digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at cbsnews.com —

Israel Prodding U.S. To Attack Iran

cbsnews.com — Bush Administration Weighs Striking Iran's Nuclear Complex, Which Could Trigger 3rd War In Region

show profanity settings
expand all
  • mujahideenryder, on 06/25/2008, -7/+69Public transportation use will increase.
  • FrankHope, on 06/25/2008, -20/+169Who are they kidding? Mullen and Gates are dying for an excuse to attack Iran. I doubt Israel is really going to attack Iran. They just want to force the US into doing their dirty work. The nuclear program is just an excuse.
    • sanman, on 06/25/2008, -34/+11Has it ever occurred to you that if Iran gets nuclear weapons, every Arab power will be rushing to go nuclear themselves? Then the entire Middle East will be bristling with nuclear weapons. Will you be happy then, you short-sighted moron?
      • crazydiode, on 06/25/2008, -7/+39has it ever occurred to you that Israel HAS nuclear weapons?
        • foopirata, on 06/25/2008, -17/+8And, even so, it has not spurred an Arab nuclear race, simply because they KNOW Israel will not use the weapons first?
        • caferrell, on 06/25/2008, -6/+11Actually it is because they KNOW that Israel would use their weapons first.
          Israel bombed Saddam's reactor, now they are going to bomb Iran in hopes of stopping their nuclear program. They almost certainly would bomb with something more powerful than conventional explosives if they thought that their neighbors were about to build nukes.
        • monsieurginger, on 06/25/2008, -9/+13When did Israel use nukes? You are assuming too much.
        • foopirata, on 06/25/2008, -8/+13@caferrell:

          Your logic simply does not follow.
          If the Arab countries felt the Israeli nuclear arsenal was a looming threat, they'd be trying to match it to obtain MAD.
          Since they did not, since 1973 they have dialed down the "all Jews into the sea" rhetoric, opting instead for alternate channels (media war, fueling the Palestinian nationalist movement, Hizzb'allah and plain old conventional posturing - oh, and in 2 very welcome cases, PEACE).
          Israel is not crazy enough to introduce nuclear weapons in the theater. We know damn well that would spell our own destruction. And that's why the Arabs didn't try to match us outright - they know we have them as weapons of last resort. Their function has been achieved.

          On the other hand, you have declarations from Gulf States saying that if Iran becomes a nuclear power, they might turn to Israel for a nuclear umbrella. Interesting how things go in moderate states, uh ?
        • caferrell, on 06/25/2008, -3/+3Yes it is, and those are the local arrangements that will generate real peace. When Israel is accepted among some of its neighbors, particularly and especially, the Palestinians, then everything will change. But instead Israel just hides behind the military might provided by Uncle Sam.
        • monsieurginger, on 06/25/2008, -6/+6Israel tried to be accepted by its neighbors, but you are forgetting that the 3 "nos"
        • foopirata, on 06/25/2008, -7/+9@caferrell: do you think you may be able to stick to a point and keep at it? First Israel was hiding behind its nuclear arsenal. Now it is the "military might provided by Uncle Sam". Do you want to decide what it is you're talking about and perhaps keep the line of the discussion?
        • VinceNoir, on 06/25/2008, -4/+11Why do people always give those Israeli ***** a free pass? They're just as much to blame for all the misery over there as the other sides. This has nothing to do with nationalities and everything to do with people in each of those countries looking to gain the most power. The innocent citizens in each of those countries (that includes Palestine) are forced to pay the price for these mafia types. Death to all of the power hungry idiots!
      • Kizilbash, on 06/25/2008, -7/+16Has it ever occurred to you that that nuclear arms started a long time ago when Israel got nuclear weapons or a lot less long, but still years ago when Pakistan and India made clear they had nuclear weapons?
        You should have thought about it then, you short-sighted dumbass *****.
      • zephyear, on 06/25/2008, -1/+6well pakistan already has nukes, and bush is helping saudi arabia with a nuclear program in exchange for oil deals

        israel also has hundreds of nukes
      • pell, on 06/25/2008, -0/+7Nukes are just for intimidation. I feel if anyone were to actually use them we'd all be ***** anyway, who who cares who has them, one goes off, 100 more will follow.
      • jabberwolf, on 06/25/2008, -9/+13"has it already occured to you that Israel HAS nuclear weapons?"

        Has it every occured to you that they have never threatened anyone with them, never spoke of them... and want to be left alone?

        Has it ever occured to you that the Iranian leadership (led by a bunch of radical religious nuts) always start and end their speeches hoping for the return of the Imam (Mahdi) that can only happen if there a world war concerning Islam???

        While Israel would want nukes to deter a war, Iran and religious nuts, would want AND USE it to create a war purposely. They would gladly sacrifice millions of Muslims for the sake of creating a religious war.

        You forget the Basij (children) given plastic keys, and told they were keys to heaven, and taught to walk over landmines or charge into enemy fire (unarmed) as human shields.

        If you doubt anything I say, please look it up.

        But knowing the above, and knowing it's the same leadership, do you REALLY feel comfortable allowing them to have nuclear weapons? It's not Saudi or Pakistan, or even Syria, but the Iranians that have a government that has the most radical religious nuts in the world.
        • VinceNoir, on 06/25/2008, -7/+10You've fallen for the Israeli propaganda. How sad.
        • quaxon, on 06/25/2008, -4/+5Your idiotic rant makes about as much sense as dividing by zero. Do some research you ***** numskull, the religious nuts in charge of iran are no where near as crazy or radical as the religious nuts controlling saudi arabia who happens to be our allies. The reason we want to attack iran is because they want to sell their oil in euros and not USD and to expand the military industrial complex even more. Not to mention another country to add to our ever expanding empire.
        • willskillz, on 06/25/2008, -3/+7It seems to me like America is the country filled w/ "radical religious nuts".
        • eShinn, on 06/25/2008, -4/+2Isreal doesn't want to use nukes. They want to over-take the land there. Read history books not the newspaper.
      • ManiacX, on 06/25/2008, -5/+6um...you are treating an entire region of the world like immature kids. Not all people on that side of the world are radicals, you do know that right? The number of people that are radicals on that side of the world (Sadam, Osama, ect.) are probably close to the number of [idiots] we have on this side of the world (Dick, Bush, ect.).
        • orenshk, on 06/25/2008, -0/+5Actually he/she was deliberately referring to the Iranian government, and not the entire religion.
      • OwdenBowden, on 06/25/2008, -4/+6The US would love to take out the Iran Nuke program but because of their cluster ***** with Iraq and Afghanistan they will wait for Israel to do the deed. And for all of those naysayers that say Israel won't do a thing - Just wait till around mid August.

        The problem we all have globally is an Islamic Nation which supports terrorist now becoming a nuclear power. If that doesn't put the fudge in your shorts then I don't know what will. There is ZERO regard for anything other than Allah and Islam. These extremist will stop at nothing to put an end to the west and western thought/life because it is counter productive to Islam. So I for one am happy that Israel will once again take the lead and be PROACTIVE by destroying the nuclear capabilities of Iran.

        For the record. The US did not give Israel the "Bomb". Israel has been working on the Bomb since the first of several ARAB attacks as a means to defend themselves - it need be. Israel is a nation which has a large population of highly educated / Genius IQ people. They are responsible for / play a a large significant role in just about ever major, Medical, Technical, Social, and Scientific advancements the world has seen. Your cell phone was invented in Israel by the Israelis. they have given more to the world then they have ever taken and yet, to this day the Jews and the Nation of Israel is held responsible for all the problems that plague the world - when in fact they are not responsible for none of it.

        I love it when someone mentions that the Jews Control the world; and they have all the money. Well I'll let everyone in a little secret. Are you listening? Come closer. Closer... The people who control the world and are responsible for most (if not all) the worlds wars and problems are the people who control the OIL. And the people who control the oil are none other than the Arabs. That's right kids; there is no Oil in Israel it is all located in Arab country's and they have the world and us by the balls. Yet the double whammy is the fact that these very same Arab country's are also Islamic nations - the breeding ground of terrorist. Their other major export to the world is a high quality brand of death and destruction - all in the name of their G-D. The kill at will and have zero regard for who gets caught in the cross hairs. I know this first hand because I have then distinct pleasure to being a good friend to the Only American that was blow up by Islamic Terrorist in the London train bombings.

        They So the next time you are paying more for your necessities, your freedom is being restricted,your rights are being violated, the constitution is being thrown out of the window and some Terrorist group decides today is a good day to kill - don't blame the Jews and Israel because they are not responsible. But Please Do Blame the ***** Arabs because THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE!
        • trutek, on 06/25/2008, -3/+1you must be a star belly sneetch
        • eShinn, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2OwdenBowden, your propaganda is absolutely transparent.
        • OwdenBowden, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1If your definition of "absolutely transparent" means that my children will one day come to me and say "What was Iran?" Then yes.
        • samthurston, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1You know, I was almost with you until you said the part about Israelis being responsible for none of the world's problems. Yes they have made great contributions to society throughout history. They also bully the ***** out of Palestinians. And launch "preemptive strikes" against their neighbors. Not a real good way to make neighborhood friends.
    • caferrell, on 06/25/2008, -2/+13I don't think that the Bush Administration is at all united any more. Gates is an outsider to some degree and is undoubtedly thinking about how he will go down in history. So far he looks pretty good. He cannot be implicated in the crime of using deception to force lawmakers into allowing Dubya to go to war. He was not part of any of the terrible decision making during the Rumsfeld-Cheney Directorate.

      I do not believe that he wants anything to do with Iran. It would be fascinating to see how the power struggle within the White House goes. Will Bush listen to Cheney as he has in the past? What goes on in the White House is very opaque to the of us that suffer the consequences of their bad decisions
    • chaserm, on 06/25/2008, -8/+12"Who are they kidding? Mullen and Gates are dying for an excuse to attack Iran. I doubt Israel is really going to attack Iran. They just want to force the US into doing their dirty work." Just like they did in WW1 by making a deal with England to get Palistine in exchange for getting the USA in the war against Germany...do you see a pattern here.
      • Conspiracy20, on 06/25/2008, -8/+3yes yes yes yes!
        • yonoz, on 06/25/2008, -3/+8Now to clean the stains off your monitor.
      • jabberwolf, on 06/25/2008, -7/+9YEs because the JEWS CONTROLLED AMERICA!!!

        Oh and you mean ISRAEL not palestine... or at least not "british palestine"
        But the area know as Palestine when Syria owned it, had not been called that for a long long time since British owned it after their scuffle with the ottoman empire.

        But funny, propaganda is what you can create and get people to believe, and hope they dont look up facts and maps that show what utter nonsense the Palestinian agenda is.
        And stop using nonsense figures that include population and crop figures that include all of present day Jordon.
      • douggmc, on 06/25/2008, -2/+10That sure is funny ... considering the state of Israel didn't even EXIST during WW I (or even WW II for that matter).
        • Monk22, on 06/25/2008, -3/+6neither did palestine
        • sealbeater, on 06/25/2008, -5/+3@Monk22

          There is one small difference. There were people living where Israel now exists. That was those people's natural home. All the inhabitants of Israel came from someplace else. Do the math.
        • Hangly, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1Were you listening to the jabberwolf's story, Donnie?
        • Monk22, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1sealbeater. its unpossible to do math when you give no numbers to math with.
        • toetagger, on 06/26/2008, -2/+1American boys should not die for Israel. Period.
    • zephyear, on 06/25/2008, -1/+6i thought gates was against an attack?
      • willskillz, on 06/25/2008, -2/+3Not sure. I know Admiral Fallen was.... until he got ***** canned by Bush co and replaced with General Betray us.
      • bemenaker, on 06/25/2008, -0/+3Gates has publicly come out against this in the past.
    • seraph582, on 06/25/2008, -4/+23Actually, I'd put money down that we *dont* attack Iran, and Israel *does.* Look at history. They did so in the 80's when Iraq attempted the same thing - they got close to finishing a nuclear program, then Israel flew in and blew up their facility, which promptly halted all nuclear development in Iraq. It wasn't until decades after that whole thing was over that the US became involved meaning that the incidents are in no way related.

      Something tells me you're just a run of the mill "I got my opinion from the MSM and I hate Israel" retard that refuses to base opinions on facts from a myriad of good sources - like history and culture.
      • samthurston, on 06/25/2008, -2/+2Iran bombed the Iraqi reactor in 1981. U.S. Forces deployed in Iraq in 1990. 9 years doesn't equal "decades." I don't necessarily think that incidents are related, but arguing that they can't be based on any amount of time passing between the two events is disingenuous.
        • seraph582, on 06/25/2008, -0/+6The first Persian Gulf conflict was caused by the occupation of Kuwait, not "WMD's" - hence why I didn't consider it significant enough to bring up in a debate concerning military action to thwart arms development/possession.

          edit: woah - at first glance, I thought your alias was "stromthurmond" lol - scary
        • bemenaker, on 06/25/2008, -1/+2It was Israel that did the attack, not Iran, in 81.
        • samthurston, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2@bemenaker: yeah whoops I meant Israel... oh god the propaganda is working!

          @seraph582: Saddam's NBC programs were part of the argument used at that time as additional justifications for the invasion (at least by the US and UK).
        • Gandalff, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Iran DID NOT destroy the site ISRAEL DID just like all the documents proclaim. What doccuments you ask...UNSCOM, the UN, IAEA a branch of the UN, oh yea then there is Israel & their government having to defend why they did what they did.

          Now, Israel tried to push Iran to bomb it for them as a favor for helping them with suppies, munitions, intelegence you know little stuff like that during the war so they thought Iran would feel obligated but ultimately Israel was turned down so they did the task themselves.

          Supporting documentation to follow as we always have to when we proclaim the truth instead of rumors or falsehoods.

          The second link actually was written in 1984 just a couple of years after the event while it was still a hot topic and still being discussed. It was written by Lucien S. Vandenbroucke (B.A., University Paris-Nord; M.A., Yale University) is currently completing a fellowship at the Brookings Institution. He has been a summer intern at USIA; a Languag Instructor at Hopkins School in New Haven, Connecticut, and at Lycee Renoir, France; and an Assistant Professor at the University of Bangui, Central African Republic. The currently studying was during the year of 1984. I hope he finnished....=) & I hope this helps clear things up for you.

          Peace out

          http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/971203_sites.htm
          http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/aurevi ...
          http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iran_Strike_Easier ...
          http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4529377&pag ...
      • davidg11, on 06/25/2008, -0/+6Israel just attacked Syria's nuclear facility last year. Or whatever they were building (I think I saw other reports of a biological or chemical factory) and bombed it completely.

        So if that's the case, why the hell can't they do the same with Iran?

        They don't need us.
        • samthurston, on 06/25/2008, -1/+2it's a question of range and tactics. Israel lacks long-range strategic bombers.. they have mostly smaller, older fighters, F-16 variants. To fly the 900 miles to Iran's targets and back would require about 3 mid-air refuels. Iran is also has several targets to hit, some of them deep underground or otherwise well fortified. Finally, Iran is deploying russian AA missles that could make this a costly operation.
      • popfrogs, on 06/25/2008, -5/+8At the expense of being labeled an anti-semite, I hate Israel. Not the people per say, but the government and its support of Palestinian apartheid. Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky both have exhaustive books written on Israel and why it continues to be the thorn in the side of the US and any other countries that make the mistake of supporting them.

        Add to that the fact that Israel gets ***** of foreign aid from the US, the most money per capita of any other country we send aid to, and it looks even worse. They're rich and yet they keep begging for money. We give Israel loans for billions and write them off a few years later. The German gov't pays reparations for the Holocaust and the survivors only receive a tiny portion of it.

        Face it, Israel's government is just as corrupt as the one here in Washington.
        • sealbeater, on 06/25/2008, -2/+1@popfrogs

          You are exactly right and you got a digg from me. Israel is horrible. Anyone who disagrees, go read Noam Chomsky (any of his books will do) Imperial Ambitions, it may prove to be educational.

        • seraph582, on 06/25/2008, -1/+3Stop focusing on Israel. Zoom out a little bit. Notice who/what is *around* them. Look at their bordering countries. Look into the atrocities that occur *every day* on the soil of their neighbors. Any fool can see Israel's clearly no utopian society, but take one small sliver of what Americans, Britons, Canadians, etc live with and take for granted every day, and compare it to most of the middle east: women's rights, free speech, habeus corpus, etc. Israel is in a position that no country want's to be in.
        • DrDreyfus, on 06/25/2008, -1/+3Have you ever read "The Case For Israel"?

          Maybe you should get the other side's story before you buy in to the one sidedness of Chomsky and Finkelstein.
        • sealbeater, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1I haven't but if I come across it I will. Read one of mine if I read one of yours?

          The Israeli Lobby is another good one.
      • sodade, on 06/25/2008, -0/+3"Actually, I'd put money down that we *dont* attack Iran, and Israel *does.*"

        You can put your money down and stay agnostic as to which country actually does the bombing: http://www.intrade.com
      • Gandalff, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1I would bet you are correct that Israel will take care of business if they need to and it sure looks that way. Just a little foreshadowing but I found this article from 2006 check it out.

        "A retired Israeli general who planned the demolition of Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981 said this week that it would now be technically "easier" to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities in a pre-emptive air strike."....

        "Satellites, photography equipment and intelligence gathering means are so advanced today that "what existed in 1981 seems... like the Middle Ages," said retired intelligence Brig. Gen. Amos Gilboa, who was involved in the preparations for that attack."
        Refering to the 1981 attack on Osirak in Iraq.

        "For Israel an Iranian nuclear bomb would be "an existential threat," Maj. Gen. in the reserves Giora Eiland said in a briefing shortly before stepping down as head of the National Security Council.

        Many political disputes can be resolved but it is difficult to strike compromises when religion is involved, Eiland maintained."

        ""If the world won't stop this, it is a matter of time" until Iran has a bomb, warned Ben Israel.

        If everything else fails, "We've got to do it ourselves because this risk cannot be taken," he said."

        That was back in 2006. Nothing has changed except they have had an additional 2 years to prepare the attack and just recently a practice run out in the ocean. I think you are dead on my friend.

        Article quoted resources:
        Eight F-16's (pictured) were sent destroy the Osirak reactor.
        by Joshua Brilliant
        UPI Israel Correspondent
        Tel Aviv, Israel (UPI) Jun 12, 2006

        http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iran_Strike_Easier ...





    • jabberwolf, on 06/25/2008, -6/+11Israel wants USA to do it's dirty work?

      Um who was it that bombed Iraq's nuclear ability?
      • NoCt1, on 06/25/2008, -6/+10Not starting anything. but Who Armed Israel? to do it.
      • groberts1980, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Exactly. Who keeps saying Israel can't or won't bomb Iran? I believe they can and will.
    • ambrosious, on 06/25/2008, -3/+9An excuse for what? Care to elaborate? Why would Israel risk so much in attacking Iran if there weren't extremely serious consequences for not doing so?
      • bemenaker, on 06/25/2008, -2/+3Because Israel overly reacts to everything. They always have.
        • monsieurginger, on 06/25/2008, -0/+4Can you give me an example of when a country faced something similar to what Israel has and reacted in a lesser way?
    • Tomchei, on 06/25/2008, -2/+9Iran is no threat to the US. They can't touch us militarily.
      Iran is a threat to Israel and so what.
      Those AIPAC meddlers need to take their medicine.
      • seraph582, on 06/25/2008, -4/+10"There is no greater threat to Israel or peace than Iran." - Barack Obama
        • sealbeater, on 06/25/2008, -1/+2That's why he's not getting my vote.
        • bemenaker, on 06/25/2008, -1/+1Too much of a political line, one of the few things he said that I can't agree with. His stance on nuclear power is the other.
    • neko6, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2Excuse for what? I fail to see Israel's interest in having more Iranian rockets falling on them...
  • Fangsinmybeard, on 06/25/2008, -14/+131Do we really follow Israel around being led by the nose as if to be a prize sow?
    • Waiting2awake, on 06/25/2008, -9/+64In a word?

      Yes.
      • nick1971, on 06/25/2008, -1/+2The US has expected that the rest of the world come in to Operation "Build a gas station" so I suppose its about time
    • sanman, on 06/25/2008, -38/+14Do we have to be led around by the beard, by the Mullah-lovers on this board?
      • caferrell, on 06/25/2008, -8/+44Who are the Mullah lovers on this board. I am a freedom loving American enmored of our history and the history of freedom from its nascence in the Roman Republic to today.

        This pro-Israeli militarism has eroded much of our liberty and will leave us all slaves of the State. That is my problem Mr. sanman.

        And as I am motivated by liberty, I am also motivated by justice. What Israel has done to the Palestinians and the rest of its neighbors is unjust brutality. We should have no part of it. If we could disconnect from Israel, then God bless them and let them figure out to live in the Mid East, but now they are soiling our honor with their brutality. Enough already
        • skidme, on 06/25/2008, -24/+5People will repeat your words on street corners and puke in acquiescence.

          (I personally like your use of big words.)
        • franklymister, on 06/25/2008, -30/+9You may be anti-Israel, but you're certainly not "freedom loving" if you think that the Muslim extremists in the Middle East are your friends.
        • caferrell, on 06/25/2008, -8/+35@franklymister, I do not think that they are my friends, or America's friends. Should we only treat our friends justly? Is it acceptable to murder, dispossess and steal from those that are not my friends? Not in my ideology partner.

          Study the history of Islam and the Middle East and you will come to the conclusion that our policies are exactly, perfectly backwards. To contain the damage that can be caused by Islam, to protect Christian and secular Western society, we need to quit poking sticks into the middle of the wasps nest. We need to leave the Muslims in their Dar-Al-Islam alone.
          And we need to stop the Islamization of the Dar-Al-Harb. That means stop the spread of Islam in East Africa, stop Muslim immigration to Europe, the USA and the rest of the Americas.

          Instead we meddle in the heart of Islamic territory, infuriating the Muslims and driving them to acts of violence. Our unfailing defense of Israel is the hot poker that will not let Muslims go back to their normal state of torpor.

          The USA needs to disconnect and we need to realize that the only thing necessary to guarantee the flow of oil into our country is to keep the check book loaded. Oil is the most fungible good in the world. It will flow freely wherever there is money to buy it and it doesn't matter who pumps it and it doesn't matter who buys it. War for oil is a lie. War for oil is actually war for American oil companies. But I got off on another track.... sorry
        • Robjayne, on 06/25/2008, -5/+14Dugg x 50, well put.
        • yonoz, on 06/25/2008, -12/+9You're kidding yourself if you think you can keep buying oil off of repressive Arab regimes without angering Islamists, let alone betraying what you claim to be your ideals. You're either not that well read or you're just trying to rationalise your hatred of Israel.
        • caferrell, on 06/25/2008, -5/+18@yonoz, the US does not have to buy oil from the Islamists. They will sell it to someone, you can bet on that. And since oil is oil, once it enters into the global market it goes anywhere. We can buy it from internatinsl raders or we can buy oil from Venezuela or Nigeria or Mexico or Russia, etc. It doesn't make any difference. Any purchases will affect the price of all oil.

          As I said above, oil is the most fungible good in the world. Controlling the MidEast only benefits the American oil traders and companies, not the American oil consumer.

          And another thing. You cannot see into my head, you do not know my thoughts. I do not have a hatred of Israel. I feel very strongly that the USA should not be Israel's brainless bully-boy and financier.
          I admire many Israelis and I think that the recreation of Israel was not a good idea, because you have bought the ire of Muslims through the military annexation of part of the Dar-al-Islam. I am not saying that they are right, but it is a reality and I am not sure if Israel can survive long term where it is. I fear that it will be like the Crusader kingdoms that will eventually wither and go away.
          What angers me is that the United States pays the price for the stupid idea of recreating Israel in Palestine. I would like to see us disconnect and let those Americans that care to help Israel do so from their own pocketbooks.
        • ElAssoWipo, on 06/25/2008, -7/+19Don't you get it?

          If you don't support Israel you're an anti-semite mullah lover.

          You can't possibly be ideologically opposed to a racist, religious state being created to fulfill idiotic religious prophecies and creating a racial divide that applies to all jews while enforcing it's unexistant right to be by comitting crimes against humanity on a daily basis.

          And it's because the arabs bomb settlements. All the problems of Israel are because arabs bomb settlements. And all arabs being the same, we have to invade Iran because Israel is a democracy.

          Can't you see how incredibly logical that is?

          So to recap, if you don't approve of X, you love all the ennemies of X and are racist against X's.
        • monsieurginger, on 06/25/2008, -17/+3"I admire many Israelis and I think that the recreation of Israel was not a good idea, because you have bought the ire of Muslims through the military annexation of part of the Dar-al-Islam. I am not saying that they are right, but it is a reality"

          Pussy above^^^^^
        • yonoz, on 06/25/2008, -3/+3@caferell: I'm not talking about buying oil from Islamists, I'm talking about buying oil from repressive regimes who compete with the Islamists for power.
          If you truly look at the ideology of the Islamic fundamentalists, their main aim is simply to establish fundamentalist regimes. They hate the petrodollar-supported leaders more than they do Israel. Religion has always been used to rally people by leaders seeking power, and this is true for the Islamic fundamentalists just as it is true for Christians and Jews. The Muslim world is particularly susceptible to this, since it has not gone through the processes that brought about the differentiation between religion and state, and Arab states did not form by nationalism but were propped up by Europeans.
          If you examine what is currently happening in the North African Muslim states, you see the real struggle between religious fanaticism and the secular nation-state.
          Simply because secular Arab regimes have held on to power by diverting their masses' discontent towards Israel, doesn't mean it is the root of the problems in the region.
        • ssn697, on 06/25/2008, -4/+7"You can't possibly be ideologically opposed to a racist, religious state being created to fulfill idiotic religious prophecies and creating a racial divide that applies to all jews while enforcing it's unexistant right to be by comitting crimes against humanity on a daily basis."

          Wait, are you talking about radical Islam, and the Muslims, or are you blinded to only one dogma?

          What exactly is "unexistent"? I thought you were a teacher? Logic, or some such claim?
        • VinceNoir, on 06/25/2008, -7/+3@ElAssoWipo

          You are joking. Right? Tell me you're joking, or trolling. You can't be serious. Because if you are... SEIG HEIL sir.
        • orenshk, on 06/25/2008, -4/+5@caferell: You speak of stopping Islamic immigration. I'd like to know how you plan on achieving this.
          You also speak of the brutality of Israel towards it's neighbours. I can only suppose you mean the 2006 Lebanon war. I will not attempt to justify it because I believe it is unjustifiable. But you disgustingly ignore the brutality with which Israel has been treated since it's creation, that in all likelihood led to Israel's current warlike culture. In 1947, Israel accepted the UN division of Palestine. The rest of the middle east did not. War ensued, and Israel happened to win. Great start. In 1973 the surrounding nations attacked Israel on one of their most holy dates (hence the name Yom Kippur), knowing that it be harder for Israel to muster their forces on such a day.

          Just once, I would like to see a discussion or an article posted to digg, that is not biased towards either Israel or the Arab world, that doesn't attempt to paint the situation in black and white, or to summarize it in catchphrases. Just once.
        • Gemfinder, on 06/25/2008, -0/+3I regret that I have but one Digg to give you.
        • ElAssoWipo, on 06/25/2008, -1/+2@ssn697

          You forgot to make an argument.
        • ssn697, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2argument? I am asking you seriously. Your post describes radical Islam perfectly, but then it appears you just stumbled into the description, unaware.

          Are you telling me you can't even see it?
        • ElAssoWipo, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Damn you're slow.

          It's irrelevant. The fact that I'm against Israel doesn't mean I'm pro anything else.

          And radical islam isn't a country. And these Islamic countries don't segregate entire ethnicities and were formed naturally, not declared by foreign governments, so if you want to play the moral equivalence game, Israel still loses. Being the aggressor and all.

          And nobody promoted extremist Islamism more than Israel. Israel caused the hatred against itself and those who support it.

          The poverty and exhile of intellectuals caused by Israel led to radical Islam.

          There wasn't a radical Islam in 1947.

        • ssn697, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1not irrelevant at all, but your excuses are.

          "There wasn't a radical Islam in 1947"

          BWAH!!! What complete failure. Though it didn't matter? Excuses are like assholes, and you have several on this subject. The more you say, the more your bias becomes clear.

          Keep digging if you must. That hole is pretty damn deep.

          I especially find it amusing that you claim only Israel as an aggressor. You clearly can't be that deluded, so your agenda is made clear.

          I'm not slow. It just took you a couple posts to admit your true leanings. It isn't about what is right, just what is wrong with Israel.
        • orenshk, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1@ElAssoWipo
          "And these Islamic countries don't segregate entire ethnicities and were formed naturally, not declared by foreign governments"

          Wrong! See Jordan. See Syria. Now you're just making up history.
          You're sweeping statements would just be considered moronic on any other time, but since you claim to be a logician of some sort, and attempt to bend logic to make your pre-teen points, they are offensive. I really hope you don't teach. Ever.
        • ElAssoWipo, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1You forgot to provide substance for your counter-argument, which only makes what you said the equivalent of "no."

          And I was in Jordan last year, what about it? It's a constitutional monarchy. 10% of the parliament is Christian btw.
        • orenshk, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1I didn't think I had to spell everything out for you, and that you might be able to look things up for yourself. Being as accomplished and well versed as you clearly are.

          Syria was under French mandate until 1946, and Jordan was under British rule, given autonomy in 1921 and finally independence in 1946. In 1950 by the way, it annexed the west bank, an annexation that was only recognized by Britain, and was not particularly well liked by the Palestinians (sound familiar?). This is to show that your statement that 'these islamic countries' were formed naturally and not declared by foreign governments is what those in the logic business like to call false.

          As for segregating ethnicities,
          Jordan can lay proud claim to Black September, in which a move by King Hussein against Palestinians suspected of trying to overthrow his government, resulted in 7,000 deaths, and the expulsion of Palestinians to Lebanon (what they call a "transfer").
          Syria on the other hand, boasts a population of %74 Sunnis, under a minority of less than %10 Alwais in government (I'm sure you can look up Baath party on your own).

          I did not know that %10 of parliament in Jordan is Christian. That's good. I don't know if there are Jews in Jordan. There are Jews in Syria. I wonder what percentage they make of the parliament. By the same token, there are Arabic,Muslim, and Christian members in the Israeli parliament. As usual, this doesn't say that Israel is the greatest nation on earth, or that they are always right. I'm just pointing out how one-sided (or out right lies) your arguments are. And how childish any attempt to simplify these issues really is.
        • ElAssoWipo, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1HAHAHAHAHAHA.

          You're comparing French and English colonnies that were states for thousands of years to the division of one state into two unequal factions.

          Both these countries gained independence and their territories weren't divided.

          And 7,000 people dying in a civil conflict is not segregation.

          41% of Israeli citizens are in favor of segregation:
          http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/mar/24/israel

          Ever been to Israel? Do you know most of them refer to the West Bank wall as the segregation wall?
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_West_Bank_bar ...

          Oops. Turns out my lies are veryfiable.
        • orenshk, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Verifyable? You're deluding yourself. Palestine was an English colony. You really know nothing about history do you? Also, Israel wasn't declared by any government but by the UN.

          Also, I fail to see how you physical presence in Jordan, or my physical presence in Israel, at a certain point in time bears any relevance to the argument. I'm starting to think that you ARE 14 years old.

          Both of Syria and Jordan were given independence. Not gained it. There's quite the difference.

          You call Black September a civil conflict? You are hypocrite. It was an ethnic attack on a refugee camp. It was slaughter. They're called books. Try them sometime.
          But if that's how you want to play, OK. Let's talk about segregation. Let's talk about the Lebanese civil war which was very much ethnically based. Or how about kurd's in Iraq? they actually tested biological weapons on kurds. But that's OK, because they're not Israel, right? so we get to ignore that.

          As can be expected of you, you are attempting to make a claim about Israel without showing the whole picture. First of all, you don't mention that the poll you cite was conducted by Israelis and Arabs. Secondly you blatantly ignore the remaining %59 and the standard deviation of such a survey. Yes Israel has race problems. No one said otherwise. But you're attempt to paint them as aggressors without cause is a lie. You cannot ignore 1947, 1948, 167, 1973. You cannot ignore anything that the Palestinians did. And again (I'm sad that I have to explain this) this does not say that the Palestinians are the sole blame for this situation. But they certainly bare part of it. And all the wars that Israel has been through has (I'd like to see you paint Israel as the aggressor in 1948, or 1973), have contributed to it's cultural state of mind.

          You're last comment is the height of ignorance, and with with it I will leave this argument. You are a fool and I will waste no more time with someone who doesn't know the difference between Israeli-Arabs and Palestinians. Take you lies elsewhere.

      • Hangly, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2I have no problem with mullahs.

        Take thy hate speech elsewhere.
    • SQLserver, on 06/25/2008, -3/+14That's what religion can do to a nation.
    • Landlocked, on 06/25/2008, -4/+12Reference Richard Nixon's in-office recorded comments on the Israeli lobby. Also Google "U.S.S. Liberty."

      We got played.
    • beerock, on 06/25/2008, -0/+3"American media desensitizes fellow Americans to inevitable attack on Iran"
    • Suricou, on 06/25/2008, -1/+12You criticise Israel? You antisemetic nazi! You just hate all jews! How could you be such scum as to hate those who suffered so greatly, and to deny these oppressed people the right given to them by God Himself to occupy that land!

      (Sarcasm, everyone. Sarcasm.)
      • neopolaris, on 06/25/2008, -3/+3That's the big fraud. The true meaning of Israel has nothing to do with that piece of land and almost everything to do with the true believers of Jesus Christ. Jews don't believe in Jesus, so they ain't it. I say this as a born again Christian. How can the Jews be "the elect" when they don't even believe? It's simple. It's because they aren't, but the Evangelicals in power use the lie to further policy. It is truly a great deception.
        • Hangly, on 06/25/2008, -0/+4Dugg. I will never get why so many churchgoing Christians will defend Israel to the death merely because they have read the Bible and feel like they "identify" with them.
        • Suricou, on 06/25/2008, -3/+11. According to the bible, the jews are the 'good guys.'

          2. God is refered to as 'God of the Jews' or 'God of Israel' many, many times. They clearly have favored status.

          3. The old testament includes the story in Exodus of how the land of Israel was promised exclusively to the Jews. (The following book describes how they emptied it of it's former occupents with a bit of god-assisted genocide, but that's unimportant). A holy promise is a holy promise.

          4. The traditional enemies of the Jews were Muslims and, until surprisingly recently, Christians. Christians and Muslims hate each other. The enemy of my enemy...
        • toowired77, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2Remember that the modern state of Israel was created by the UN. I don't think that the UN is God. Remember that every part of this globe has people claiming to be the descendants of the Israelites (different from Jews). Why do you accept a rabbi's definition of who is a Jew and who is not a Jew? Do you believe that God is only active in one country and that He/She favors one ethnic group over the other?
    • Hangly, on 06/25/2008, -2/+4What has Israel done for us lately? Why don't we just attack it instead?
      • Suricou, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1Because they are a friendly (if slightly distrustful) country with a few minor human rights issues in a region made up mostly of extremally unfriendly countries with serious human rights issues.
  • caferrell, on 06/25/2008, -21/+159Even if Iran has a bomb, so what? Are they going to launch a bomb or two under the certainty of massive Israeli and American retaliation. The Islamic Council is not going to risk national suicide to make a point.

    They want a bomb so that we leave them alone. They want a bomb so that they can be the important player in the region. Please not that Russia is their neighbor and Russia is not concerned.

    It is Israel that wants to bomb. It is a small portion of Israelis that want to bomb. In fact their best interest lies in making peace with their neighbors, but their policies are hijacked by the Likud Party. We need to tell Israel to calm down, it is our troops that are in harm's way on Iran's doorstep. We will pay the price if they bomb Iran.
    If Israel does attack without our consent, relations should be severed.
    • zolthar, on 06/25/2008, -3/+10I hope you are right.
      But what is that Likud talk? Likud is in opposition. even if the government is overthrown (by Likud's rival party), the Likud is expected to still be in voters crisis.
      • caferrell, on 06/25/2008, -6/+12Likud still controls the army and the defense establishment. The government is quite weak and the defense establishment seems to set the agenda in foreign policy.
        • foopirata, on 06/25/2008, -7/+8Can you explain to me how an opposition party "controls the army and the defense establishment" in a parliamentary democracy?
        • caferrell, on 06/25/2008, -5/+7Look at the party affiliation of the general staff

          They easily force the hand of the weak politicians. Olmert is particularly weak due to his personal scandals and Mossad certainly has plenty more dirt to blackmail him with. But you know that don't you? Your posts are just theatre.
        • monsieurginger, on 06/25/2008, -3/+5How do you know what the party affiliation of the general staff is?
        • yonoz, on 06/25/2008, -5/+6The Mossad is blackmailing Olmert eh?
          So much for your "academic" facade.
        • foopirata, on 06/25/2008, -4/+6@caferrell: military people have no party affiliation until at least a year after their discharge. What do you think Israel is, China? xUSSR ?
      • crazydiode, on 06/25/2008, -16/+3"If Israel does attack without our consent, relations should be severed."

        hahahhahahahahaha...
      • Kizilbash, on 06/25/2008, -4/+9It may be in the opposition in Israel, it is in power in the US. It always is in fact.
    • girwen, on 06/25/2008, -5/+26The real point is that there is serious dissent with respect to the Israeli government policies, while the US supports just about anything they do. The only serious media criticism is Flashpoints' Dennis Bernstein http://www.flashpoints.net/ and his coverage is so over the top anti Israel, that I stopped listening. If you utter a word here you are labeled an anti-semitic bigot, or a self-hating Jew.
      • ad33lshahid, on 06/25/2008, -6/+52North Korea got a bomb and now we are open to diplomatic talks with them. Pakistan got a bomb and now we are open allies with them. Iraq had nothing and got destroyed. It seems as though securing a bomb is the best thing you can do for peace and prosperity with your western neighbors.
        • RealmDown, on 06/25/2008, -3/+11The Mouse That Roared
        • caferrell, on 06/25/2008, -5/+13Good point ad331shahid!

          We think other countries listen to what we say, and to a small degree, maybe thats true, but what other countries really pay attention to is not what we say but what we DO.

          They see that although Little Kim is the craziest and most brutal dictator in the world, that although he threatens American allies, we treat him with respect. They see that although the real base of al Qaida has always been in Waziristan (inside Pakistan) that we have never invaded there or even bombed.

          We have given a lecture to the world that teaches them this lesson:
          If you do not have nuclear weapons the USA will bully you at will, and may even invade your country, depose your leadership. However if you manage to buy or build nukes, the USA will treat you with kid gloves.

          Iran is a good student. They learned the lesson.
        • ad33lshahid, on 06/25/2008, -2/+6@caferrel: agreed except for the fact that USA has bombed inside waziristan repeatedly, look it up
        • mecharabbit, on 06/25/2008, -4/+6Yes, and it would end the current situation of Israel being the only nuclear-armed country in the middle east. It seems kind of discriminatory to believe that Iran won't be as responsible with nukes as Israel is.
        • yonoz, on 06/25/2008, -5/+6"Discriminatory"? I suppose we should allow the world leader in child executions, where women are arrested for complaining of being sexually assaulted, whose embassies have been used for terrorist attacks against civilians and which is essentially a theocracy run by fanatic Mullahs to obtain nuclear weapons because it would be "discriminatory" otherwise.
        • sodade, on 06/25/2008, -3/+9yonoz - the US/Israel is directly responsible for extremist rule in Iran (starting in '53). This latest saber rattling just empowers extremists. It is totally circular to say that their extremist leaders are the reason they can't have a nuke deterrent (you are dreaming if you think they would preemptively nuke Israel).

          Imagine for a minute that you were born in Iran. You know that in '53, the US (along with the Brits) conspired to overthrow your democratically elected leader in order to prop up the pro-western Shah. The Shah is basically a fascist dictator who terrorizes your people leading to his overthrow in '79 by a bunch of religious nuts who get their power through their opposition to the Shah and the western governments who ***** over Iran.

          Imagine that you are watching this on the news - the US, who invaded your neighboring country on blatantly false pretenses, rattling his saber against you and your people.

          How would you feel? What would you do?
        • yonoz, on 06/25/2008, -3/+5How is Israel responsible for extremist rule in Iran?
          How is it circular to say they can't have nukes - their country is run by fundamentalists that have no reservations about hanging children and girls that have been sexually assaulted. You're dreaming if you think having nuclear weapons at their fingertips will make them value life over their twisted ideology.
          Imagine for a minute you're an Israeli that has had enough of being attacked by Hamas and Hizbullah, that keeps hearing on the news the Iranian's many comments envisioning Israel's upcoming demise, and of its nuclear enrichment program.
          Imagine for a minute you're the Israeli PM and your intelligence services are telling you Iran is developing a nuclear weapons program in tandem with a ballistic missile program.
          How would you feel? What would you do?
        • sodade, on 06/25/2008, -3/+4"How is Israel responsible for extremist rule in Iran?"

          If you think about it, the US basically used Israel as a pawn. We (along with the Brits, etc) "gave" them land in the middle of a bunch of Arab oil fields and when the Arabs tried to get rid of them, we pumped them up with our war machine. They were a client state fighting our war for us to keep a foothold in the ME where all the cheap oil is. The question is: has the pawn become a queen?
          Either way, in the US/Israeli relationship, someone is getting ***** hard.

          On the rest - you are basically saying that Iran has a monopoly on saber rattling rhetoric. Based on seeing that video below of Wallace's interview, I simply do not have any trust for what the US/Israel tells me about Iran and their intentions. I think I'll have to rely on logic.

          Isn't it totally ***** obvious that Iran wants nukes as a deterrent against an imperialist US (and by extension Israel) actions? Why would they ***** that (and a whole lot more) up by preemptively nuking Israel? It just doesn't make sense.

          I'm not going to answer your rhetorical questions at the end there because you wouldn't answer mine.
        • yonoz, on 06/25/2008, -2/+3In other words, Israel is not responsible for the extremist rule in Iran. There are no oil fields around Israel, the nearest ones are in the Sinai peninsula and those were only discovered in the 70's. You seem to think there only "pawns" and "queens", the reality is much more complex and nuanced than that. You also have no problem with the Arabs trying to "get rid" of Israel (with the courtesy of USSR weaponry), but you do have a problem with Israeli self-defense and the west supplying it.
          What may be "totally ***** obvious" to you is not that obvious to someone who's been at the receiving end of fundamentalist Iranian aggression for a few years now. I've personally witnessed a lot of stuff that doesn't make sense to a westerner - this is the Middle East, if you ever come here I'll give you a free tour.
        • sodade, on 06/25/2008, -1/+1"in the middle of Arab oil fields" - isn't it common knowledge that the only reason the ME was picked instead of South America for the Jews was so that the US could have a client state in the land of cheap oil? Too bad that choice put Israel in the firing line for Arabs who didn't want them there - I do have a problem with that and I don't see how you have misinterpreted my words to think I don't.

          I understand and agree with your point that the Middle East is a ***** up place that makes no ***** sense, but I know that a preemptive war with Iran is going to ***** the whole world up for a long long time.

          I also totally agree that Iran is ruled by religious extremists, but just as it is clear that the US directly caused this, it is clear that it is our global responsibility to peacefully encourage them to the table of rational diplomacy.

          Again, I do not have the impression that you truly have a goal of peace. Like the Arabs, Israel is infected with hate fueled by fear.

          An Iran with a nuclear deterrent is an Iran minus their fear. Extremism falls when there is no fear.

          I could easily take a job with my company in the ME (we call it "emerging markets") - I'd make a ***** load more money and I'd love to see that part of the world. Unfortunately, the place is made into a violent *****.
        • kieranmaine, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1I'd disagree the whole of the Middle East is a violent *****. The UAE has a large number of westerners working there. Israel is actually very safe and has low murder rate (not sure about general crime). You can even go skiing in Iran without too much trouble. Gaza also had a lower murder rate than some US cities in 2005 (http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000396.ht ...

          Iran with a nuclear weapon is one too many countries with a nuclear weapon. However attacking Iran could lead to 1000's of deaths and an escalation of violence. It does seem obvious that someone would build up there weapons systems if they felt threatened. If you remove the threat, maybe you'll remove the reason to progress with nuclear weapons.
        • sodade, on 06/26/2008, -3/+1Yes, you're right - I was pissed off and talking out of my ass a bit, what I would say is that living in the middle of the most likely breakout of world warfare is *****.
          Living in a land where extremism thrives (esp. due to Western intervention) is *****.

          I reiterate my point that it is probably better for the world if Iran did have a deterrence or a reduction in threat.

          P.s. talking about a low crime rate in a police state is kinda irrelevant.
        • yonoz, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3"isn't it common knowledge that the only reason the ME was picked instead of South America for the Jews was so that the US could have a client state in the land of cheap oil?"
          No, that's completely contrary to common knowledge. Zionist immigration began in the late 19th century, the Zionist Congress picked Israel in 1904, and the US had nothing to do with it.

          "Like the Arabs, Israel is infected with hate fueled by fear."
          Once again you generalize and oversimplify a complex reality.

          The Iranian leadership is not fearful, just the opposite - the deposing of Saddam Hussein removed their adversary, and they want to make the most out of the power vacuum.
        • ad33lshahid, on 06/26/2008, -3/+1"The Iranian leadership is not fearful, just the opposite - the deposing of Saddam Hussein removed their adversary, and they want to make the most out of the power vacuum"

          you can make that same claim about israel. They are not fearful, "deposing of Saddam Hussein removed their adversary, and they want to make the most out of the power vaccuum". infact israel is the only country thats been effectively threatening all other, actually HAS bombed syria and lebanon in the past two years, pushed for the war with iraq, and is the main force behind the push for war with iran. The real threat to peace in the middle east is israel and everyone knows it, but is too afraid to say it.
        • kieranmaine, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Israel isn't a police state - at least compared to somewhere like Burma. The differences between these countries is obvious.

          I thought Israel got US backing the 60's/70's (I forget exact dates) when it looked like Egypt started to ally with the Russians. Plus the US has had clients states in the form of Iran under the Shah and Iraq under Saddam pre first Gulf war.

          Yonoz - In the past 60 years when Israel has been surrounded by enemies, what has been the thinking of the government? What could the Arab nations have done to stop Israel developing nuclear weapons? Can't you apply this to Iran?
        • yonoz, on 06/26/2008, -0/+41st, no one is claiming Israel is fearful.
          2nd, Saddam was not as troubling as the Iranians. which brings us to:
          3rd, Israel did not push for the war in Iraq - http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39051
          Israeli officials warned the George W. Bush administration that an invasion of Iraq would be destabilising to the region and urged the United States to instead target Iran as the primary enemy, according to former administration official Lawrence Wilkerson.

          And as I previously stated, Iran attacked Israel by proxy, i.e. Hizbullah.
        • ad33lshahid, on 06/26/2008, -2/+1hahahah.... invasion of Iraq would be destabilizing to the region but instead targeting Iran wouldn't be. What a joke. Israel is the real problem, too bad we don't have Irani spies infiltrating our government to counterbalance the Israeli double agents that have brought America to her knees-- in terms of her own self governance
        • yonoz, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2Hyperbole much?
        • yonoz, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2kieran:
          Israel's nuclear program dates back to the 50's - before the Six Day war in which Israel captured the territories. The Arab nations at that time made it very clear they will not accept Israel's existence. I can only assume that had peace been pursued at that time, there would be no nuclear program. Iran's existence is not at threat, so I don't know what can be done in their case.
    • Robjayne, on 06/25/2008, -6/+1Ditto my previous comment.
    • colem, on 06/25/2008, -26/+10You assume fanatic Arabs in Iran value human life. They don't. In case you haven't noticed, committing suicide is just fine with these radical Muslems as long as infidels die along with the suicide.

      Your opinion that Iran won't attack Israel out of fear of retaliation is inaccurate. Those wackjobs will attack Israel the very instant they would get a good bang for their buck.
      • HonestAbe, on 06/25/2008, -1/+9"Fanatic Arabs in Iran"?

        Where?
        • stfucupcake, on 06/25/2008, -3/+5colem is on digg to stereotype anyone of Arab decent as a fanatical terrorist.

          Demonizing an entire people will never get us anywhere.

        • colem, on 06/25/2008, -4/+1I never said all Arabs are fanatic terrorists. Don't put words in my mouth big boy.

          However, it does seem like you are on Digg to promote a new Holocaust.

          That IS your goal isn't it? To foster rage against Israel in a public forum, by constantly highlighting Palestinian struggles, while failing to show the Palestinian portion of the blame?

          You're just another sheep. Go have some more Kool Aid with your foliage.
        • stfucupcake, on 06/25/2008, -1/+2Lol @ colem. Trying to eat your own words now doesn't change the content of previous posts.

          Using the Holocaust card won't work either. Lol @ painting yourself into a corner.

          Keep beating that drum of war, buddy.

        • colem, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1You place too much value on your own wit. I don't feel backed into a corner by your efforts in any way. I also understand what you mean by "Holocaust Card" That's not my intention.

          My intention is to show you that you defend Palestinians too much. It's borderline psychotic.
        • kieranmaine, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1colem - Give people links to good articles about the harm Palestinians militants do. Throwing outlandish statements about people "promoting a new Holocaust" won't change someone mind.

      • mecharabbit, on 06/25/2008, -0/+10Ahem, I believe they are Persians, not Arabs.
        • kuantan97, on 06/25/2008, -1/+2Which is prima facie proof that such morons are not to be taken seriously.
      • trer, on 06/25/2008, -0/+5And the difference between fanatic Americans, Israelis and Arabs is...?

        It's up to the rational Americans, Israelis and Arabs (and there's more of us than you) to keep you guys from sending us back to the stone age.
        • yonoz, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2The difference is that here the fanatics don't run the country.
      • FTWmovin2canada, on 06/25/2008, -0/+4If you think they are a bunch of fanatical terrorists then be prepared to have the 400 million Arabs think all Americans are like Michael Jackson.
        • ImperialSoren, on 06/25/2008, -2/+2political correctness will matter little when the nukes are flying
        • FTWmovin2canada, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1The point is that Colem is stereotyping people, which makes it seem like a bigger threat than it really is.
      • sgtpppr, on 06/25/2008, -0/+3Ignorance like this is why the gov't attacked countries that aren't even related to each other. Iranians are not Arabs and they are not suicide bombing targets. You are confusing them with Arabs from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Palestine, and Iraq.
      • jumbalia, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1The retaliation would be nuclear which means they would have to be willing to sacrifice possibly tens of millions of Iranians for the deaths of at most a couple thousand Israelis/Americans.

        And once again to emphasize your ignorance: Iranians are Persian not Arab, and the Arabs hate the Persians almost as much as they hate the Israelis.
        • omigon, on 06/26/2008, -0/+0As Mecharabbit and sgtpppr have said Iran speaks Farsi(Persian) and not Arabic and they are Persian and not Arabs
    • ambrosious, on 06/25/2008, -9/+5That's an awfully big leap of faith to take. In all likelihood, no Iran would never directly use a nuclear weapon against another nation, but who knows who they might sell it to under the table... hezbollah anyone? If a nuke goes off in Tel Aviv then you'll be wrong and millions of Israelis will be dead. I think they're much more interested in taking all necessary preventative measures instead of just being able to say "we told you so."
      • amoro99, on 06/25/2008, -2/+9Couldn't this happen with the Indian or Pakistani or Russian or Chinese or North Korean nukes as well? Didn't the US fly a plane over America armed with nukes and not know about it?
      • sodade, on 06/25/2008, -1/+2Iran is not going to give or sell their nukes to anyone. That would be suicide and they know it. By your stupid justification for war, should Iran have the right to bomb Israel because they already have nukes pointed at them?
        • leubstop, on 06/25/2008, -1/+4Israel has had nukes for most of its life... not one nuclear threat was ever made against an enemy state. Flip side, Iran doesnt yet have the bomb and has said in both englis and farsi, that israel is rotting corpse.... who will be wiped off the map.. now if al-quida was in the process of getting a nuke and said the same things about the US.. i think even Obama would justify an all out attack..
          If iran however, said we dont care about israel more then we care about our poverty rate.. we want the ability to have nuclear power as the trillions of barrels of oil is simply not enough.. come check out our reactor.. place your damn UN people where ever you want.. and although i dont like you here.. ill deal with it.
          Perhaps then i would say, theres no need to make plans for war... Yet just because we were wrong about iraq doesnt mean iran didnt use that to their advantage knowing we would be gun shy on round 2.
          Unfortunately Israel cant take that chance.. and anyone who suggests israel should take a wait and see approach probably hasnt read ahmadijiands theory on the 12 imam.
        • sodade, on 06/25/2008, -1/+1You know, after watching that Wallace video above, I don't trust any ***** thing that was supposedly said by ahmadijiwahtever. When I have proof that the media has manipulated my opinion, I tend to believe the opposite.
    • D0P3M4N, on 06/25/2008, -12/+6Actually, the President if Iran has pledged the destruction of Israel at any cost, so yes, they would.
      • HonestAbe, on 06/25/2008, -2/+6Citation, please.
      • GlobalistShill, on 06/25/2008, -3/+5That is not accurate. On this topic:

        http://www.antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid= ...
      • FTWmovin2canada, on 06/25/2008, -2/+7It drives me crazy how the MSM has given most people the impression Iran has actually threatened physical harm towards Israel.
      • ipaholic, on 06/25/2008, -0/+3Every time I read one of these quotes attributed to Ahmadinejad about how he's determined to attack Israel, what I do is go to an English translated Iranian news site, and read the whole quote in context. Guess what, he doesn't ever directly threatens Israel. His words are the typical stubborn/defiant jabs at the Zionists you would expect from anyone who takes power in that country, but that's it.

        In terms of your assertion that he would commit national suicide by using a bomb against Israel if he obtained it, wrong again. The Iranians have been in possession of the worlds beset ICBMs for some years now, of the ground-hugging defense avoiding variety. They could have launched these things long ago if they wanted to wreak havoc and destroy their country via the retaliation in the process, but they haven't. The fact is they are far more reasonable then the propaganda would have you believe.


      • tuxerware, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2Wrong, please tell us when he said that!
    • GlobalistShill, on 06/25/2008, -3/+19America should stop giving Israel billions of dollars every year.
      • sodade, on 06/25/2008, -2/+2Imagine if that money came directly from the oil it is meant to protect. 15$ a gallon.
    • makkaveli19, on 06/25/2008, -2/+12You should see this link. it shows that ahmadinejas isn't all bent up on destroying israel than we thought
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onNzrNEFs1E
      • Gunite, on 06/25/2008, -1/+9Great video. Don't know how old that is but it should be submitted as a separate story.
        • makkaveli19, on 06/25/2008, -0/+4it was submitted. sadly didn't even make it past 30 diggs.
      • sodade, on 06/25/2008, -1/+7This is a very important video - a perfect example of how our "free press" is a ***** LIE.
      • nosecohn, on 06/25/2008, -1/+8Ahmadinejad has proposed this solution of democracy many times, including during his speech last year at Columbia University. You just never hear about it in the American press. Although the Israelis would never allow it, it's hard to argue against one-man-one-vote.

        The part of that video which is just as powerful is where he talks about the assassinations. The US supposedly promotes democracies all over the world, but when the Palestinians elect leaders they don't like, the US supports the Israeli government which assassinates those leaders. It's not too surprising that they don't like the US much in that part of the world.
    • jabberwolf, on 06/25/2008, -10/+4UM??
      Yes they would commit mass suicide and sacrafice their population to attack Israel and start a world war.

      Look up Basiji

      Look up how Iranian leaders start and finish their prayers for the hopes of Israel be destroyed and the 12th Imam.

      Look up prerequisites for the 12th Imam to return - would be a war with Israel and the west basically.
      They are preparing Jamkaran a city for his return.

      They just need a war!
      • crazydiode, on 06/25/2008, -1/+1dude.. one thing is for sure. no dictator / president, for that matter any leader of any nation, wants to 'destroy' any other country. simply because it CANNOT be done. it would be one way ticket to hell. The rest of the world will definitely not be watching it and doing nothing. Ahmadinjehad might be an ***** but he is definitely not stupid.
        • monsieurginger, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2The world stood watching while hundreds of thousands of people were massacred in Darfur.
      • Suzilla, on 06/25/2008, -1/+1@jabberwolf: Same holds true for the fundy christians, only they call it Armageddon. According to the more extreme fundies, Israel must be destroyed before, during, or after the Great Tribulation (during, before, or after which they'll be "raptured" away, of course.) Do you maintain that ALL christians hold these apocolyptic beliefs? Are you simply projecting your hegemonist christian outlook on other religions and likewise assuming that their extremists speak for and represent the views of the religion as a whole?

        Don't forget, the christian bible says that "at the name of Jesus, every knee shall bow and every tongue on earth, in heaven, and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord." How do you suppose that little verse plays in lands and among peoples who were on the receiving end of "christian charity" during the crusades?

        We have our share of religious extremists here, too, and they're not off in the backwoods, unheard in the mainstream. Some of them (e.g. Pat Robertson) have multi-million-dollar media empires through which they trumpet their hate and urge world leaders to attack and assassinate other world leaders. Some of them (e.g. John Hagey, Jerry Falwell) hold sway with millions of people who listen and nod as they rage against the gays and lesbians and abortionists and atheists they claim are responsible for disasters such as hurricane Katrina. Do these "men of God" speak for you, jabberwolf? If not, try to extend that thought to the rhetoric you hear (nearly always in sound-bytes and out of context) coming from extremists whose language you do not speak, and whose religious beliefs you do not share.
      • sodade, on 06/25/2008, -1/+1You are psychotic.
    • JointVenture, on 06/25/2008, -8/+1Maybe if the leader of Iran didnt say things about wiping out Israel or how Israel will cease to exist and instead said "hey Israel, lets party" there wouldnt be need for Israel to worry.

      Oh yeah, its not just ISRAEL, go ask a Saudi what they think of Persians.
      • nosecohn, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2He didn't actually say that. It was a mistranslation that was widely publicized in order to drive American public opinion towards doing Israel's dirty work.

        http://tinyurl.com/z5qdd
    • bestsoccerdog, on 06/25/2008, -12/+0Iran's president or whatever said he wants to take Israel of the map. Israel should bomb the living hell out of them. So what if they have a bomb? If they have a nuclear bomb, they would find a way to get it over here and it would make 9/11 look tiny. It's hard to grasp the fact that we have to take the Iranian threat out, even though they *may* not attack us. Chances are, they would. If they did attack us tomorrow, everyone would blame Bush for not attacking Iran. In my opinion, we should just send a few missiles over there and set them back another 20 years instead of having to think about the 100k+ lives that could be lost over here. Iran doesn't care about the consequences. It's their Jihad, and they will do whatever it takes to kill us.
      • ipaholic, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1Hey, you're a real dumbass. An attack on Iran is also an attack on the world economy. It would send oil past $300, which bring everything to a grinding halt. You like $10/gallon gas? You like food being hard to obtain? The conflict would likely escalate too, into something really nasty. All because scared and paranoid ***** like you swallowed the propaganda and supported the aggression.




      • sodade, on 06/25/2008, -0/+3YOU are ***** psychotic if you believe this.
    • dabura, on 06/25/2008, -9/+2Islamic Council ? lol ur funny....Those bastards busying trimming their beard while molesting 9 year old girls
    • Gemfinder, on 06/25/2008, -2/+1Keep in mind that if nukes are used, "we are all downstream." Israel has nukes, and Iran does (indirectly). They don't have it as a state weapon, but they're in touch with terrorist cells who can make a suitcase nuke; remember that Iran is an ally of Russia.
      Scenario: Suitcase nukes detonate simultaneously in NYC, Tel Aviv and, say, Baghdad. Bad. Very bad.
      • sodade, on 06/25/2008, -1/+3FUD
      • sodade, on 06/25/2008, -0/+4Probability that this crazy scenario will happen = .00000001%
        Probability that a war with Iran will nail the coffin on the American Empire = 99.999%
      • n00854180t, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2Far more likely scenario: fearful little children such as yourself allow Israel and the US to murder thousands of civilians in Iran.
    • jblade, on 06/25/2008, -7/+3With iran having the bomb, marks the first time that the bomb can be put into the hands of people who actually do not care about their own lives. With the cold war, the USSR and the US both value life in that they didn't want to kill themselves and their country by attacking each other.

      Iran on the other hand does not value life.

      During the Iraq - Iran war, Iran gave hundreds of children, a "gold" key, a copy of the Qur'an, and said walk towards heaven and you will be rewarded with many virgins.. etc. In reality, these children were walking across a mine field, and were used as a cheap and easy way for Iran to clear a path for its troops.

      Now, this very same country, is developing a bomb which could instantly kill millions... and you say we have nothing to worry about?
      • sodade, on 06/25/2008, -2/+4"Iran on the other hand does not value life."

        Your example (true or not) does not prove this BS.
      • jblade, on 06/25/2008, -4/+3watch/read Persepolis
        "
        Ahmadinejad’s demons. From the New Republic, describes how the Khomeini regime imported 500,000 plastic keys from Taiwan to give to children who were to be sent into Iraqi minefields. The children were told that the keys would “open the gates of Paradise” for them.

        During the Iran-Iraq War, the Ayatollah Khomeini imported 500,000 small plastic keys from Taiwan. The trinkets were meant to be inspirational. After Iraq invaded in September 1980, it had quickly become clear that Iran’s forces were no match for Saddam Hussein’s professional, well-armed military. To compensate for their disadvantage, Khomeini sent Iranian children, some as young as twelve years old, to the front lines. There, they marched in formation across minefields toward the enemy, clearing a path with their bodies. Before every mission, one of the Taiwanese keys would be hung around each child’s neck. It was supposed to open the gates to paradise for them.

        At one point, however, the earthly gore became a matter of concern. “In the past,” wrote the semi-official Iranian daily Ettelaat as the war raged on, “we had child-volunteers: 14-, 15-, and 16-year-olds. They went into the minefields. Their eyes saw nothing. Their ears heard nothing. And then, a few moments later, one saw clouds of dust. When the dust had settled again, there was nothing more to be seen of them. Somewhere, widely scattered in the landscape, there lay scraps of burnt flesh and pieces of bone.” Such scenes would henceforth be avoided, Ettelaat assured its readers. “Before entering the minefields, the children [now] wrap themselves in blankets and they roll on the ground, so that their body parts stay together after the explosion of the mines and one can carry them to the graves.”

        "
        • sodade, on 06/25/2008, -1/+6All this proves is that Iran was pushed to the point of desperation and insanity by war. Gee, who's fault is it that they have had such a ***** up time since 1953?
          Maybe if the US/Israel stopped ***** them they might be able to kick out the extremist leadership that we have empowered with our imperialism.
        • writie, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1It might be worth remembering that Iran was portrayed as the aggressor by the west in this war, and actively supported the invading Iraqis.

          There's a very creepy feeling of déjà vu here
      • ipaholic, on 06/25/2008, -1/+2I suppose you think the Japanese don't value their lives either, as they used suicidal tactics in a major conflict as well.

        • jblade, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2there is a fine difference between having soilders suicide themselves after being quite clear of the consequences. And telling kids that the door to heaven is via a minefield.

          their were no guided missles when the Japanese had kamikazes. However, there are tools to clear minefields... their always have been. they are just slow and dangerous. So why bother, when you can send a half a million CHILDREN to do your work.
        • ipaholic, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1jblade:

          Your own paste says:

          "After Iraq invaded in September 1980, it had quickly become clear that Iran’s forces were no match for Saddam Hussein’s professional, well-armed military. To compensate for their disadvantage, Khomeini sent Iranian children, some as young as twelve years old, to the front lines."

          In other words it was an act of desperation and stubborn defiance in a bloody war of attrition. It only indicates they 'don't value life' to neocons looking for excuses to dehumanize a group they want to destroy.
    • bemenaker, on 06/25/2008, -2/+6Iran learned by watching N. Korea, that if you want a seat at the big table, build a bomb, and you'll be given a chair.

      Yes, another political screw up by Bush.
      • n00854180t, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3Bingo...anyone with a brain knew that hey, just *maybe* N. Korea was building nukes so that they could have some bargaining leverage to get aid.* Years later, what happens? Oh, N. Korea said "Hey we'll stop with the nukes if we can get some aid please. Kthxbai." Had Bush not been an ignorant child like he is, he would have realized this immediately and preempted Kim Jong Il in the first ***** place.

        Of course, that's far too much thinking for most Americans and their fearless toddler-brained leader.

        * - Which would also be obvious to anyone that knew what sort of tech is required to actually *deliver* a nuke, and how ridiculously far off N. Korea was and is from having that (as evinced by the fact that their "test" failed miserably due to the shoddy ass ballistics system they had on it).
    • Mesmorize, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2What part of Iran funds terrorist cells and would without any regrets hand them a nuclear bomb do you not understand?
  • skidme, on 06/25/2008, -42/+15Nowhere in the article does it say that the Bush administration is considering bombing Iran. Buried as inaccurate.
  • Nodaki, on 06/25/2008, -29/+111How about a surprise attack on Israel instead...targeting their airfields and war infrastructure.

    Remember the U.S.S. Liberty....boom!
    • NATED066, on 06/25/2008, -23/+2Yeah, that's a great idea. Cause what America really needs right now is more enemies.

      Face it, America has few remaining friendly nations in the world right now, you don't need to start attacking your allies.

      • krnldmp, on 06/25/2008, -0/+13You might be surprised how many enemies turn into friends if we make Israel bite our collective zipper hoagies.
      • trutek, on 06/25/2008, -0/+8With friends like that.........
      • frisk415, on 06/25/2008, -0/+3Sheeit...... I wonder why the US has "few remaining friendly nations in the world right now."
      • Hangly, on 06/25/2008, -0/+5Allies that attack our ships? No thank ye.
    • ambrosious, on 06/25/2008, -25/+5Ignorance and bitterness - that's what I get from your comment. No knowledge of the situation, just what you glean from digg article titles and the sensationalist blogosphere. No one is talking about surprise attacking Iran, they have been VERY CLEARLY and repeatedly warned by the U.S., Israel and the U.N. Currently all of these groups are threatening economic sanctions which does not seem to be deterring Iran at all. Recently Israel has threatened military action if Iran does not halt it's uranium enrichment process. Israel has every right to defend itself from an unstable, threatening nation with numerous ties to terrorist networks like hezbollah. They're action would be more justified 10-fold than our attack and invasion of Iraq, so don't try to equate the two. I think we should be more concerned about the actions of our own government in Iraq at the moment.
      • aaeyers, on 06/25/2008, -0/+4Someone obviously missed the joke. Get off your high horse and chill.
      • sodade, on 06/25/2008, -0/+6Iran has every right to defend themselves from an unstable, threatening nation with ties to the world power that started an illegal war on their border killing over a million Iraqis.

        Iran having a nuclear deterrent would promote peace in the ME.
    • jabberwolf, on 06/25/2008, -18/+6Yes and we know the investigation about the U.S.S. Liberty:
      "The most thorough non-governmental treatment of the bombing is A. Jay Cristol's The Liberty Incident (2002). Cristol, a U.S. judge and former U.S. Navy lawyer, concludes that "the totality of evidence establishes that the attack on the USS Liberty was a tragic case of mistaken identity that resulted from a compounding of bad mistakes perpetrated by both the United States and Israel, and nothing more." He analyzes, and meticulously debunks, previous books, articles and TV productions that argue that the attack was intentional and government investigations only cover-ups."

      But thanks for the propaganda,

      That still wont let us forget about the:

      Nov. 4, 1979 Hostages taken at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran
      April 18, 1983 Bombing of U.S. Embassy in Beirut
      October 23, 1983, Beirut barracks bombing was a major incident
      Dec. 12, 1983 Bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait
      Sept. 20, 1984 Bombing of U.S. Embassy annex northeast of Beirut
      Dec. 3, 1984 Hijacking of Kuwait Airways Flight 221
      June 14, 1985 Hijacking of TWA Flight 847
      October 1985 - January 1986 Hijacking of cruise ship Achille Lauro;Bombing of Rome, Vienna airports
      April 5, 1986 Bombing of La Belle Discotheque
      December 21, 1988 Bombing of Pan Am Flight 103




      • bagelmaster, on 06/25/2008, -3/+4Thanks for posting things that Iran did 20+ years ago. Let it go already.
      • spongya77, on 06/25/2008, -3/+10Then let us not forget about that iranian airliner shot down by the Navy.
        The support of Saddam Hussein in a war that killed 1.5 million + in Iran.

        Iran-contra scandal, anyone?
        1953 coup in Iran, anyone?
        Sah?

        I think by the bodycount the US is still ahead.
      • thecoolestguy, on 06/26/2008, -1/+3Cristol is an Israeli-American who's been put in charge of covering up the murders of the USS Liberty sailors:


        -----
        When Boston spoke with Cristol the first time, he suggested that if Cristol had questions about the court of inquiry, he should talk with Admiral Kidd. Cristol then called Kidd and spoke with him. About an hour after Boston spoke with Cristol, Kidd called Boston. They discussed Cristol and their mutual dislike for him. Kidd concluded by opining that he thought Cristol was an Israeli agent. This is memorialized in a sworn statement written and signed by Captain Boston.

        Cristol claims to have made 15 trips to Israel while doing his research. He does not say whether he paid for these trips or someone else paid for them. While Cristol made an effort to talk to every Israeli who even remotely had anything to do with the attack on Liberty, he spoke with very few crewmembers.
        -------------------------
    • evil-doer, on 06/25/2008, -8/+2nice icon you got there. i wonder where you got it from..
      • SoulDesigner, on 06/25/2008, -1/+6oh my god he stoleded your tickbox call teh RIAA...........................
    • tehxen3, on 06/25/2008, -9/+2How about a surprise punch in your face.
      • mrxenon15999, on 06/25/2008, -1/+2That's what the attack on the USS Liberty was - a punch in the face. Maybe it's time for Uncle Sammy to return the favor.

  • franklymister, on 06/25/2008, -33/+56Just once, could we have a rational discussion of Middle East politics without it devolving into some "Israel is evil" or "Israel is infallible" discussion?

    They're being foolhardy and reckless by wanting to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. If that happened, Iran has pledged to take out the oil supply lines with Silkworm missiles, and we'd see $300/barrel oil and world financial chaos overnight.

    I hope Bush isn't war-hungry enough to attack, but he's proven himself rash and idiotic in the past, so hope is about all I can do.

    HOWEVER.

    This is not some Bilderberger / Secret Chiefs / Zionist plot, Israel is not "leading us by the nose," or any other bullcrap I'm sure we're going to hear as this thread continues. Israel is being stupid, just like we do at times, just like our allies in Europe and elsewhere do at times.

    Letting Iran, or Syria, or Lebanon, or Saudi Arabia, or any other nation play us like a puppet isn't a good idea, either. I want the troops out of Iraq, out of Afghanistan, and leave Iran alone. But I'm not going to do their bidding and condemn Israel just because they can't stand having Jews in the Middle East.
    • Cryptocracy, on 08/17/2008, -23/+27devious franklymister.

      "But I'm not going to do their bidding and condemn Israel just because they can't stand having Jews in the Middle East."

      here we go with the accusations of antisemitism. standard zionista ploy.
      • skidme, on 06/25/2008, -11/+19As you will soon see on this thread, people will use the terms jews and zionists interchangably....antisemitism it is.
      • franklymister, on 06/25/2008, -6/+28I didn't accuse you of antisemitism, I said that Israel's neighbors can't stand having Jews in the Middle East.

        Or have you never paid any attention to the rhetoric, the articles, the TV shows, coming out of the Arab nations about Jews?
        • Cryptocracy, on 08/17/2008, -15/+16I wouldn't like a highly militarized, invasive genocidal neighbor either. aka "settlers" claiming their god gave them my land.
        • yonoz, on 06/25/2008, -12/+16A Nazi apologist calling Israel "genocidal" - now that's irony.
        • Cryptocracy, on 08/17/2008, -14/+4Pathetic Zionist trolls from the "bury brigade" falsely accusing critics of Israel of being racists... typical and ironic. yawn.....
        • franklymister, on 06/25/2008, -3/+15boho - if you want to see a modern example of genocide, Israel is the wrong place to look.

          Iraq's attempt to wipe out the Kurds: http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/#Table%2 ...
          Not to mention the actual genocides that have been happening in Africa.

          There have been highly militarized, invasive neighbors in the Middle East for centuries. The only difference is that they were always Muslim neighbors until now.
        • Cryptocracy, on 08/17/2008, -11/+3And who put Saddam in power? USA! Who controls US foreign policy? Zionists! Israel is not the "wrong place to look" I will look if I want.
        • wpi97, on 06/25/2008, -1/+5"Who controls US foreign policy? Zionists!"
          We also control the horizontal and the vertical. There is nothing wrong with your television. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. Do not attempt to change the channel or leave the room. You will continue to watch "Fiddler on the Roof" until you feel an irresistible craving for a bagel with white fish, and we are satisfied that you have been sufficiently jewified.
      • onetimer, on 06/25/2008, -4/+17I love that anyone actually calling for and end to sensationalism is calling a zionist based on your poor reading comprehension skills...
        • caferrell, on 06/25/2008, -12/+2Do you speak English better than you write it? I have no idea what you were trying to say.
        • onetimer, on 06/25/2008, -0/+16You caught me. It should say:

          "...an end to sensationalism is CALLED a zionist..."
    • caferrell, on 06/25/2008, -11/+11@franklymister, maybe Israel is being stupid, maybe our defense and intelligence services have no involvement in the planning of this operation. Maybe there is no conspiracy. That is very hard to believe because the level of interaction between US and Israel is very high in all areas involved.

      The trouble is that it doesn't matter if Israel is being stupid or is acting in conjunction with us, because we will not sanction them and the rest of the world will judge us as culpable as Israel. Iran will lash out at us because we are next door, not at Israel.

      If there were any sane men in this administration they would loudly and publicly denounce Israel for planning a strike and declare that we have no involvement. Do you hear any such declarations?
      • monsieurginger, on 06/25/2008, -3/+19"That is very hard to believe because the level of interaction between US and Israel is very high in all areas involved." ---- well duh, tell me who else is a greater ally to the US in the Middle East than Israel? Do you think US didn't talk to Britain during WW2?

        Iran will lash out against Israel. With Hezbollah and Hamas and perhaps with their own counterattack.
        • caferrell, on 06/25/2008, -13/+9Why do you have to digg me down to post a comment?

          If this raid takes place, Israel will have attacked a state that has not attacked Israel. Period.

          You can try to disqualify Hamas and Hezbollah as "terrorist" organizations (whatever that means). But the fact is that they are legitimate representatives of their populations that have legitimate complaints with Israel. Iran has as much a right to give them assistance as the USA does to assist Israel. They may lash out at Israel, but they do anyway.

          The fact is that it is the USA that will bear the brunt of this illegal and stupid move.
          Israel's only hope is to learn to live in peace and cooperation with its neighbors. Force won't work in the long run. It didn't work for the Crusaders and it won't work for Israel

        • monsieurginger, on 06/25/2008, -0/+16I didn't digg you down. In fact, I never digg down or bury.

          "If this raid takes place, Israel will have attacked a state that has not attacked Israel. Period."
          And Hezbollah never existed. And when people say that they want to kill you, you should do nothing about it.

          "But the fact is that they are legitimate representatives" ------------ what kind of political party uses weapons to pressure the others, who don't have an army, to give them more power. Hamas and Hezbollah use terrorist tactics, if you don't see it, then there is no hope for you.

          Hezbollah's and Hamas' goals are to eliminate Israel(look at their charters and statements) and that is why Iran supports them.