in Guantanamo Bay the man was handed over to the Iraqi's, yes. After that, the US had NO involvement. As far as what the world thinks, you sure as hell do not speak for the world.
- PhilLesh69, on 07/10/2008, -1/+13Latentk, before you try to make an intelligent statement, you should be sure that you are informed about what you are speaking about.
Saddam never had a "brief stint in Guantanamo Bay". He was held in an American Military jail in KUWAIT. Then he was handed over to the government set up by an occupational force.
It would be no different than if Charles de Gaulle were executed by Phillipe Petain, the leader of the Vichy French (a German occupied French Government.) - karapuz, on 07/10/2008, -1/+5PhilLesh69 actualy Charles de Gaulle fled France soon after Petain was made prime minister. It is very likely de Gaulle would have been executed by Petain if caught.
from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_de_Gaulle
Returning the same day to Bordeaux, the temporary wartime capital, de Gaulle learned that Field Marshall Pétain had become prime minister and was planning to seek an armistice with Nazi Germany. De Gaulle and allied officers rebelled against the new French government; on the morning of June 17, de Gaulle and other senior French officers fled the country with 100,000 gold francs in secret funds provided to him by the ex-prime minister Paul Reynaud. Narrowly escaping the German air force, he landed safely in London that afternoon. - PhilLesh69, on 07/10/2008, -2/+5Karapuz,
That doesn't negate the point.
What will the world think about an occupational government executing a former leader?
That is the point.
Not to mention, the world should not forget what happened to all of the sympathizers and supporters of the Germans once France was liberated.
Reprisals happen. The people who live in a country aren't going anywhere. They will be there long after the foreigners leave.
But I'll digg you up for doing your research. That just shows that you are intellectually honest.
- da_bradler, on 07/10/2008, -5/+23Man I still can't believe they hung Saddam. What kind of message does that send to the rest of the world? don't piss us off or we'll invade your country and hang your leader?
- bratterscain, on 07/10/2008, -21/+6"Iran has every right to defend itself if need be. ...and I'm American!"
You mean "every reason"? I'm tired of hearing people speak of "rights", especially Americans. Most act like its some sort of entitlement they automatically get when they're born. When you're out in the real world, you find there is no such thing as rights, only what a person or entity (government in this case) wants to and doesn't want to do. In the global world, there are no rights and they're *given* to you by people who have fought for them or when you fight for them yourselves. So many people misconstrue that word. And yeah, I agree, you can't blame a nation for wanting to defend itself or "flex nuts" as I like to jokingly say.- CarStan, on 07/10/2008, -8/+3True worfs man, true words
- DreKor, on 07/10/2008, -1/+14It turns out, Americans are entitled to a whole bunch of rights "automatically" when they're born. That's part of why I like living here. Whether or not a person chooses to exercise those rights is a different matter.
- zerries, on 07/10/2008, -4/+3@Drekor
Those rights only apply to the land that the USA occupies. You lose your rights the moment you enter another country or if the government takes them away. Therefore people are not born with rights . - bratterscain, on 07/10/2008, -3/+1Drekor, yes, we have rights, I'm just trying to elaborate for some of the disillusioned diggers. Rights are basically rules but outside the US, the rules aren't all the same and not everyone plays by the rules you may expect.
- vinod1978, on 07/10/2008, -3/+2@bratterscain - I'm tired of hearing people speak of "rights", especially Americans. Most act like its some sort of entitlement they automatically get when they're born.
Remember that piece of paper that that the government is supposed to follow. You know the thing called the Constitution? Well your comment is directly opposite of what the Constitution & The Bill of Rights state. - DreKor, on 07/10/2008, -2/+1Look, I read Starship Troopers, too. However, the possibility that a right can be infringed upon does not negate the existence of that right. Rights fall into the realm of the philosophical, not the physical. They are a "shall", not an "is". As principles, they are goals that individuals strive to achieve, not pre-existing states of being.
- STPZ, on 07/10/2008, -1/+17They can watch what you post on digg now, remember silly
Thank you Mr. Overlord Bush, may I have another?- tehsilentcircus, on 07/10/2008, -3/+0If they are doing it now, they have been doing it for years ... the government can not afford something as petty as to spend money to arrest and convict a digger for saying things like this when they need the money to destroy Iraq, and sooner or later, invade Iran.
Then again, they could just force the federal reserve to print more money to do so and send the dollar even further into its ever-comfortable grave.
Either way, I think you are ALL blowing this FISA thing way out of proportion.
- sodade, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2You just don't get it. All they have to do is put your name on a series of lists - it takes no effort at all. Once you are on that list, you'd better start worrying when they suspend civil liberties because you might end up in a Haliburton detention facility.
- tehsilentcircus, on 07/10/2008, -3/+0If they are doing it now, they have been doing it for years ... the government can not afford something as petty as to spend money to arrest and convict a digger for saying things like this when they need the money to destroy Iraq, and sooner or later, invade Iran.
- skartocc, on 07/10/2008, -4/+0golf clap to CoMpUtErITGuY
- PhilLesh69, on 07/10/2008, -0/+22No.
Only America has the right to "defend" itself.
All the others are militaristic, warmongering, terrorist supporting, extremist, evil, improper, not very nice, return their library books late, pass bad checks, women abusing, drive too fast, don't care for the children, want to end western civilization, ROGUES!!!!! - thedp, on 07/10/2008, -7/+2No... you're an Arab!
- PhilLesh69, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1And you know that how?
هل لأن أكتب باللغه العربية؟
"Is it because I write in Arabic?" - tomarnk, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2Oh No Arabic! Quick everyone, go buy duct tape and bottled water, then lock yourselves inside until we go down to terror alert level light orange!
- PhilLesh69, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1I think you aren't actually safe until the terror alert level is light rouge, or maybe a shade of mauve.
Yes, anytime you see arabic letters, we should all run for cover.
Yet, we seem to be okay with the use of arabic numerals in our everyday lives.
Maybe that is because the average dimwit American can't figure out roman numerals.
Is it MMVIII, or 2008?
Oh, no! He used arabic numbers, "2008", RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!!! - PhilLesh69, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1Oh *****. I was sitting back in my easy chair, here in my double wide. Then I realized my thirteen year old daughter was studying algebra.
I will no longer let her sleep with her cousin under my roof! That girl is no longer a child of mine!
How dare she study that terrorist math!
All I know is that the babylonians are supposed to have created algebra, and we gots troops in Iraq now, the modern day babylon.
Screw all those terrorist teachers in all those terrorist public high schools, teaching our children terrorist math. They must want us to be defeated.
They hate us for our freedoms!!
- PhilLesh69, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1And you know that how?
- JimmyJoseph, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Yeah they should defend themselves...it'd be boring if they just surrendered :)
- fhdawg, on 07/10/2008, -4/+4Wow. What a bunch of diggiots. If you really think it's a good idea for Iran to be testing missiles so it can "defend itself", you are a moron. If you live in the US, you have freedom because men and women have laid it on the line. If you really think that we should just give all of that up because some poor country (who couldn't care less whether you lived or died) is getting picked on because they can't control themselves - well, you are a moron.
- PhilLesh69, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1If you actually believe that we would give up freedom because Iran demonstrates that it can defend itself to serve as a deterrent against someone attacking them, well, then you are the moron.
Honestly, how can you rationally believe that we will lose our freedom?
Don't forget all those men and women who fought and died in Vietnam to protect our freedom. If they were to have lost that one, we'd all be speaking vietnamese today, right? Oh, wait. We did lose that one, and we are no more or less free than before we went into Vietnam. See the reality now, through all that hyperbole and nationalistic chest-thumping?
- PhilLesh69, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1If you actually believe that we would give up freedom because Iran demonstrates that it can defend itself to serve as a deterrent against someone attacking them, well, then you are the moron.
- biffen, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1They have every right to TRY to defend themselves. Honestly, though...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F22_Raptor
vs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams
vs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zulfiqar_MBT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz_class_aircraft ...
vs
(Oh, who cares? They've got like 4 of these party barges)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvand_class_frigate
- HenvY, on 07/09/2008, -13/+7We are heading for Cold War 2.
- B08ama, on 07/10/2008, -0/+12This one looks pretty toasty, actually.
- damnyooneek, on 07/10/2008, -0/+5iran isnt even slightly close to getting nukes that can fire from there to the US.
- vinod1978, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2War maybe - cold war? What? Iran has NOTHING CLOSE to the arsenal that we have. We'll use their missiles as ***** paper clips.
- medfreak, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2Actually, we already are in Cold War 2. It is not about US vs Iran though. An attack on Iran by the US is most definitely going to get China and Russia worried, thus upgrade their own missile shileds, make more Nukes ... etc.
But the key is, threats to Iran + War with Iran = War + Cold war 2.
- medfreak, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2Actually, we already are in Cold War 2. It is not about US vs Iran though. An attack on Iran by the US is most definitely going to get China and Russia worried, thus upgrade their own missile shileds, make more Nukes ... etc.
- PhilLesh69, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2Well, we are heading for a cold war, but it won't be with Iran.
This is the interim war until we can conjure up enough fear of China.
This little tit-for-tat thing we've got with Iran is just to keep the money flowing in the war machine.
The big money will be made when we all agree that China holds a grudge against us and is trying to dominate the world. - overridemymind, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4You know, North Korea apparantly has missiles that can hit Alaska (when they *****' work right) see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_Missile_ ... and yet, we don't invade them! Honestly and objectively speaking here --- what makes Iran so different? Why are we so poised for an excuse to invade Iran, when the DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea [Read: That's communist for "Fascist police state"] actually HAS a proven nuclear program, and actually HAS missiles that CAN reach us?
We have six-party talks, and diplomacy has thus far prevented war from reigniting on the Korean penninsula.
So, again, I ask -- why are we poised to go to war with a nation that is still developing their missiles, and may or may not be (IE - unproven, theoretical program) developing nuclear weapons, rather than acting like adults and exercising good, old fashioned, diplomacy?- PhilLesh69, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1Iran is an easy target.
We would invade Djibouti or Chile if people could be led to believe they were a "threat." - neko6, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1North Korea ever said another nation should be wiped off the face of the earth?
Besides, since they already HAVE nukes, we know they didn't use them when they got them. Iran - you can't be sure. - overridemymind, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1"North Korea never said another nation should be wiped off the face of the earth?"
They've repeatedly said that South Korea should either join them, or be wiped off the face of the earth. They've been saying that for 54 years now.
As well, they didn't "already HAVE nukes," they just tested their first fairly recently, with a yield of .4kT in 2006. It wasn't their expected yield, but it was in fact a nuclear detonation. They'd been developing the weapon since the sixties, actually, and just got their first to work a few years ago. (Their nuclear program has been the highlight of diplomatic talks with DPRK since the late nineties)
I remember the day they detonated their nuclear cap gun (we've got CONVENTIONAL bombs that can do .4 kT) because it was only about a month or two after I arrived here, in South Korea. (Wow, do I ever remember THAT day. Lol. lots of excitement that day, that's for sure!)
So now that we know that North Korea has nukes, our diplomatic talks involve disarmament. So, with Iran, if we took the diplomacy route, one of our goals would be the inspection of their facilities in return for, say, shared technology, improved trade relations, etc.
Like I said, if at least one side is willing to give just a little bit when dealing diplomatically, war can be averted fairly often. North and South Korea are perfect examples of that -- we've been avoiding war for 54 years. - bdiggitty, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1Wow overridemymind. You actually wrote all that and did not see the blatant contradiction to your overall point. You just said that North Korea barely got their first nuke to work a few years ago. And their nuclear power has been the highlight of diplomatic talks since the late nineties? Well look how effective diplomacy was. NK still developed their program and now has the capability to strike South Korea. Not saying diplomacy doesn't work in situations like this, but I would not cite this situation as a justification to your argument.
- overridemymind, on 07/10/2008, -0/+0My point was that, even though diplomacy failed to achieve our original goal of preventing NK from developing nuclear weaponry, we still did not go to war. Instead, we shifted the focus of our talks to disarming and dissolving DPRK's nuclear program.
My point was diplomacy rather than war. - bdiggitty, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Well if your goal is to avoid war, there is the most simple solution and that would be to dismantle the American military. In contrast, the way I see it, is that some countries should not have access to such weapons. We can appease all such countries who are pursuing such weapons, with the guise of diplomacy, all the while letting them do what they please but that is just silly to me.
- PhilLesh69, on 07/11/2008, -1/+1bigtitty, you are stuck in the Rumsfeldian logic of the neocons.
Do not confuse capability to strike with a direct and imminent threat. Just because DPRK has the capability of launching a nuclear weapon against South Korea doesn't mean they WILL.
If that logic were true, and not just contrived to support an agenda, then Russia has a serious problem with the US, and the US has a serious problem with Russia, China, etc. We and they should be attacking everyone with the capability of launching a nuke.
Luckily, back in the 1950's, there were much more intelligent people who prevailed on both sides, and instead of attacking each other and creating an all out nuclear war, we avoided that.
I guess the reason the neocons see things differently today is because it is not mutually assured destruction, it is unilaterally assured destruction, so why not take advantage of it? Except anyone with any amount of reason can see the fallacy of their logic. These "dire threats" are actually nothing more than token deterrences. None of these countries would ever dare use their sparse little arsenal offensively, knowing that there are a dozen nations with the capability of destroying them twenty times over.
The only time one of these nations would use a nuclear weapon is if they were attacked, to attempt to cause great losses on the invaders, so they might rethink things and back off. And don't go into that nonsense that they would give those weapons to terrorists. If that were the case, Pakistan would have done so a decade ago. These nations know that once a nuclear weapon is set off by a terrorist, it will be traced back to the country of origin by matching up the isotope signature of the radiation in the blast area, and the country of origin will be treated as the aggressor and will be nuked to kingdom come.
- PhilLesh69, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1Iran is an easy target.
- CDWMobile, on 07/09/2008, -37/+41@CoMpUtErITGuY
I don't think you can call this "defending".. The under lying problem is that Iran says they're going nuclear even though they've agreed not to - they fully understand that by doing so the UN will step in with force. I may not agree with everything this administration has done, but I can fully agree with keeping nuclear weapons out of reach from unstable countries.- PacmanMafia, on 07/09/2008, -20/+18Agreed. They're not defending anything. They're trying to flex what muscle they do have and for some stupid reason, to the United States. Currently, with who is in power of the US, that is just not very smart. They are the kitten and we are the Lion, controlled by a crazy ***** that could just drop a couple nukes and end it like that.
- randomstupid, on 07/10/2008, -3/+9they're defending their pride . people don't like being called evil .
- bdiggitty, on 07/10/2008, -2/+3They're not defending their pride. Most Iranians are more westernized than you think, and do not feel that their Islamic theocracy represents them. Don't glorify or romaticize this. These exercises are simply those in government flexing their muscles and in no shape or form represent the average Iranian.
- nianator, on 07/09/2008, -9/+27Bottom line is that as long as Israel has nuclear arms, you can be sure that Iran will as well.
- CDWMobile, on 07/09/2008, -3/+2Armageddon?
- deadmann, on 07/10/2008, -1/+3MAD
- medfreak, on 07/09/2008, -10/+17Yea everyone all of a sudden forgot this:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/12/ni ...
And just continue to believe Bush's lies again. When the hell will you people learn?- CDWMobile, on 07/09/2008, -10/+6Iran is openly involved in a Nuclear development program now. If you're saying Iran isn't going Nuclear, then its Iran that's lying, no GW....
- fireashes, on 07/09/2008, -3/+12who wants to believe that... War is the time to make money. Israel will attack first and then iran will defend itself and Israel will defend itself
- medfreak, on 07/09/2008, -3/+16A nuclear development program for power, not weapons. If you read the report they acknoledge and everyone knows that Iran was developing Nuclear capability, but it also states that they halted any military nuclear purposes. And the report was late last year, not old.
- vinod1978, on 07/10/2008, -2/+3I simply say - Trust, then verify. I'm agree War is a not even an option here, but we need to negotiate with Iran and give them certain incentives to allow UN officials to check everywhere & everywhere. It's very important for the UN to address them and NOT only the US (or Israel for that matter).
- EricAnderton, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1@fireashes: "War is the time to make money"
Indeed. War is the time to attain power and glory, and from that wealth, even if you wind up losing.
- Kizilbash, on 07/09/2008, -11/+39But it's perfectly ok that Israel has them, a country which has literally attacked ALL its neighbours in the last 60 years. Whereas Iran has not attacked anybody for over a century. And it's ok for India, it's ok for Pakistan, it's ok for all of Iran's neighbours. And when Israel does a dry run for an attack on Iran, that's perfectly ok, no worries.
- DreKor, on 07/10/2008, -2/+11Here's how it works. It is not ok for any new countries to develop nuclear weapons. But, once a country has moved out of the development phase, it's fine. You see, it has to be fine because, once they have nukes, they can use them and everyone else has to respect that power.
- vinod1978, on 07/10/2008, -2/+8@Kizilbash - Israel was allowed to obtain nuclear weapons because all of their neighbors threatened their very existence, and the US thought that we needed at least one ally in the region. But what good is any ally in the region if everyone in the region hates that ally? They will just hate you by proxy. So the real problem here is policy. We have to respect Israel's right to exist, and to protect itself from countries that wish it harm - and I believe we should continue to support them on that issue. However, that does not mean that we allow Israel to do whatever they want to without consequence, and that is what both republicans & democrats are guilty of doing.
- znicket, on 07/10/2008, -6/+11You act like Israel has not been attacked at all by these same countries.
As to Iran, last time I checked no serious Israeli politician was vowing to wipe other nations off the map. Iran´s Ahmedinajad however... not so restrained. - shayben, on 07/10/2008, -5/+7Technically, the only war Israel ever started was the six-day war which was a preemptive strike, and a very difficult decision by the Israeli government.
All other wars were in pure self defense.
Your "peacefull" Iran killed several million Iraqies in the 80's Iran-Iraq war, which ended when Iran started using Chemical wepons..
Will history repeat? - PhilLesh69, on 07/10/2008, -4/+8Shayben,
IRAQ attacked Iran, with our support, our funding, our armaments, and by our request.
Iran hasn't attacked anyone since probably Thermopylae. - thecoolestguy, on 07/10/2008, -4/+8Israel's very creation, with the dispossession of 750,000 Arab Palestinians, was an act of aggression.
- jasonallthetime, on 07/10/2008, -6/+1Maybe no Israeli politician has vowed to wipe another nation off the map but I do recall a prominent US politician chanting "bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran" recently.
Make no mistake though, Israel would wipe Palestine off the map in a heartbeat if not for the political and radioactive fallout which would follow. - th3w00d, on 07/10/2008, -1/+6God your stupid. Israel was on the defensive in the 6 day war.
- PhilLesh69, on 07/11/2008, -3/+2th3w00d,
Launching a pre-emptive strike on June 5, 1967 is a far cry from being on the defensive.
You might be confusing this with the Yom Kippur War in 1973, when the Arab league did attack first, but again was put on the defensive immediately when the Israeli forces turned the battle around almost immediately and began offensives against all the arab forces.
"By June 10, Israel had completed its final offensive in the Golan Heights and a ceasefire was signed the day after. Israel had seized the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank of the Jordan River (including East Jerusalem), and the Golan Heights. Overall, Israel's territory grew by a factor of 3, including about one million Arabs placed under Israel's direct control in the newly captured territories. Israel's strategic depth grew to at least 300 kilometers in the south, 60 kilometers in the east and 20 kilometers of extremely rugged terrain in the north, a security asset that would prove useful in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War six years later.
The political importance of the 1967 War was immense; Israel demonstrated that it was not only able, but also willing to initiate strategic strikes that could change the regional balance. Egypt and Syria learned tactical lessons and would launch an attack in 1973 in an attempt to reclaim their lost territory. [118]" - foopirata, on 07/11/2008, -1/+4@Phileshet: You seem to ignore the whole framework that led to Israel launching the attack, like Nasser kicking out the UN observers from the Sinai, Syria and Egypt mobilizing their armies and Egypt closing the Suez to Israeli shipping traffic. Things do not happen in a vacuum, you know. Israel does not have the capability of holding the whole army (most of it composed of reservists) on call for long stretches of time. Once the situation became unbearable, Israel attacked.
Things don't happen in a vacuum you know. - PhilLesh69, on 07/12/2008, -2/+2foopirata, I know the entire story. I read "Six Days of War" by Michael B. Oren, and have read a lot about it online and in history books as well.
That isn't the point.
Israel was never on the defensive. Learn your military terms. Defensive actions do not entail pursuing and defeating the enemy into and beyond their positions.
You might argue that they had to attack, but at no time was the IDF and the IAF in a defensive action during that war. They ROUTED the enemy on all sides. They tripled their territory by being on the offensive the entire war. - foopirata, on 07/12/2008, -1/+4Oh, sorry, I didn't know we were playing the "it means what I say it means" game.
A defensive action, anywhere, everywhere, is one that is made necessary by an offensive action by another party.
Learn your military basics: once you move from the defensive to the offensive (which is the basic objective of every defensive move), you keep going until one of three conditions are achieved: a) your enemy is incapacitated, b) you cannot advance any more and keep a continuous logistic stream or c) your (strategic/tactical) objectives have been achieved.
Once Israel moved from the defensive posture of waiting for the incoming attack, it went and achieved its objectives of obtaining strategic depth, which would prevent those enemies of trying the same actions again.
The Six Day War was a defensive war responding to external threats, fought offensively, just like _every_ war must be fought. Read your Sun Tzu and your Clausewitz, your Rommel and your Patton. - thecoolestguy, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1Israel's leaders knew Egypt wasn't going to attack. I can show you quotes to prove this. Israel was on the offensive in the 67 war.
- DeskFlyer, on 07/10/2008, -3/+6It's called saber rattling.
- peestandingup, on 07/10/2008, -1/+5You know how the reply button works??
- PhilLesh69, on 07/10/2008, -3/+9CDWMobile,
Firing off 1,000 mile range missiles doesn't make them still pursuing nuclear weapons (though it also doesn't mean they aren't) -- You are confusing things, like you are supposed to, in order to believe that Iran is a direct and imminent threat.
All they've done is demonstrate that they can deliver a warhead directly on Israel, who just recently demonstrated to Iran that they could attack them, by running training missions with that direct goal.
This is called "tit-for-tat". Nothing more.
We are only being riled up by the media because there is an agenda by the neocons that wishes to see this blow up into a full scale war.
- PacmanMafia, on 07/09/2008, -20/+18Agreed. They're not defending anything. They're trying to flex what muscle they do have and for some stupid reason, to the United States. Currently, with who is in power of the US, that is just not very smart. They are the kitten and we are the Lion, controlled by a crazy ***** that could just drop a couple nukes and end it like that.
- medfreak, on 07/09/2008, -15/+98Quote >>> "White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe called on Iran to "refrain from further missile tests if they truly seek to gain the trust of the world"."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7496765.stm
Hahaha, so if Iran tests something out it loses world trust but if Israel does this:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/US_Israeli_military_ ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/washington/20ira ...
And the US doing this thousands of miles away from its country just a few kilometers from the coasts of Iran:
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Two_US_Carriers_In ...
It is perfectly acceptable? Is Bush trying to set a new hypocrisy world record before he leaves?- mfc5200, on 07/10/2008, -2/+19What trust do they need? What country have they invaded in the past 50 years? None. Actions speak stronger than words.
the US on the other hand invaded both their direct western and eastern neighbors. If I were in their shoes I would be exactly what they are doing, creating a strong defense. - Latentk, on 07/10/2008, -15/+1You make me sick. There we go! Just blame it on Bush! Sounds great! Everything ANYONE DOES NOT AGREE WITH MUST BE HIS FAULT. Holy hell, I am so sick and tired of Liberals slandering and harassing the man for anything they can get their dirty grubby hands on. Get the hell over it, grow up and think for yourself.
And on subject, the United States condoned Iran for DEVELOPING technology of which is designed for one purpose, mass carnage and warfare. The US paid its dues and earned the right to produce this technology and flex its muscles by become the singular super power it is. Iran is developing Nuclear weapons and long range missiles for one purpose, war. Oh but wait, its the new "cool" to turn against your own nation.- medfreak, on 07/10/2008, -1/+5Iran is not developing Nuclear weopons. The collective intelligence agencies that are in the US issued a report that you do not chose to listen to. Keep listening to more Bush lies instead.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/12/ni ... - chulaka, on 07/10/2008, -1/+4"The US paid its dues and earned the right to produce this technology and flex its muscles by become the singular super power it is."
What? Speak English please.
If I understand you right, the U.S. did something to earn the right to develop nuclear weapons? Please do tell, what did they do? And why should not any other country have the same "right"?
Why should any country, the U.S., Israel, U.K., Russia, China, Iran, whoever, have the right to threaten other countries?
But the world we live in does have nuclear weapons, and some of those that do invade and plunder other countries. Can you blame potential victims of your great U.S. to seek nuclear weapons to protect themselves?
But obviously you believe that the U.S. is special. You are making a big mistake.
- medfreak, on 07/10/2008, -1/+5Iran is not developing Nuclear weopons. The collective intelligence agencies that are in the US issued a report that you do not chose to listen to. Keep listening to more Bush lies instead.
- legendxx, on 07/10/2008, -4/+2Yay for sensationalist arguments. It's not black and white. Foreign policy doesn't work that way.
- medfreak, on 07/10/2008, -2/+2Yay for foreign policy rules, set by single minded people that only supports Israel and the United States. Israel and the US are free to do all the wargames they need to target Iran, but Iran tests a few missiles and is demonized? I wonder where is the "sensationalism" you are pointing to.
Nice to know bush is not the only one setting a hypocrisy world record. - legendxx, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2Are you ***** stupid? You honestly read my comment and followed up with "Since America does it.. Iran should be able to". I just said it's not black and white. Iran has not demonstrated the discipline or stability (mentally, emotionally, or socially) to warrant any kind of foreign tolerance of long range weapons. Israel is on a short leash with the US and UK which are both on the securities counsel so you know if they ***** up their life-line is going to be yanked and they will be at the mercy of the 8 or so neighbors who want nothing but to see them ground into dust. So no, Israel won't be doing anything without ATLEAST BOTH countries blessing.
And of course Bush is an idiot and believe it or not most American's know this and are just waiting for him to get out of office. So please don't stereotype us based on what he believes or does. Thx - medfreak, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2Do you really suggest that US / UK or you have any grasp on what defines a "mentally / emotionally / socially" stable country is ? Whoever gave you the criteria to decide such a thing? None of the above have any clue on the language, the history or the culture of the region, as clearly evidenced by the disaster that is Iraq, and yet they are supposedly good judges at that, or you for that matter?
Many could argue that it is far more stable than many countries in the region, given the fact that it never started a single war against a neighboring country for decades.
- medfreak, on 07/10/2008, -2/+2Yay for foreign policy rules, set by single minded people that only supports Israel and the United States. Israel and the US are free to do all the wargames they need to target Iran, but Iran tests a few missiles and is demonized? I wonder where is the "sensationalism" you are pointing to.
- pigfister, on 07/10/2008, -1/+4@ medfreakmedfreak
ppl won't listen they are sheep to the constant propaganda being churned out via the papers and tv, they are either too stupid or just don't care about anything but themselves anymore, its a sad moment in history, murder for profit.
it ok for us (US, UK) to do it as out nukes and the depleted uranium rounds, that are poisoning millions of innocent ppl have a holy sound to them and what do these "towel heads" need the oil for anyway, they all live in caves, yes?
america and uk citizens all deserve to die for allowing our leaders to commit genocide with the tax we pay.
this capitalist globalisation world sickens me.
oh did i forget to mention that the USA wiped out thousands of innocent Iraqis using white White phosphorus a banned chemical weapon in Fallujah and then lied about it, what punishment has ever come of this, one of the many war crimes?
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefo ... - neko6, on 07/10/2008, -5/+2Israel is a first world democracy that never threatened and never attacked anyone unprovoked. As long as that's true, they can do any test they wants.
If Iran would just keep its mouth shut about destroying Israel and the US in the last decade or two, nobody would have even NOTICED they were developing nukes.- medfreak, on 07/10/2008, -1/+5You crack me up. Read history. Israel is an expansionist country that till this day has an aggressive policy of occupation and suppression to millions of people. Israel started many wars unprovoked, and is know to later fabricate what provocation is.
On the other hand. IRAN NEVER attacked anyone for the past 150 years. The US is the country that started to systematically attack Iran starting with Operation Ajax in 1953 by overthrowing a democratically elected moderate president for publicizing their oil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%2 ...
Going up through instating a dictator Shah Iran who terrorized the Iranians and the country into submission, with one of the most brutal intelligence agencies known in recent history the Savak.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savak
Later on the US supported Iraq with all sorts of weaponry and WMDs and pushed them to start a war against Iran that lasted 8 brutal years that killed millions of Iranians in the process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq ...
And you wonder why they have ANY animosity towards the US? Laughable. How about the US stfu about Iran already?
- medfreak, on 07/10/2008, -1/+5You crack me up. Read history. Israel is an expansionist country that till this day has an aggressive policy of occupation and suppression to millions of people. Israel started many wars unprovoked, and is know to later fabricate what provocation is.
- mfc5200, on 07/10/2008, -2/+19What trust do they need? What country have they invaded in the past 50 years? None. Actions speak stronger than words.
- fireashes, on 07/09/2008, -24/+47F*ck Neocons and warmongers.
- griz, on 07/09/2008, -15/+4Come on people, you are slackin'. It's "Bush vs. Salami"
Bush to his advisors: "We must beat this Salami"- PhilLesh69, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Bush beat the salami.
We all win.
Or.... do we???
- PhilLesh69, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Bush beat the salami.
- AAK15, on 07/09/2008, -10/+66Great we're going to go to war with Iran just to protect Israel... can't we ever just worry about ourselves first?!
Pardon my ignorance but why does the US care so much about Israel anyway?- michaelpinto, on 07/09/2008, -9/+15Unless you haven't noticed we have troops in both Afghanistan AND Iraq which bother border Iran. And this is as much about Saudi Arabia as it is about Israel...
- m0tbaillie, on 07/10/2008, -1/+12What the ***** does Saudi Arabia have to do with anything besides oil?
And 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11... - PhilLesh69, on 07/10/2008, -6/+3So why are we going to go the mats for either of those godforsaken countries?
Israel and Saudi Arabia are the epicenters of terrorism.
Saudi Arabia spreads the hatred of the Wahhabist version of Islam, and Israel justifies that hatred within Islam.
Gee. I'm starting to see the foundations of a hegelian dialectic of conflict in the pursuit of some hidden goal. - zolthar, on 07/10/2008, -0/+5Shoosh! throwing the truth at the face of a diggocon can get you banned from digg.
- footlong24seven, on 07/10/2008, -10/+1Because the Jews own every aspect of this country. Read the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". They (the Jews) claim it to be a "forgery" but if you look at it yourself (and not take what other people tell you to think) and draw you own conclusions then it's a horrifically accurate depiction of the modern world. Mind you, it was written in 1905 and predicts the very world you live in today.
- PhilLesh69, on 07/10/2008, -3/+6footlong24seven,
I've read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Back in 2003. It scared me, too.
But then I did research on it. It is like the myth of the Freemasons, it is a misdirection.
There are groups and ideologies that are leading us astray, leading us towards a one world government, but this isn't one of them.
The PEOZ was created by communists, to misdirect people from their own agenda.
Granted, if you read it, you will understand some interpretation of the actual blueprint, but this was a bolshevik attempt to place blame upon the Jews, when it really doesn't have any religious affilliation at all.
In fact, the main force is quite pagan which is driving us towards a one world government.
The fact that you even bring it up makes me wonder if you aren't a pagan. I mean, this got batted around the internet for about 6 months in 2003, and even came up again a few times in 2005, but anyone who knows about the real New World Order agenda has stopped talking about that long ago. - neko6, on 07/10/2008, -1/+6Serge Nilus, a little-known Czarist official in Moscow, edited several editions of the Protocols, each with a different account of how he discovered the document. In his 1911 edition Nilus claimed that his source had stolen the document from (a non-existent) Zionist headquarters in France. Other "editors" of the Protocols maintained that the document was read at the First Zionist Congress held in 1897 in Basel, Switzerland.
Note: According to reputable scholars, including Prof. Norman Cohn in his noted book, Warrant for Genocide, the world-control myth was actually lifted from a 19th century French politcal satire in which the alleged plotters weren’t even Jewish. - PhilLesh69, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1neko6,
You gotta love the people who actually take the time to learn, rather than just buying into one ideology or another.
It's not like we have the excuse of only having a choice of three TV news outlets and our local paper, like folks in the 50's and 60's, you know? We can learn just about anything we want now.
- m0tbaillie, on 07/10/2008, -1/+12What the ***** does Saudi Arabia have to do with anything besides oil?
- CDWMobile, on 07/09/2008, -15/+8Iran controls a large portion of our oil - Protecting Israel is only a small part of the story - but we do so because they play by the rules. The oil is a big power piece. The last thing we need is for them to have a nuclear weapon to bring to the table as well. Iran has always been about flexing their muscle, they wouldn't be scared of flexing their nuclear muscle if they had it.
Its kind of like WWI when Britain used the invasion of Belgium by Germany as their reason to get in the war. Britain had been worrying about the growing power of Germany for long before WWI started, but couldn't attack them simply because 'they were getting to powerful".- medfreak, on 07/09/2008, -3/+19"Our oil"
How exactly is a natural resource located in a country tens of thousands of miles away from your borders yours again? - CDWMobile, on 07/09/2008, -7/+5You should be a politician. Play with the words all you want. You understood exactly what I meant... When you leave drive to a pharmacy to pick up your hallucinogenic meds do you tell your wife that you're going to pick up the pharmacies medication or do you say "my medication"? It implies something you were going to buy something that predetermined as yours.
- newl, on 07/10/2008, -3/+7Are they still playing by "the rules" when they're beating on the Palestinians?
- Azerael, on 07/10/2008, -3/+5He's not playing with words. It's not your oil, and it's nothing like going to a store to buy meds. It's more like saying "I'm going to go get my toaster" and then breaking into your neighbors house and taking their toaster, killing them and destabilising the whole neighborhood.
- vinod1978, on 07/10/2008, -3/+4@newl - The Palestinians aren't exactly "innocent" either. They've done just as much to Israel has Israel has done to them...
- PhilLesh69, on 07/10/2008, -4/+4vinod1978,
You need to read up on your history.
Israel, or should I say the Ashkenazi Jews, has propogated much more violence upon Palestinian Arabs than the Palestinian Arabs have done against them.
Sure, if all you know is the last 25 years of history, considering the first and second intifadas, you might believe that the Palestinians are just mean and nasty and angry people who have brought nothing but violence upon the poor, innocent Israeli people.
But you would be wrong, and highly misinformed.
You should look up the Balfour Declaration of 1917. You should do some research on the Palestine that existed before that, when Sephardic Jews and Palestinian Arabs shared a nation, ruled it together, intermarried, ran businesses together, went to school with each other.
It wasn't until the European Jews (Ashkenazi) came to Palestine that there was any conflict. It was the Ashkenazis who started all the conflict. The IRGUN were the ones who dressed up as Arabs and bombed the King David Hotel in order to foment British anger against the Palestinian Arabs.
Seriously, if you want to know the truth, just use those series of tubes and find out for yourself.
If using the internet is too complicated, search your area Blockbusters for the movie "Exodus" by Otto Preminger. It's from 1960. It spells it all out clearly. - robin12345, on 07/10/2008, -4/+1Some more history: Britain declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland in '39. The invasion of Belgium was the year after. Doesn't change the point, though.
- PhilLesh69, on 07/10/2008, -4/+3robin12345,
Not only does it not change the point, it doesn't even make any sense.
Should we have declared war on the Ashkenazi and the Irgun before or after they had set up shop on Cyprus, or should we have waited until they started shipping arms to Palestine?
Either way, why didn't we stop it back then? Oh, yeah, because of the holocaust. - CDWMobile, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1Robin,
Some better history for you... WWI started in 1914. The invasion of Poland in 1939 was the start of WWII.....
- medfreak, on 07/09/2008, -3/+19"Our oil"
- PacmanMafia, on 07/09/2008, -19/+15Israel is our only solid ally in the middle east.
- Kizilbash, on 07/10/2008, -13/+17Really? Have you told Israel that? Because it seems to me an ally should not bomb US ships (google USS Liberty), should not be stealing nuclear secrets and spy on its ally, should not be selling its technology to its enemies, should not be alienating other allies and start wars that will endanger you. What does Israel have to offer you? nothing. Israel is not your ally, Israel has a firm grip on your balls.
- Polarize, on 07/10/2008, -13/+8Israel is the only Middle Eastern nation not obsessive about committing jihad on the 'pagan' nations, and as much as I abhor religion in any form, I'd take the most extreme forms of Christianity over the most relaxed forms of Islam any day.
The liberals will plunge their fingers deeper into their ears, and squeeze their eyes ever more tightly shut, and in reality, all attempts to reason with them are pointless.
Israel is the only stable Middle Eastern nation, and THAT is why they are allies with America. - m0tbaillie, on 07/10/2008, -4/+8As someone who *grew up* in the Middle East, let me just say this:
You three right above me are all ***** idiots.
*Turkey* is not only a member of NATO (which Israel is not), but it has been one of our only long-standing allies in the Middle East. Israel is only buddy-buddy with the US because it is convenient for them and we fling billions at them per year. If it were not for the US backing Israel (money, weapons, politically, etc.) the country would have long been gone. Do you see where it's at on the map? - vinod1978, on 07/10/2008, -2/+2@Kizilbash - Almost 90% of all financial aid we give to Israel is militarily - ask yourself why that is? The US is Israel's ally because we needed at least one ally in the middle east. The problem is that everyone else in the region hates our one and only ally. So we fund our only ally to produce weapons, and give them nuclear technology to keep the other countries in the region in check.
The problem is that Israel also has their own agenda - their security is paramount to them, not ours - So by giving them so much money, we in turn have given them unchecked power, and we let them do just about anything and we look away. Is it wrong? Yes. But it is just as much as our fault as it is Israel's. - Polarize, on 07/10/2008, -2/+6@m0tbaillie:
You don't think Israel would defend itself sufficiently without America's help?
I beg to differ. Their military is in a multitude of aspects, unrivalled.
With that being said, I do disagree with the money the US pours into the region (including Israel), but I will always be sympathetic to the Israelis because of their conundrum with the Palestinians.
If anybody should have been wiped off the map long ago, it was the Palestinians. - PhilLesh69, on 07/10/2008, -6/+1Polarize,
It has never been proven, but even many Israelis believe that during the Yom Kippur war, we didn't just create an "air bridge" of military airlift supplying them with tanks, guns, missiles, etc, but we also sheep-dipped hundreds of thousands of highly trained American soldiers.
Israel would have ceased to exist in 1967 if it was not for the United States.
And if you ask me, we would be better off if that had happened.
Don't forget, the primary funding and even some of the military contribution was from Saudi Arabia.
And we all know that Saudi Arabia attacked us on 9/11, yet they still sell us oil.
9/11 wouldn't have happened, and Saudi Arabia might even stop spreading their hatred and anger against all non-muslims, and we would still have our oil supply.
But we chose to support the thorn in their side. - PhilLesh69, on 07/10/2008, -5/+1I was vague in one point. Saudi Arabia was the primary funding and some of the military contribution by Saudi Arabia was for the Arab League, who attacked Israel.
The Yom Kippur war as fought by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and a few other lesser Arab nations.
And then in the Six Day War, Saudi Arabia used the "oil bomb" against the US, which sparked the oil crisis. - neko6, on 07/10/2008, -0/+7Phil - you're SO misinformed, it hurts. The US aid to Israel started after Israel supplied the US with a working MIG21 in the middle of the cold war, circa 1980. There was no meaningful US aid, political or military, during the wars of 1967 and 1973, and there was no US involvement in Israeli nuclear capability. Unofficial sources claim that the French supplied the missiles and South Africa supplied the nuclear technology.
- m0tbaillie, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1@Polarize
Israel's military has *ONLY* become what it has because of the immense technological AND financial support/backing from the US. Without us, they would have been done for long ago and their military would not be nearly as up to snuff as it is. - PhilLesh69, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1neko64, I don't know where you get your information.
While The US withheld military aid during the six day war, due to the fact that Israel fired the first shots, there was quite a lot of negotiation by Lucius Battle, McNamara, and Johnson with Nasser, attempting to prevent the six day war. There was also a lot of diplomatic negotiations with the Soviets, and the UN both before and during the six day war.
During the Yom Kippur War, the US provided substantial military aid. You've never heard of Operation Nickel Grass?
"Operation Nickel Grass was a strategic airlift operation conducted by the United States to deliver weapons and supplies to Israel during the Yom Kippur War. The Military Airlift Command of the U.S. Air Force shipped 22,325 tons of tanks, artillery, ammunition, and supplies in C-141 Starlifter and C-5 Galaxy transport aircraft between October 12 and November 14, 1973. This rapid supply mission was critical to Israel's ability to fully recapture the Sinai from Egypt, which it had occupied since the Six Day war in 1967 and advance beyond the Purple Line into Syria."
- Psi57, on 07/10/2008, -23/+16Because the kikes have a little group called AIPAC that owns our government.
- vinod1978, on 07/10/2008, -6/+7How did such an offensive comment get dugg up? You people are starting to sicken me.
- Polarize, on 07/10/2008, -8/+5@vinod1978:
That's what happens when liberals take over. The very essence of what they rave against (viz., racism, bigotry, and rage), are the very things that inhabit them and drive them, no different than their most opposite minded opponent.
The difference is, if I called somebody a *****, I'd be dug down to infinity, because we can all excuse blacks for the grotesque percentage of American crime they commit, right?
Welcome to Digg. - CressCrowbits, on 07/10/2008, -1/+3Says Polarize, the individual who earlier stated "palestinians should be wiped off the map".
You are so full of ***** it's almost beautiful.
And to add, I have no idea who the ***** is digging up Psi57's comment. They certainly don't represent me. - chulaka, on 07/10/2008, -1/+4It is wrong to use the word Kikes, which is derogatory. And it should be said that not all Jews support the AIPAC nor Israel. And lets not forget that there are many non-Jews who are more than happy to see a war with Iran for the benefit of Israel.
However the Israel Lobby does have significant influence in the U.S. and has pushed the U.S. to sacrifice its own people to the benefit of Israel. - Polarize, on 07/10/2008, -2/+1@CressCrowbits:
I do believe the Palestinians should be wiped off the map (along with most blacks), and I absolutely am a racist. Blacks make up 14% of the U.S. population and commit 48% of the crime. Throw that around in your gray matter for awhile. How could I NOT be a racist with that statistic?
The average negro's lack of intelligence is astounding.
However, I do not pretend (as the liberals do) that all people are created equal, or that we should all get along. I'm very external and open about my beliefs, however in the minority they may be. That was the contrast I was trying to make. - medfreak, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2@Polarize
Well I would love to say to you that you should be wiped off the map, and every evidence of your sorry existence. - Polarize, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2Your intelligence is so intimidating...
If you are going to embarrass yourself jumping headlong into a discussion you know nothing about, why not attempt something cognitive, instead of defecating into your mother's face and then lamely transcribing what you see into a sentence.
Also, don't forget to properly use the comma. It is an important aspect of the English language.
Moron. - Psi57, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1Yay!
- medfreak, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1@Polarize
My intelligence could be intimidating, to chronic ***** such as yourself. However, I would rather use it on people that could comprehend it, instead of using it on life forms that barely deserve the title, with single digit IQ that is equivalent to what a protozoa could muster.
Racist Ass-*****. - Polarize, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1Once again, your understanding and use of the English language leaves much to be desired. You incorrectly placed a comma in your first sentence, and "with single digit IQ" is certainly not proper grammar.
Your stupidity is startling.
I suggest you stick with YouTube; your grammar and usage fits in quite nicely there, methinks.
It is strange that you have not responded to my argument in the least. Nothing to say about negroes making up 14% of the population and committing 48% of the crime?
Now get back to flipping those burgers, or whatever embarrassing task you endeavour to call your career. - medfreak, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1Flipping burgers is way beyond your level of intelligence though. I guess you are sitting by a Starbucks begging for a few coins on the sidewalk?
FYI, it is not worth discussing anything with an inbred racist ***** such as yourself. - Polarize, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2"Flipping burgers is way beyond your level of intelligence though."
And you STILL can't get your commas in the right place.
I'm done.
- CarStan, on 07/10/2008, -11/+6Because they control most of your banks and money
- shayben, on 07/10/2008, -7/+7Israel is perfectly capable of defending itself (Just note the past wars).
In fact, Israel, for some strange reason, has been seeking US approval to attack Iran for years... we have been trying to provide intelligence evidence that will convice US that we are under serious threat.
We dont seriously expect the US the help us, however, the US wants to protect its intrests in the middle east (mostly oil intrests), so you people either stop bitching about rising gas prices, or come to the realization that a nuclear fanatic Islamic country in the middle east is bad for THE ENTIRE democratic free world.- Polarize, on 07/10/2008, -4/+4Shhh...
Your logical rationality is going to make the average digger's head explode. - bosssmiley, on 07/10/2008, -3/+1Iran backs Hezbollah and Hamas, don't they? You may just have a valid point here.
Worst case scenario isn't Iran throwing its' weight around in the Persian Gulf and the *stans; that's just regional power politics. WCS is if the loony non-state actors backed by the various factions in the Iranian govt get their hands on *real* WMDs.
I still don't think rattling the sabres at them is a good way to get the Iranians to act rationally though. They're likely to default to macho nationalism and brinkmanship, just like any other country would. - vinod1978, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1@shayben - I think EVERYONE agrees that a nuclear Iran is bad for EVERYONE. The point that I've been trying to make is that giving Iran incentives such as financial aid, sharing technology, starting aggressive trade between Iran & the Rest of the world are good bargaining chips for them to stop their nuclear program. Obviously we would need UN officials to be able to investigate every square inch that they want to - but I think that if we help Iran get out of 3rd world country status not only could this solve the current issue but we all know when countries suffer economically people get upset. When the economy is good they are less violent (unless they are provoked). For example look at Hitler, the economy was horrible, people were upset and they believed his nonsense about blaming Jews. It's the same with Ahmadinejad. In fact if the country was evolving monetarily, economically, the people would not have care as much about their hatred of Jews & Americans - you can change the views of people if you make their standard of living better, and that is what the United States should try to do with Iran. There is no reason for military violence, especially when we have not tried to diplomatically solve the situation.
One more quick note. Yes Israel is able to defend itself, but remember we give a ton of financial aid to Israel (all loans have been converted to grants), and 90% of that money goes to the military in Israel. Of course Israel wants US approval so they continue to receive those grants for their military to help defend itself against its enemies.
- Polarize, on 07/10/2008, -4/+4Shhh...
- leladax, on 07/10/2008, -8/+4US doesn't care about Israel. Antisemites don't make it clearer either, with their hate putting the focus on that.
The US is USING Israel just as it uses most others it calls "allies".
It's all about the oil and political and economical intimidation there, don't get fooled.- vinod1978, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1@leladax - Of course any country is going to make policies that are in its best interest. Some people believe supporting Israel is actually not in our best interest since almost every country in the Middle East does not want Israel to be in the region, and we are enemies by proxy because we support Israel, however I believe that Israel CAN be an important ally - they have helped us with certain military technologies in the past, and also in obtaining intelligence. What I am upset about is the fact that Israel is given an incredible amount of money, and at the time it was in loans, but they were ALL switched over to grants. I also have a problem that 90% of the money we give them goes directly to their military - so they should ask us for approval before making military decisions that effect not only the region, but the United States. But the biggest problem I have is that the United States does not reprimand Israel from some of its actions that I believe instigate further violence. Just because we support Israel's right to protect itself and believe in their right to exist as a sovereign nation, does not mean we should allow them to do whatever they want to without consequence.
- AnarchoGoth, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1No no no no no.
We are going to war with Iran because they are threatening to defend themselves if attacked.
- michaelpinto, on 07/09/2008, -9/+15Unless you haven't noticed we have troops in both Afghanistan AND Iraq which bother border Iran. And this is as much about Saudi Arabia as it is about Israel...
- AAK15, on 07/09/2008, -2/+13lol "The United States, which has bases in the Middle East, has tried to downplay the possibility of a war with Iran but has warned Iran it will not allow it to interfere with oil shipments in the area. "
- Cadenzah, on 07/09/2008, -15/+45US and Israel warmongering = incentive for countries like Iran to develop nukes.
The world's biggest superpower has attacked two of Iran's neighboring countries in less than six years, and now the war-rhethoric is directed at them. And they have the indecency to test their missile defence?! SHOCK AND AWE!- thedp, on 07/10/2008, -9/+2Get the sand out of your ass, the comment.
Camel *****. - neko6, on 07/10/2008, -2/+5Iran was warmongering when they called the US "the big devil" and when they threatened to destroy Israel.
They could have just not said that and nobody would have an excuse to attack them...- kanabiis, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2Ohhhh you called my friend a Poopyhead, I'm going to beat you up!!!!
Seriously grow the ***** up. Just because someone calls you names or disagrees with you is NO reason to fight.
Its as if our country is being lead by a bunch of ***** children in Jr. High School and have the consent of the other ***** children think they are adults.
***** GROW UP.
- kanabiis, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2Ohhhh you called my friend a Poopyhead, I'm going to beat you up!!!!
- thedp, on 07/10/2008, -9/+2Get the sand out of your ass, the comment.
- 7Mystery, on 07/10/2008, -0/+7Claims!
- humanerror, on 07/10/2008, -4/+1Want proof?
Turn on the news. See those people talking about how we need to attack Iran and why we should bomb Iran and when would be the best time to invade Iran?
There you go.
Do you think the Iranians didn't notice the same rumblings as the media machine primed for the invasion of Iraq? Do you think there's anyone in the world (outside of the USA) who didn't notice that?
The only insane response at this point would be if Iran *wasn't* preparing for a US invasion. - nevetssav, on 07/10/2008, -1/+1It was threatened...the Israeli Air Force maneuvers in late June were a pretty clear sign.
- humanerror, on 07/10/2008, -4/+1Want proof?
- bepart, on 07/10/2008, -9/+26I don't understand why the world condemned this but not when Israel flew 100 fighters to rehearse an attack on Iran. Israel has more dangerous missiles than this doesn't she?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho_missile- ReeferChiefer42, on 07/10/2008, -1/+6It's simple really: Israel is a friend of the U.S. Any enemy of an enemy to the U.S. is a friend, just like damn near the entire western world and every other democratic country turned a blind eye to the 50 to 100 thousand Kurds slaughtered by Sadam and his muster gas and nerve gas because Iraq was at war with a bigger enemy (Iran).
You'll soon come to find that politicians are completely fine with picking and choosing what's right and wrong, hell they're even fine with defining what's right and wrong (look at Bush's proposed bill to the House to excuse his guilty ass of war crimes). - thedp, on 07/10/2008, -5/+4Because Israel is not declaring to world that will destroy other countries...
That ***** Iranian midget has to get his ass and his ugly mother's ass slapped and shot!
So, learn some facts and then comment you *****. - neko6, on 07/10/2008, -1/+4Israel could have used these nuclear missiles for over 30 years, but never did, and the Israeli president said calmly "We will not introduce WMDs to the middle east".
Iran is developing WMDs while threatening Israel's existence, after they already attacked Israel via proxy armies hundreds of times.
Tiny difference.
And as someone once wrote on Digg:
Iran language on Israel is so provocative even the Palestinians condom it:
"Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator and member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, stated: "Palestinians recognise the right of the state of Israel to exist and I reject his comments.""
this on achminijads alleged 'wipe Israel of the map'.
for full list go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_a ...
Iran showing off ballistic missiles in military parades with writing such as "“Israel must be uprooted and erased from history”".
http://terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/html ...
(scroll down).
Iran is making sure every Israeli feel at an existential threat, and for the government of Israel not to take it seriously - would be betraying their people.
- ReeferChiefer42, on 07/10/2008, -1/+6It's simple really: Israel is a friend of the U.S. Any enemy of an enemy to the U.S. is a friend, just like damn near the entire western world and every other democratic country turned a blind eye to the 50 to 100 thousand Kurds slaughtered by Sadam and his muster gas and nerve gas because Iraq was at war with a bigger enemy (Iran).
- quadrator82, on 07/10/2008, -10/+0save our world
http://usana-vitamins-khairi.blogspot.com/ - nastronomical, on 07/10/2008, -27/+8Nuke Iran...please god. I am sick of these islamic dogs yapping.
- donkeySays, on 07/10/2008, -1/+13You have no idea how ignorant and misinformed you are.
- soot, on 07/10/2008, -5/+4*****, I wish someone would just nuke all of us sometimes.
- TheMoniker, on 07/10/2008, -0/+7Bertrand Russell apparently used to give the following test to see if someone was an optimist or a pessimist. It was a simple question: if you had the ability to destroy the Earth with the push of a button, would you?
- rand0mm0nkey, on 07/10/2008, -3/+3They'd quit "yapping," as you put it, if we would quit threatening them. Are you really that ignorant?
- neko6, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2nastro - change Islamic to Islamist, and I would support you. But many Muslims, especially in Iran, share our Liberal values.
- jklikesnews, on 07/10/2008, -5/+8Maybe it's just me, but I find it hard to take someone with "Salami" as their last name seriously.
- chinesebadasss, on 07/10/2008, -9/+3Iran might really have some *****, otherwise we should be kicking their ass right now like we did to iraq.
bush knew saddam didnt have *****.- vinod1978, on 07/10/2008, -2/+1- 4,000+ dead Americans in Iraq.
- NO mission accomplished
- Americans are still there after 6 years
How did we kick their ass???
Attacking Iran was something Bin Laden was hoping for. We lost our civil liberties, and our economy. Exactly what Bin Laden wanted. Bush caved into to terrorism - he's not a cowboy, he's a coward.
- vinod1978, on 07/10/2008, -2/+1- 4,000+ dead Americans in Iraq.
- o5rob5o, on 07/10/2008, -10/+0fgdfbgdadsfgsadfasd
- Dylson, on 07/10/2008, -8/+7Oh NOW they are threatened. What a crock of *****! This literally scares me.
- andy314159pi, on 07/10/2008, -3/+4what scares you?
- Azerael, on 07/10/2008, -1/+9Uh oh they're going to fly planes into your house, quick, run to daddy McCain and sleep in his bed!
- elithebest, on 07/10/2008, -1/+3Best comment I've seen in a while.
- Dylson, on 07/10/2008, -2/+2lolumad?
- thedp, on 07/10/2008, -4/+1What's wrong Azerael, did the big bad camel left some sand up your ass?
- shauncorleone, on 07/10/2008, -3/+1No, they're more likely to fly a nuke up your ass. Maybe your Messiah Obama should go sit down with some tea and talk them out of it.
- StingingNettle, on 07/10/2008, -3/+32There is this Iranian family that owns this coffee shop right by where I live. They are very nice people, and they have some pics up on their wall from their trip to Iran. Its a very beautiful country. I hope these mad men don't start bombing Iran.
- ansatsu29, on 07/10/2008, -0/+5I agree with you. They should really leave Iran alone. It really shows that US and Israel have agendas of their own. Oil perhaps? or again like Iraq? Figures.
- bosssmiley, on 07/10/2008, -0/+9It's a shame that ordinary people get their lives ruined by f*cking politicians in all countries.
Never met an Iranian who didn't seem like a decent person; never met a politician who did. - Jhiaxuz, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1I took my Computer Service Tech course with an older man from Iran who served in their armed forces when he was younger. Nice guy and great to get along with and I nor anyone on campus ever questioned him in regards to his ethnicity, nationality or religious views.
- CarStan, on 07/10/2008, -4/+5why does Iran want Mccain to be the next president? Do they really want to be invaded?
- vinod1978, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4Probably. They know if that if we did invade, we would be more vulnerable to domestic attack then the US ever has been in the past 100 years. If we attack Iran, Syria will get involved, and Hezbollah in Lebanon will get involved. Israel will have our back, but if Israel & the US occupy Iran, we will have successfully pissed off the majority of the Muslim Population. If you think Muslim fundamentalists hate the jews, and the Americans - what do you think will happen if we jointly invaded a country? They would migrate from other countries to free Iran, Iraq, & Afghanistan from the "infidels" and domestic terrorism would be rampant.
- AynRandfan, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2McCain may do Iran like Bush did Iraq: give them a more powerful state and sacrifice American troops to give them legitimacy.
- vinod1978, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Believe it or not - Iraq is LESS powerful then they were before the invasion. Some people say that it is because of the invasion that the Kurds are not being prosecuted like they were before (around 100,000 were killed by chemical weapons, or shot in the head), but we have just changed one genocide for another. Right now in Iraq, Christians which are a small but important population, are being killed simply because they are Christian. There are about a million people that are living in fear because if you are Christian they immediately think you are an American supporter and kill their entire family. So we have accomplished absolutely nothing. So, I don't know how you are saying that Iraq is more powerful.
- AynRandfan, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2No, I am saying that the war was intended to benefit Iraq, not to defend Americans. That is the explicit goal of the war.
The point was to give the Iraqis the power to vote themselves into any sort of state they want, and we can't touch them after that because "democracy is democracy" (said Bush).
- AynRandfan, on 07/10/2008, -16/+6Iran has no right to exist, and no right to defend itself. It is a theocratic dictatorship ruled by religious madmen who want to take over the world and violate the rights of their citizens.
- medfreak, on 07/10/2008, -3/+14Iran's military does not exist beyond Iran's borders, while US's military has hundreds if not thousands of bases all over the world, and has a leader that claims God talks to him directly.
Remind me, who wants to take over the world again?- shayben, on 07/10/2008, -4/+1Since the Islamic revolution in 79 Iran's military is composed mainly of "Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution", which has a huge chuck of it directed at "exporting the revolution" (that is, crusading the Islamic revolution to other countries).
So, you are wrong. - medfreak, on 07/10/2008, -1/+3Give one single solid evidence that they EVER started a war to "export the revolution"? The answer is: Never. No one other than people with sensationalist anti-Iranian agendas such as yourself.
The only people that are exporting anything are the US exporting occupation and world control through various bases all around the world.
So you are categorically wrong. - AynRandfan, on 07/10/2008, -2/+1actually, Iran has killed many Americans outside its own borders in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, etc. Remember, Hezbollah and Hamas are controlled and funded by Iran and we know they are sending people to Iraq.
Bush isn't trying to take over the world, he is trying to give middle easterners the power to vote and he wants to give them a state, running water, and electricity. - medfreak, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Typical short term memory syndrome.
Iran killed many Americans? Based on that logic the US killed many Americans too!
Remember how the US established and funded Bin Laden in the past?
Remember how the US gave WMDs to Saddam?
Remember how Israel destroyed USS liberty?
Remember how the US is funding clandestine operations to support terrorism against Iran?
Don't think so.
P.S. The "middle easterners" have a state, running water and electricity. In fact some of the highest most advanced skyscraper in the world is in the middle east.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burj_Dubai
If the Arab world actually votes, they would overthrow the current dictators in bed with the US first and foremost. Bush is consolidating the positions of Arab dictators instead.
Buried for stupidity.
- shayben, on 07/10/2008, -4/+1Since the Islamic revolution in 79 Iran's military is composed mainly of "Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution", which has a huge chuck of it directed at "exporting the revolution" (that is, crusading the Islamic revolution to other countries).
- yellowcakewalk, on 07/10/2008, -1/+13Perhaps the CIA should not have overthrown Iran's democratically elected government in 1953 ( viz. Operation AJAX ).
- AynRandfan, on 07/10/2008, -2/+1that is totally irrevelant
- medfreak, on 07/10/2008, -2/+1Your existence is irrelevant.
- randomstupid, on 07/10/2008, -1/+3thats as logical as saying You have no right to exist .
- chulaka, on 07/10/2008, -1/+5As is Israel.
And now, the U.S. with its Christian right-wing nut cases.
- medfreak, on 07/10/2008, -3/+14Iran's military does not exist beyond Iran's borders, while US's military has hundreds if not thousands of bases all over the world, and has a leader that claims God talks to him directly.
- oilcan, on 07/10/2008, -9/+2i used to give a *****, but as I get older I'm like ***** whatever, bring on the fireworks, nothing like dying in a completely desperate situation over dying a slow aging death watching rhetoric.
- Fun4Two, on 07/10/2008, -3/+6I think I will send the President of Iran a copy of Dr. Strangelove, because he obviously hasn't seen it
- HumanRecalled, on 07/10/2008, -4/+0@Joker
and here we.........GO! - ReeferChiefer42, on 07/10/2008, -8/+3Really? Test fire missiles when you're already on bad terms with a country who will use as little as non-existent WMD's to invade and completely destroy your country? With Bush still in office too?! They're just asking for it....I mean, I understand Iran simply doesn't want to be bullied but do they really think they stand a chance against the U.S. military industrial complex? Their best bet right now it to stop their nuclear facilities buildup and just lay low, at least until Bush is gone and there's maybe a possibility of sensible and rational non-republican diplomacy.
- Socratores, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2"U.S. military industrial complex" riiight.
The same military industrial complex that is ***** things up in Irak that Afganistan.
Get your head out of your ass.- ReeferChiefer42, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1Irak? Afganistan? I've never heard of these places. Perhaps you can enlighten me with their location, idiot.
If you're going to insult someone at least do it with proper grammar. I mean for Christ's sake digg has spellcheck!
- ReeferChiefer42, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1Irak? Afganistan? I've never heard of these places. Perhaps you can enlighten me with their location, idiot.
- OMnicient, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1I don't think Iran will just "roll over" for the US like Iraq did. Any war with Iran will take at least four months to "win".... if we go by the "two weeks" estimate given for the Iraq invasion.
The Iranians would greet us with flowers as liberators if we invaded, right before they all converted to scientology and the LDS church.
- Socratores, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2"U.S. military industrial complex" riiight.
- blanketfury, on 07/10/2008, -1/+17" I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." --- Albert Einstein
I've always wanted to learn how to use a spear.- ansatsu29, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2I want to try a battle ax too....
- PhoneJack, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1That is the most horrifying thing Einstein has ever said.
- aixroot, on 07/10/2008, -4/+4According to Iran's state run media? Oh, that must be soooo bad.
Self censorship is much worst!
How many US news media were critical of the wars started by Bush administratrion? - DiggzDE, on 07/10/2008, -2/+7Man. I am beginning to not like this at all. Seriously, why can't people just leave each other alone. *****.
- ansatsu29, on 07/10/2008, -0/+3That's the problem with people or in this case, governments with agendas of their own. Gaining what they want even if it costs human lives and creating dystopia.
- vinod1978, on 07/10/2008, -6/+13Israel has attacked Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and now threatens to attack Iran. The Iranians are more afraid of Israel then the United States by far. Though I believe that Israel has the right to protect itself when it is threatened by other nations I think it's time the US gave Israel a bit of a time out. Israel could easily start WWIII. Don't get me wrong - Bush would love to do it, but we are fresh out of resources, and have been for quite a while (as it is showing in Afghanistan). We need to offer Iran some incentives; some type of guarantee that we will not occupy their country as long at it stops developing nuclear power and allow UN Inspectors to search everywhere & anywhere. Things like financial aid, shared technology, removal from the "terrorist watch list", and the start of real trade are diplomatic solutions to a problem that could potentially cause the loss of millions of lives.
- maybach, on 07/10/2008, -1/+4Israel and the US should essentially be seen as the same thing. Israel can't do anything without the nod from Uncle Sam.
- edyang, on 07/10/2008, -2/+4You're kidding me right?
Israel is surrounded by hostile nations that have twice tried to kick their asses. Yet even faced against enormous odds, Israel still whupped their asses.
Israel's neighbors would like nothing more than to destroy the nation of Israel and slaughter every single living Jew.
Israel gives land in concessions only to find their towns being hammered by missles from the land they just gave up.
If I were living in a neighborhood where all my neighbors have much bigger houses than me, have attacked and broken into my house multiple times, lob Molotov cocktails at me, and have publicly said they are going to destroy my house...you bet I'd be a bit defensive.
The US has a moral obligation to defend Israel, and Americans have a moral obligation to ensure that a little event called the Holocaust never happens again.
But if Diggbots ruled the world, I couldn't be so confident that we wouldn't let it happen again.- gweller, on 07/10/2008, -1/+0Hey bro, I'm all for helping Israel, but the US does not have any moral obligation to help Israel or prevent another holocaust. Our moral obligation is to the US of A first and then whatever we have left we can offer for help. All of these so called "moral obligations" are going to bankrupt us and then Israel is really going to be in trouble. Is Israel in return going to fulfill their "moral obligation" to keep us from going bankrupt?
Although the Jews get most of the attention of the holocaust a near equal number of non-Jews were also killed. We have no more of a "moral obligation" to them than we have to the Jews. - vinod1978, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1@edyang - I don't believe you understood my comment. As I said in my comment I fully support Israel protecting itself from countries that wish it harm, and I believe the US should support Israel as well. However, we can not let Israel start a war with Iran. If Israel attacked Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon would no doubt fire hundreds of missiles at Israel, and Israel would have to go to war with both Iran & Lebanon and since Syria funnels millions to Hezbollah they would obviously get involved to protect the areas in Lebanon under Hezbollah control. The United States would have no choice but to defend Israel - and you would have both American "infidels", and Jews in a military action against Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria & Lebanon. Every Muslim fundamentalist would go migrate to these reason to rise up against the invasion of Americans & Jews. In addition to starting an full fled WAR in the region, domestic terrorism on US soil would grow on a scale that would be unimaginable by any American.
Yes, Israel has the right to defend itself, but not when these are the consequences. - edyang, on 07/13/2008, -0/+0And you think the US would be safer if we sat out a Middle Eastern war? Let's say Israel was annihilated and the US did nothing. Do you think we get brownie points?
Have you thought about the other countries that have had acts of Islamic terrorism wreaked on them that have absolutely nothing to do with American foreign policy? What about the terrorism in Egypt, Yemen, Phillipines, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Canada?
Iran hates Jews. It wants to kill all Jews. It believes the Holocaust was a myth. It wants Israel wiped off the face of the map. And it's gearing up for nuclear weapons.
It doesn't take a genius to put two and two together. If I were in Israel's position, a pre-emptive strike is well within my bounds of logic when faced with a complete and total destruction of my nation.
- gweller, on 07/10/2008, -1/+0Hey bro, I'm all for helping Israel, but the US does not have any moral obligation to help Israel or prevent another holocaust. Our moral obligation is to the US of A first and then whatever we have left we can offer for help. All of these so called "moral obligations" are going to bankrupt us and then Israel is really going to be in trouble. Is Israel in return going to fulfill their "moral obligation" to keep us from going bankrupt?
- neko6, on 07/10/2008, -2/+4vinod - small correction:
Israel has been attacked by Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and now Iran threatens to attack them as well.
Israel never started a conflict. Check it out for yourself. Israel was attacked numerous times, and despite some very disgusting behavior by its extremist neighbors, they always offered peace.- vinod1978, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1@neko6 - You are 100% right - I guess I didn't make it clear enough that I supported their actions when they attacked countries that sought to do them harm. My point was, however, that Iran does not believe that the United States can wage a war in Iran. It is both militarily unfeasible (due to the shrinking numbers of US troops), and economically impossible - Iran knows this. They only started shaking in their boots when Israel threatened them because Israel has a past of attacking its enemies that threaten them.
I'll reiterate my point. Just because Israel CAN attack Iran does not mean that is should happen. If Israel attacked Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon would no doubt fire hundreds of missiles at Israel, and Israel would have to go to war with both Iran & Lebanon and since Syria funnels millions to Hezbollah they would obviously get involved to protect the areas in Lebanon under Hezbollah control. The United States would have no choice but to defend Israel - and you would have both American "infidels", and Jews in a military action against Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria & Lebanon. Every Muslim fundamentalist would go migrate to these reason to rise up against the invasion of Americans & Jews. In addition to starting an full fled WAR in the region, domestic terrorism on US soil would grow on a scale that would be unimaginable by any American.
Yes, Israel has the right to defend itself, but not when these are the consequences.
- vinod1978, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1@neko6 - You are 100% right - I guess I didn't make it clear enough that I supported their actions when they attacked countries that sought to do them harm. My point was, however, that Iran does not believe that the United States can wage a war in Iran. It is both militarily unfeasible (due to the shrinking numbers of US troops), and economically impossible - Iran knows this. They only started shaking in their boots when Israel threatened them because Israel has a past of attacking its enemies that threaten them.
- emko00, on 07/10/2008, -6/+12this is sooo funny
"They should also refrain from further missile tests if they truly seek to gain the trust of the world. The Iranians should stop the development of ballistic missiles, which could be used as a delivery vehicle for a potential nuclear weapon, immediately."
first they don't let them to build nuclear energy now they don't want them to build missiles? yet Americans are putting missiles aimed at Iran in Poland WTF.Whats next you cant build airplanes because u might be able to load nukes into them just like the Americans did with Japan ? Maybe America should stop the plan to have missiles in Poland and Israel shouldnt do any more exercises on attacking Iran then maybe Iran can trust u guys LOL - Pusod, on 07/10/2008, -2/+10This was expected after all that military posturing by Israel last week. It's all a bunch of ***** if you ask me.
- whitecranberry, on 07/10/2008, -1/+14The only serious problem we face today is special interests using ***** excuses and religion to con the public into allowing them to continue to threaten the sovereignty of other countries. LEAVE IRAN THE ***** ALONE. Let Israel handle its own issues, they seem to manage well by themselves anyways. That ***** is on the other side of the world and is not any ***** threat to the US what-so-ever. Let the neighbors of Iran worry about them.
Occurs to me that perhaps the US should look inward like how their "democracy" is quickly turning into a police state and how the general level of idiocy on the rise, and fast.
You all need to smarten up people.. All of you.- nickrollout, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1You're comment is exactly why just anybody cannot be the president. It would be simple to "LEAVE IRAN THE ***** ALONE", but burring your head in the sand does not make problems go away. Our world is not so large that problems on the other side of the globe will have no effect on us. A conflict in the middle east would drag the whole world in, especially if it involves long range missiles.
Leaving a madman alone only make the problem worse. There are many example of this. That is where the hard decisions come in.
How do you minimize the damage? Not by ignoring the problem.
- nickrollout, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1You're comment is exactly why just anybody cannot be the president. It would be simple to "LEAVE IRAN THE ***** ALONE", but burring your head in the sand does not make problems go away. Our world is not so large that problems on the other side of the globe will have no effect on us. A conflict in the middle east would drag the whole world in, especially if it involves long range missiles.
- gfxlonghorn, on 07/10/2008, -0/+4We may not be able to fix a country, but we sure as hell know how to destroy one for no particular rhyme or reason other than we do not like it's ruler. That being said, if you were to even touch US soil, there would be no turning back. You can't help but feel a little safe, knowing that our government is trigger happy as hell.
- randomstupid, on 07/10/2008, -1/+9America what is up with your government ? 'Axis of Evil' ? 'Obliteration' ? Great way to make friends and influence people - don't be surprised the little guy is showing off and talking tough to a bully .
Your great nation is being wasted by the idiots in charge who don't know what dialogue is .- ansatsu29, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2Try "Axis of Decimation and Greed"
- emko00, on 07/10/2008, -3/+4America is just like a kid "i wont talk to you until u do want a want you to do" and at the same time telling Iran it cant have nuclear power America builds newer nuclear weapons ROFL.
- LenBaird, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1They also toss around the idea of nuking Iran TO KEEP IRAN FROM HAVING NUKES. Um, ... I am speechless sorry
- ivansusanin, on 07/10/2008, -8/+2HEY IRAN WHY SO SERIOUS? RIP HEATH LEDGER
- Tombo44, on 07/10/2008, -7/+2Air Force of the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution, is what they call themselves over in Iran... i mean sure western forces just exhume their ego with force and other means, but Iran might as well call their army - TEH BIGGEST AND BEST ARMY WHICH MUSLIMS USE, ONLY MUSLIMS OK?
- XternalHD, on 07/10/2008, -4/+2Ahh I see.. Bush ***** up. He meant to invade IRAN not Iraq and look for WMD's...
- emko00, on 07/10/2008, -1/+2you could say the same to Israel and many other countries that have nukes which i would count as real WMD's
- paidhima, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Iran...Iran...Iran...IRAQ!
- aminwxy, on 07/10/2008, -2/+0every one can say enything but is there eny threat that make irans people & goverment weak!
ever - maybach, on 07/10/2008, -2/+3Everybody, I urge you to have a look at this excellent article from the venerable New York Review of Books on this subject: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21592
First Paragraph:
At a moment of serious challenge, battered by two wars, ballooning debt, and a faltering economy, the United States appears to have lost its capacity to think clearly. Consider what passes for national discussion on the matter of Iran. The open question is whether the United States should or will attack Iran if it continues to reject American demands to give up uranium enrichment. Ignore for the moment whether the United States has any legal or moral justification for attacking Iran. Set aside the question whether Iran, as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently claimed in a speech at West Point, "is hellbent on acquiring nuclear weapons." Focus instead on purely practical questions. By any standards Iran is a tough nut to crack: it is nearly three times the size of Texas, with a population of 70 million and a big income from oil which the world cannot afford to lose. Iran is believed to have the ability to block the Straits of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf through which much of the world's oil must pass on its way to market. - legendxx, on 07/10/2008, -9/+9You guys are ***** idiots if you think we're going to attack Iran in any capacity similar to Afghanistan and Iraq. Even our ***** for brains leaders know the people would not put up with a war on such a scale. If anything comes of this it's going to be air and naval strikes and thats it.. which is a huge stretch.
I haven't heard such pussy-talk in a long time from Americans. This stuff like 'They have the right to defend themselves' and 'Wow we're hypocrites b/c we do war games all the time' is ***** laughable. Iran is not a stable country and has not demonstrated responsibility with its weapons like any other major nuclear power in the world. It's not as ***** simple as 'since we do it they can do it'. Get your middle-school educated heads out of your asses and into a history book for 5 seconds and you would realize this. If this were 10 years ago all of you would be saying that we need to stop Iran but you're all suffering from war-weariness b/c we've been involved in extended conflicts. Stop letting that guide your decisions and remember this is the greatest country in the world. Work toward justifying slogan with hard work. Hearing you people say that America's Golden Era is over makes me ***** sick. Bunch of quitters and crybabies.
Just because you're entire foreign knowledge comes from sensationalist headlines on digg doesn't make you any kind of expert or even someone who should express any kind of opinionated that you believe has any factual backing.- emko00, on 07/10/2008, -3/+3yes u guys are hyocrites.America are responsible with there weapons come on thats just stupid since when has Iran nuked people?build better nukes?told a country they cant have nuclear power?
"The United States is the largest supplier of weapons to developing nations, delivering more than $9.6 billion in arms to Near East and Asian countries last year."
Yup America is the most responsible,greatest Country and not a hypcrite.
by the way when was the last time Iran whent to w
- emko00, on 07/10/2008, -3/+3yes u guys are hyocrites.America are responsible with there weapons come on thats just stupid since when has Iran nuked people?build better nukes?told a country they cant have nuclear power?