“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Saturday, February 04, 2012

10 years of Washington’s wars for “national security,” and we are broke with 45 million on food stamps

Fact: Iran does not possess a nuclear weapon.

Fact: Iran has the right, according to international law, to develop nuclear energy for civilian use.

Fact: Iran’s nuclear energy program is regularly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Fact: Iran has never started a war (in its modern history).

Fact: The United States possesses 10,600 nuclear warheads in its stockpile, 7,982 of which are deployed and 2,700 of which are in a contingency stockpile. The total number of nuclear warheads that have been built from 1951 to present is 67,500.

Fact: The United States is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons. It did so when it incinerated hundreds of thousands of Japanese people living in the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Neither city had any military significance.

Fact: The United States has spent $7 trillion on nuclear weapons. The U.S. military budget for 2012 alone is about equal to Iran’s entire Gross National Product.

Fact: Israel, the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid (about $3 billion in 2011), unlike Iran, possesses hundreds of nuclear weapons.

Fact: Israel, unlike Iran, refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) into Israel to monitor its nuclear program.









In Iran Dispute, Who’s at Fault?

February 3, 2012 CONSORTIUM NEWS

The Israeli government and the major U.S. news media are escalating their rhetoric in support of a new “preemptive” war, this time against Iran. Yet, as with the Iraq invasion, little attention is focusing on the rules of international law and which side is in the wrong, as Nat Parry describes.

By Nat Parry

As saber-rattling against Iran intensifies, the question of which side in this confrontation really violates international obligations has largely been avoided.

Instead the widespread assumption in the West is that Iran is at fault. On Wednesday, a bipartisan group of former U.S. politicians, generals and officials saidthe United States should deploy ships, increase covert activities and use more bellicose rhetoric to make more “credible” the threat of a U.S. military strike to stop Iran’s nuclear program.
President Barack Obama at his State of the Union Address (White House photo by Pete Souza)
In last week’s State of the Union address, President Barack Obama accused the Islamic Republic of shirking its international obligations and repeated a now familiar threat to Iran, which implicitly includes the possibility of a nuclear strike against Tehran or suspected nuclear sites in the country

“Let there be no doubt,” Obama said, “America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal. But a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible, and far better, and if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations.”

Viewed in conjunction with the Obama administration’s new defense strategy, published just prior to the State of the Union, this ambiguous warning to Iran that “no options are off the table” becomes more clear – and more ominous.
In the official White House playbook, entitled “Priorities for 21st Century Defense,” the U.S. nuclear posture is described in a section called “Maintain a Safe, Secure, and Effective Nuclear Deterrent.” It says: “As long as nuclear weapons remain in existence, the United States will maintain a safe, secure, and effective arsenal.”
Further, “We will field nuclear forces that can under  any  circumstances  confront an adversary with the prospect of unacceptable damage, both to deter potential adversaries and to assure U.S. allies and other security partners that they can count on America’s security commitments.“
There is no mention in the defense strategy of pursuing nuclear disarmament, an explicit obligation of the United States as a state party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and as the world’s leading possessor of nuclear weapons.

As the 2010 NPT Review Conference reminded states parties to the treaty: “The Conference recalls that the overwhelming majority of States entered into legally binding commitments not to receive, manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices in the context, inter alia, of the corresponding legally binding commitments by the nuclear-weapon States to nuclear disarmament in accordance with the Treaty.”
The Conference further regretted that nuclear-armed countries such as the United States have failed to live up to their end of the NPT bargain: “The Conference, while welcoming achievements in bilateral and unilateral reductions by some nuclear-weapon States, notes with concern that the total estimated number of nuclear weapons deployed and stockpiled still amounts to several thousands. The Conference expresses its deep concern at the continued risk for humanity represented by the possibility that these weapons could be used and the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from the use of nuclear weapons.”

When it comes to disputes over compliance with the treaty, however, for example Western suspicions that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons or Iranian complaints that the U.S. is failing to disarm, the Review Conference reiterated the obligation that only diplomatic means should be pursued, and that “attacks or threats of attacks” must be avoided:
“The Conference emphasizes that responses to concerns over compliance with any obligation under the Treaty by any State party should be pursued by diplomatic means, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty and the Charter of the United Nations. …
“The Conference considers that attacks or threats of attack on nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes jeopardize nuclear safety, have dangerous political, economic and environmental implications and raise serious concerns regarding the application of international law on the use of force in such cases, which could warrant appropriate action in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. The Conference notes that a majority of States parties have suggested a legally binding instrument be considered in this regard.”
It should be noted that despite the unequivocal claims from Washington and in the U.S. media that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, there is actually considerable ambiguity over this claim. Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern recently wrote an article for Consortiumnews.com, reminding readers of a formal National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) from November 2007.
The NIE was issued unanimously by all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies and included the following conclusion: “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; … Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005.”
This 2007 joint assessment of the U.S. intelligence community was essentially restated by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta last month, who stated frankly on national television that Iran is not currently attempting to develop nuclear weapons.
“Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability. And that’s what concerns us,” Panetta told “Face the Nation” host Bob Schieffer. “And our red line to Iran is to not develop a nuclear weapon. That’s a red line for us.”
For its part, Iran has consistently said its nuclear program is peaceful, for electricity and medical purposes. If the Iranian government decides it is in its security interests to attain nuclear weapons, however, it has the legal right under Article 10 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty to withdraw:
“Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.”
But Iran has not chosen to withdraw, and in accordance with its obligations under the NPT, is continuing to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has the sole authority under the treaty to ascertain states parties’ commitments on non-acquisition of nuclear weapons.
A high-level IAEA delegation just completed a visit to Iran on Wednesday, and officials intend to travel to Iran again “in the very near future,” said the delegation’s leader. The three-day trip was aimed at resolving points of dispute over the country’s past atomic activities.
“We had three days of intensive discussions about all our priorities, and we are committed to resolve all the outstanding issues,” IAEA safeguards chief Herman Nackaerts said after the team arrived in Vienna, Austria, according to the Associated Press. “And the Iranians said they are committed, too.”
“We had a good trip,” Nackaerts added. Global Security Newswire noted that “The official’s remarks suggested the trip had yielded substantive results.”
“The Agency is committed to intensifying dialog. It remains essential to make progress on substantive issues,”IAEA Director-General Yukiya Amano said in a statement on the return of the agency’s delegation.
“The IAEA explained its concerns and identified its priorities, which focus on the clarification of possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program,” Amano was quoted as saying. During the talks, the IAEA also discussed with Iran the topics and initial steps to be taken, as well as associated modalities, he added.
Iran’s official IRNA news agency had reported on Tuesday that the spirit of the talks between Iranian officials and the IAEA team was “positive and constructive.”
Yet, despite these promising diplomatic developments, the U.S. and its allies continue pursuing a war-footing posture in confronting Tehran.
Washington has lobbed accusations that Iran is not only developing nuclear weapons, but is also threatening to strike within the United States. According to the Washington Post: “An assessment by U.S. spy agencies concludes that Iran is prepared to launch terrorist attacks inside the United States, highlighting new risks as the Obama administration escalates pressure on Tehran to halt its alleged pursuit of an atomic bomb.”
The story added, “In congressional testimony Tuesday, U.S. intelligence officials indicated that Iran has crossed a threshold in its adversarial relationship with the United States.”
Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. testified to Congress that the alleged Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington last October “shows that some Iranian officials — probably including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei — have changed their calculus and are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime.”
There are also new claims being floated that the Iranian regime has links with al-Qaeda, allegations not unlike the spurious accusations Bush administration officials made about Saddam Hussein in preparing the American public for war with Iraq ten years ago. As the Wall Street Journal reports Friday under the headline “US fears Iran’s links to Al Qaeda as officials believe country may have provided aid to terror group”:
“U.S. officials say they believe Iran recently gave new freedoms to as many as five top Al Qaeda operatives who have been under house arrest, including the option to leave the country, and may have provided some material aid to the terrorist group.
“The men, who were detained in Iran in 2003, make up Al Qaeda’s so-called management council, a group that includes members of the inner circle that advised Usama bin Laden and an explosives expert widely considered a candidate for a top post in the organization.”
Defense Secretary Panetta is now publicly voicing concerns that U.S. ally Israel is preparing to attack Iran in the near future, which would almost certainly bring the United States into a direct conflict. As David Ignatius wrote Thursday in the Washington Post:
“Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June — before Iran enters what Israelis described as a ‘zone of immunity’ to commence building a nuclear bomb. Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon — and only the United States could then stop them militarily.”
But as the saber-rattling intensifies, so does the grassroots response to this threat of a new U.S. war in the Middle East. Dozens of demonstrations are planned across the United States for Saturday to oppose a potential war against Iran as well as ongoing U.S. sanctions.
A statement by the veterans’ antiwar group March Forward, which is participating in the protests, offers a reminder of the disastrous consequences of the past decade of U.S.-led wars in the Middle East and Central Asia:
“We’ve just endured 10 years of Washington’s wars for “national security,” which only seem to benefit those who are making a profit, while on the other hand causing massive bloodshed overseas and severe lack of money for people’s needs here at home.
“Like with Iraq, the U.S. government’s sanctions, assassinations, and threats of war towards Iran have nothing to do with self-defense or human rights, but what is best for big business in one of the most profitable regions in the world.”
The call to action lists some basic realities regarding nuclear proliferation, international law and U.S. hypocrisy in the Middle East, reading in part:
Fact: Iran does not possess a nuclear weapon.
Fact: Iran has the right, according to international law, to develop nuclear energy for civilian use.
Fact: Iran’s nuclear energy program is regularly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Fact: Iran has never started a war (in its modern history).
Fact: The United States possesses 10,600 nuclear warheads in its stockpile, 7,982 of which are deployed and 2,700 of which are in a contingency stockpile. The total number of nuclear warheads that have been built from 1951 to present is 67,500.
Fact: The United States is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons. It did so when it incinerated hundreds of thousands of Japanese people living in the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Neither city had any military significance.
Fact: The United States has spent $7 trillion on nuclear weapons. The U.S. military budget for 2012 alone is about equal to Iran’s entire Gross National Product.
Fact: Israel, the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid (about $3 billion in 2011), unlike Iran, possesses hundreds of nuclear weapons.
Fact: Israel, unlike Iran, refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) into Israel to monitor its nuclear program.

231 comments:

  1. National security begins with economic security. Of course Iran will retaliate if attacked. Which country wouldn’t?

    Iran is already under financial siege.

    What would the US do if another country tried to take down our banking system in New York City, disrupt our exports of Boeing aircraft and farm produce, kill our scientists working at Los Alamos and MIT, and align multinational war ships off the New Jersey coast?

    - Our workforce participation is at a 30 year low. A real jobless rate in the teens.

    - 45,000,000 on food stamps

    - Unsustainable trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.

    - Rising prices on basic foods and fuel.

    Who can defend this attack and assault on the US public welfare?

    Who is under siege more than the people that actually pay the bills in this country and pay the price in lives and treasure after the media elites and the Washington establishment wreck our society?

    Are those charged with the welfare of the American people seriously considering dragging us down for the count with another needless war against a sovereign nation of 90 million people?

    After an attack on Iran, who will pay the surtax on gasoline and heating fuel, pick up the tab for price increases and still see more damage to your savings?

    Whose blood will be shed?

    Those that would further jeopardize the economic and real security of this country are the danger. They will not help you or me or anyone but themselves. They are far more dangerous to the ordinary American life than the fanciful enemies in Iran.

    Leave them alone. They will leave us alone.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Khomeini on tour of Tehran HERE

    Caption Contest.

    ReplyDelete
  3. security begins with economic security.

    That basket case of the earth, North Korea, is more secure having a nuke or two.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Leave them alone. They will leave us alone.



    Peace in our time....

    Thank you Mr Chamberlain

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nice hatchet job there deuce

    Iran will leave America alone if we would just leave them alone?

    Dumber words have never been spoken.

    Even Obama doesnt believe that and he LIKES the mullahs

    ReplyDelete
  6. guess you dont remember the Marine Barracks in Lebanon?

    Peace keepers ya know...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Innocent Iran, doing nothing...

    lol

    what a pack of fools

    ReplyDelete
  8. How does the possession of a couple of warheads make North Korea more secure?

    If a couple of warheads secures North Korea why does possession of 300 warheads not insure Israeli security?

    Why does the US supplying nuclear weapons to Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey not violate the NPT.

    The US has supplied some 480 B61 thermonuclear bombs to five so-called "non-nuclear states", including Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey. Casually disregarded by the Vienna based UN Nuclear Watchdog (IAEA), the US has actively contributed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons in Western Europe.

    As part of this European stockpiling, Turkey, which is a partner of the US-led coalition against Iran along with Israel, possesses some 90 thermonuclear B61 bunker buster bombs at the Incirlik nuclear air base.

    By the recognised definition, these five countries are "undeclared nuclear weapons states".

    The stockpiling and deployment of tactical B61 in these five "non-nuclear states" are intended for targets in the Middle East. Moreover, in accordance with "NATO strike plans", these thermonuclear B61 bunker buster bombs (stockpiled by the "non-nuclear States") could be launched "against targets in Russia or countries in the Middle East such as Syria and Iran"

    Does this mean that Iran or Russia, which are potential targets of a nuclear attack originating from one or other of these five so-called non-nuclear states should contemplate defensive preemptive nuclear attacks against Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey?

    ReplyDelete
  9. No matter.


    Iran will continue their drive to arm themselves with nukes...

    Then it won't matter anymore, who cares about 1 billion people dying?

    Could have stopped them...

    Should have stopped them..,

    To stupid to stop them...

    IF only someone warned you about them...

    Lets say 15 years ago and suggested getting off middle east oil....

    Oh yeah, Israel said that in 1973...

    But everything is Israel's fault...

    And Rufus says nothing to fear from Iran, they are peaceful folks....

    ReplyDelete
  10. not to worry deuce, iran is targeting only jewish americans


    Israeli facilities in North America -- and around the world -- are on high alert, according to an internal security document obtained by ABC News that predicted the threat from Iran against Jewish targets will increase.

    "We predict that the threat on our sites around the world will increase … on both our guarded sites and 'soft' sites," stated a letter circulated by the head of security for the Consul General for the Mid-Atlantic States. Guarded sites refers to government facilities like embassies and consulates, while 'soft sites' means Jewish synagogues, and schools, as well as community centers like the one hit by a terrorist bombing in Buenos Aires in 1994 that killed 85 people.

    The head of Shin Bet, Israel's internal security service, told an audience at a closed forum in Tel Aviv recently that Iran is trying to hit Israeli targets because of what it believes are Israeli attacks on it nuclear scientists. Yoram Cohen said that Iran's Revolutionary Guard, the same militant wing of the government linked to the recent alleged plot against the Saudi ambassador to the U.S., is working tirelessly to attack Israeli and Jewish targets abroad in order to deter Israel.


    They dont matter...

    so what if they die in our cities, they are just jews...

    iran has targeted jews all over the globe for decades for murder.

    but they do not deserve to be protected.

    never have been in the past, never will be in the future...

    it would be easier for your types to just make a list of us jews and give it to the iranians, so they will know where we live so we can be rounded up..

    that will give us peace...

    they tried that not to long ago..

    in europe..

    for the germans..

    worked quite well...

    your types were quite good at making those lists, checking them twice...

    just round us up and put us in ovens...

    you will get your peace...

    ReplyDelete
  11. i know i gum up the works telling you this..

    but we will be harder to herd into cattle cars this time around

    dont be upset with me...

    I am not ready to watch my children be raped and decapitated yet...

    So if it upsets the apple cart?

    Iran might get a bloody nose...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yep leave them alone...


    “In light of the realization of the divine promise by almighty God, the Zionists and the Great Satan (America) will soon be defeated,” Ayatollah Khamenei, the Iranian supreme leader, is warning.

    Khamenei, speaking to hundreds of youths from more than 70 countries attending a world conference on the Arab Spring just days ago, told a cheering crowd in Tehran that “Allah’s promises will be delivered and Islam will be victorious.”

    The countries represented included Bahrain, Egypt, Libya, Palestine and Tunisia, all of which have been involved in the Arab Spring.

    In his remarks, Khamenei advised the youths to remain vigilant, stating that the Islamic awakening in the region has delivered several blows to the enemies of Islam and that all Muslims, despite their own historical and social differences, remain united in opposing the “evil hegemony of the Zionists and the Americans.”

    Khamenei then claimed the current century as the century of Islam and promised that human history is on the verge of a great event and that soon the world will realize the power of Allah.

    Many clerics in Iran have stated that Khamenei is the deputy of the last Islamic messiah on earth and that obedience to him is necessary for the final glorification of Islam.



    They just want what all people want...

    Dead Jews, dead americans

    ReplyDelete
  13. Iran already can reach Israel...

    So why all the excitement?

    Is Iran trying to develop a missile that could reach America?
    An Iranian missile under construction, caught up in a mysterious blast in November, had a range of 6,000 miles, a senior Israeli official said Thursday in a speech outside Tel Aviv.


    Darn those pesky Israelis for gumming up the works again..

    If only we'd leave them alone...

    They could actually finish something they started...

    Bye bye DC, bye bye NYC....

    Until you pull your ever shrinking brain out of your ass and understand the "mullahs" dont think like you do?

    you will be blind as to what you are dealing with...

    ReplyDelete
  14. Maybe if you had a President that actually loved America he'd be ramping up internal energy supplies not cutting them....

    want to win a war in the middle east without firing a shot?

    stop giving them 699 BILLION a year for oil

    oh yeah, we give israel 3 billion a year to defend themselves..

    and no, egypt gets more a year in aid than israel.

    ReplyDelete
  15. so what does world with a nuke armed iran look like?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Iran has stated it wants oil FOR THE WEST (read this, not china) to be at least 250 a barrell

    ReplyDelete
  17. So let's say, Israel is destroyed by Iran...

    nuked out of existence

    will that stop Iran from being the dominate power in the middle east?

    will it not then start another sunni verses shitia war?

    ReplyDelete
  18. so now we have a world in which rat is thrilled...

    israel is dead...

    no more "death to israel" days in Iran....

    they are left with "a world without america" day...

    Israel is dust... 7 million turned to ash..

    control yourself rat, dont cum on yourself yet it gets better...

    Christians how will they fare?

    hung from poles...

    Bahai's?

    shot in the neck..

    Rat you can cum now...

    yet the "day after" sounds quite appealing to the neo-nazi/ron paulers/jew haters of the world

    ReplyDelete
  19. but seriously....

    let's paint this picture..

    israel is gone...

    christians in the middle east are dead...

    bahai's also gone (they fled to israel from iran for safety)

    oil now is 300 a barrel, since all of the small sunni arab oil exporters are scared shitless..

    will we respond to iranian missiles in central america?

    or will we learn to take it?

    ReplyDelete
  20. now if israel is nuked think of all the money america can save!!!!!!!!

    hell we could afford new ipads for all the folks on food stamps....

    ReplyDelete
  21. now it would get interesting...

    if iran didnt nuke israel but nuked arabia's oil center...

    hmmmm..

    sounds fun...

    ReplyDelete
  22. would america go to war if a sudden explosion took out the saudi oil center?

    we'd have to have a trial.

    in New york city of course...

    and we'd need proof.

    if the glove didnt fit,we'd have to acquit...

    ReplyDelete
  23. but seriously folks...

    picture a nuked israel (again rat, dont cum to fast here)

    what a few million dead..

    would the iranians not be proud?

    they killed the zionist entity...

    they believe this will usher in the hidden imam..

    so what if israel and it's 3 german subs hit a few targets...

    MOST of the moslem world will survive!

    at best israel could only take out maybe 100 million or so...

    that leaves 1 billion moslems to inherit a world free of israel...

    ReplyDelete
  24. yep interesting times...

    we could just ignore iran, lift sanctions (even though the real ones never were applied by our iranian loving president)

    we could force israel to open the gaza strip and withdraw from jerusalem and the west bank...

    we could impose a tax on america to help saudi arabia and iran to migrate to non oil industries ( no joke UN proposal)

    is a cuckholded america not an america living on it's knees?

    (rat you can cum now)

    ReplyDelete
  25. But not to worry Obama will not do anything until fall and that will be just for show...

    just to get reelected

    ReplyDelete
  26. I wonder, will the pogroms come to America sooner or later?

    After all many here and in the states will be looking to blame someone for all their misfortune.

    Maybe I should move to the mountains and buy a cave?

    Or maybe get out of America while I still can (rat dont cum on yourself)...

    Cant go to Canada, they are all to much about sharia there..

    Mexico?

    toast...

    Israel will be vaporizeed

    Maybe a small island in hawaii?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Is it legal to ship weapons to another state?

    what about ammo?

    might be hard moving 5000 pounds of munitions....

    not to mention all that gold...

    can shove some diamonds in the uterus...

    and maybe swallow some 1 dollar gold coins..

    I guess getting mobil will be the most important thing..

    so forget the hunkering down...

    at least in america many men are snipped so I dont have to do a reverse bris...

    that would be painful..

    maybe alaska is the place to go to...

    few people...

    can live for years in the wild...

    ReplyDelete
  28. alaska is hugh

    plenty of space.

    i bet the pogroms and the roundups will be least effective there....

    ReplyDelete
  29. Fact: Iran does not possess a nuclear weapon.


    How does anyone actually know this?

    We do not have access to hundreds of secure Iranian sites.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Fact: Iran has the right, according to international law, to develop nuclear energy for civilian use.


    Iran has turned down fuel rods for such purpose and is now enriching uranium at concentrations only suitable for bomb making.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Fact: Iran’s nuclear energy program is regularly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency.


    Iran's illegal and secret programs have been exposed over and over again and are denied inspections by IRan

    ReplyDelete
  32. Fact: Iran has never started a war (in its modern history).



    Iran has funneled billions of dollars to proxies in lebanon to do precisely that.

    start wars...

    Iran has manufactured IEDs for iraq, supported, trained and funded Sadr in iraq and hezbollah that is now murdering syrian civilians.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Fact: The United States possesses 10,600 nuclear warheads in its stockpile, 7,982 of which are deployed and 2,700 of which are in a contingency stockpile. The total number of nuclear warheads that have been built from 1951 to present is 67,500.


    cant argue with success

    ReplyDelete
  34. Fact: The United States is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons. It did so when it incinerated hundreds of thousands of Japanese people living in the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Neither city had any military significance.


    good example to us all

    ReplyDelete
  35. Fact: The United States has spent $7 trillion on nuclear weapons. The U.S. military budget for 2012 alone is about equal to Iran’s entire Gross National Product.


    Fact, if Iranian women would shave their armpits enough hair would be collected to cover 3.4 million cancer patient heads...

    ReplyDelete
  36. Fact: Israel, the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid (about $3 billion in 2011), unlike Iran, possesses hundreds of nuclear weapons.


    Egypt gets dollar for dollar aid, and in recent decades has gotten 12 billion in loans forgiven and additional billions for nothing.

    Also Palestinians, Jordanians, lebanese and other arab nation receive in total much more aid than israel.

    We also give 700 billion a year to arab despots for oil that they have no actual cost of goods from.

    We also gave 12 billion to an iranian bank in the tarp bailout...

    ReplyDelete
  37. Fact: Israel, unlike Iran, refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) into Israel to monitor its nuclear program.


    Israel is not a signer of the NPT and as such did not receive any funding, benefits and information from the IAEA unlike iran that signed and lied...

    Iran signed a treaty that it now violates.

    Iran received goods and services for signed the NPT.

    There is not requirement to sign a treaty.

    But if you do?

    You must uphold your obligations as such

    ReplyDelete
  38. stated

    The Israeli government and the major U.S. news media are escalating their rhetoric in support of a new “preemptive” war, this time against Iran. Yet, as with the Iraq invasion, little attention is focusing on the rules of international law and which side is in the wrong, as Nat Parry describes.



    the war already has started.

    iran has been murdering americans and israelis for decades.

    they hold yearly days of celebrations celebrating the destruction of america and israel

    ReplyDelete
  39. The top five stories on Drudge are about going to war with Iran.

    ReplyDelete
  40. The lead editorial on the New York Times states:

    American officials say they have counseled Israel on the need for patience and warned that a military attack could backfire. They need to keep pressing on both fronts.

    The word “could” should be replaced with “will”.

    Try and use your brain and your logic. You don’t think, you emote and you telegraph every punch.

    Israeli and US constant threats are the incentive for Iranian nuclear ambitions. Leave them alone and they will leave us alone. Mind our own business and focus on the interests of US citizens, all of them.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Irrational fear and paranoid projection is obviously running rampant in someone's head.

    One only has to skim the thread's content to confirm it.

    ReplyDelete
  42. deuce: Leave them alone and they will leave us alone. Mind our own business and focus on the interests of US citizens, all of them.



    Peace in our time champ...

    Nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Leave them alone and they will leave us alone. Mind our own business and focus on the interests of US citizens, all of them.



    You remind me of Sen Dukakis

    Massachusetts Governor Mike Dukakis didn't exactly charm his way into voters' hearts during the 1988 debates with his response about whether he would support the death penalty should his wife, Kitty, be raped and murdered. A longtime opponent of the death penalty, Dukakis responded to the startling question from CNN's Bernard Shaw, "No, I don't, Bernard, and I think you know that I've opposed the death penalty during all of my life. I don't see any evidence that it's a deterrent and I think there are better and more effective ways to deal with violent crime." While some criticized the fairness of the question, to viewers the answer seemed both dispassionate and dismissive. Years later, Dukakis would recall his response, saying, "I have to tell you, and maybe I'm just still missing it ... I didn't think it was that bad."

    Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1844704_1844706_1844712,00.html #ixzz1lQ8Vn2Fs

    ReplyDelete
  44. Deuce.

    You say leave them alone they will leave us alone.

    They are enriching uranium at bomb making levels, they are testing icbms, they have murdered thousands of americans with direct terrorists attacks, indirect and ied's. They murder Americans IN AMERICA as recent as last week. They call for the death of America and Israel.

    What part of this do you not get?

    Study the faith of the leaders of Iran.

    Stop projecting your own WESTERN live and let live POV on a culture and people that are not.

    Wake up

    ReplyDelete
  45. desert rat said...
    Here we go again ...


    What enjoy the fantasy of a nuked israel?

    ReplyDelete
  46. You state that US marines were blown up in Lebanon. What would happen to an expeditionary force of Iranian marines if they were camped out in Brooklyn? No country wants to be invaded by the US military because idiotic and ignorant US politicians, who couldn’t find the country on a map, think an American military assault would be just what they want.

    Let’s check the tape.

    1. We fought a war with North Korea. No good outcome there.

    2. We got our ass handed to us in Viet Nam. No good outcome there either. We withdrew so fast we had to dump our helicopters off the crowded decks of US rescue ship. WE managed to so disrupt Cambodia, two million were killed. Better luck next time.

    3. Next time: Afghan I, led to the Mujahideen that evolved into the Taliban and al Qaeda, a fuck up in Kosovo and Afghan II, another cluster-fuck. We will get it right next time.

    4. Iraq. High five that baby…oh, you mean after ten years and 25,000 casualties and a trillion or two not so good? But Bush and his neocon brain trust told us that Saddam was an existential threat . This one was a slam dunk. We wrecked the natural bulwark against an expansionist Iran. Didn’t think of that. Where is J. paul Bremmner? He will know the answer. What would he advise? Probably another slam dunk in Iran.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Deuce said...
    You state that US marines were blown up in Lebanon. What would happen to an expeditionary force of Iranian marines if they were camped out in Brooklyn? No country wants to be invaded by the US military because idiotic and ignorant US politicians, who couldn’t find the country on a map, think an American military assault would be just what they want.


    Check your facts ace...

    They were a part of the international peacekeeping force during the lebanese civil war

    they were not an invasion force.

    nice distortion of history

    ReplyDelete
  48. Let’s check the tape.

    1. We fought a war with North Korea. No good outcome there.



    Really?

    Check out the freedom of South Korea, the prosperity and the vibrant nation of the south...

    it's what we call "priceless"

    as for your tape?


    rewind a little bit...

    we fought the nazis..

    we fought the nipponese.

    we fought the italians..

    all three?

    are now stable allies of the west. of freedom and liberal democracy

    ReplyDelete
  49. ...and who is the big winner?, China, economically encamped everywhere on the planet, doing just fine, three trillion in the bank, buying and selling in Iran, cutting down forests by the mountainful in Africa, digging copper in Afghanistan, selling big time to Iraq, scarfing up farm land in million acre chunks throughout the Americas and drilling oil off Florida. My god there must be at least another ten to twenty existential threats in need of Mr. fixit. We will get it right, you think?

    ReplyDelete
  50. 2. We got our ass handed to us in Viet Nam. No good outcome there either. We withdrew so fast we had to dump our helicopters off the crowded decks of US rescue ship. WE managed to so disrupt Cambodia, two million were killed. Better luck next time.



    Yep lost an uncle there...

    tell me oh wise one, how many military battles did we lose there?

    tick, tick, tick, tick...

    we lost the will to win sport..

    not the ability...

    ReplyDelete
  51. 3. Next time: Afghan I, led to the Mujahideen that evolved into the Taliban and al Qaeda, a fuck up in Kosovo and Afghan II, another cluster-fuck. We will get it right next time.


    No argument there...

    I never have advocated 3x the troops in that theater.

    Nor did I advocate changing the rules of engagement that has led to thousands of US wounded and dead.

    That was on purpose by obama to teach us not to go to war, his lesson was learned by you

    ReplyDelete
  52. 4. Iraq. High five that baby…oh, you mean after ten years and 25,000 casualties and a trillion or two not so good? But Bush and his neocon brain trust told us that Saddam was an existential threat


    War was won...

    I advocated the breaking up of Iraq and the liberating o the Kurds.

    That would have been possible 10 yrs ago.

    Iran, syria, turkey, iraq all occupy Kurdish national lands

    want a stable middle east?

    defang syria, iran, turkey and iraq.

    ReplyDelete
  53. We wrecked the natural bulwark against an expansionist Iran. Didn’t think of that. Where is J. paul Bremmner? He will know the answer. What would he advise? Probably another slam dunk in Iran.




    To argue to leave saddam in power was and is nonsense.

    Saddam was a threat.

    Iran has been ALLOWED to fuck with us...

    Syria has been ALLOWED to fuck with us...

    the catch and release program of the USA military is self defeating...

    None of that matters really however...

    Iran has been an enemy of the USA since Jimmy Carter dumped the shah in 1977

    ReplyDelete
  54. Deuce - u worry too much.
    Does the bar serve some cheese to go with your whine?
    Do something about it old man if it's so important to u.

    ReplyDelete
  55. how about all the usages of US forces that have freed and or saved millions across the globe?

    you ignore that..

    ReplyDelete
  56. How many Afghan women and girls have NOT been raped or hung from cranes in soccer stadiums since we were there?

    Life aint perfect..

    ReplyDelete
  57. You say Iraq was wrong.

    And yet how many Iraqis were thrilled to get rid of Saddam.

    Has it been handled correctly? Hell no...

    Has Bush and now Obama really snatched defeat from the jaws of victory? hell yes...

    but does that mean we should give up and not stand for anything?

    Was there anything immoral in trying to keep south vietnam from the hands of the north?

    Was nothing gained from standing strong against North korea and China?

    Trust me, our friends and allies seeing America run for cover with it's tail between it's legs is scaring the shit out of 100's of millions of people.

    a shadow of Mordor is growing and we can be zombies or we can be men..

    the choice is yours.

    ReplyDelete
  58. We r broke with 45 million on food stamps because of a possible war with Iran.

    Really deuce?

    Your blog is probably more reminiscent of what's wrong with America. Folks sitting on their ass blogging all day instead of working; expecting the government to provide their well being.

    ReplyDelete
  59. .

    quirk rants and raves about how I dont share my ideas about how to defeat Iran.

    He is right.

    I have attempted in the past to give ideas however quirk does not have the ability for serious discussion.

    He is quick to judge and dismiss. He lacks any real knowledge of the people, the culture or the religion we are dealing with.

    But he's excellent at writing long winded screeds about what a moron I am...



    You have had a little circle jerk going here with certain people on the blog about all things Israeli and Jewish since the first day I came to the blog. I long ago gave up criticizing, instead judging that exercise useless. I have though argued (in extended posts) with your opponets as well as with you when in my judgment the comments were especially egregious.

    There is just one person on this blog I instinctively dislike and it is not you. My comments are not meant to be personal (though I might get a little testy when accused of something I think unfair).

    I use the same 'colorful' language you use daily. I prefer this to those who eschew profanity yet post the most vile insinuations and accusations yet think themselves proper.

    Our arguments over the past few weeks center over 'what to do to prevent Iran from getting the bomb'.

    Most of the estimates I have seen predict that within one year Iran will have the capability and the components to put together a bomb. You say that I criticize the ideas you have put forward for stopping Iran from getting that bomb. I'll ignore the idea of 'bombing the rock'. Enough has been said on that already. As for criticizing the other ideas you've put forward, I did, but not because they were necessarily bad but because they are too long term. Supporting the opposition in Iran, getting the US off dependence on ME oil, using the Kurds as surrogates, etc. may be good ideas but they will do nothing in the short time frame we have left to prevent Iran from getting a bomb.

    There are only a few real alternatives for the US or Israel or the world to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. You refuse to say what your real choice is. Instead you merely rant about those who disagree with you. One can only assume it is because you are trying to avoid a real argument on the subject or answer the hard question.

    In my post to you yesterday, I accused you of three things.

    1. I accused you of being a hypocrite for using the same logical fallacies you accuse others here of using. Perhaps, that was not politic. Instead of hypocrisy I should have implied something like lack of self-awareness.

    2. I faulted you for criticizing others without offering an alternative of your own.

    3. I faulted you for your arrogance in assuming you can judge the motivations of those who don't agree with you. In your bifurcated reasoning, you offer us up a false dilemma. You state that those who don't agree with your position (as I've pointed out, whatever that is) are cowards, and worse, that some are "protecting" Iran. You dismiss any alternatives motivation for their actions although they have offered many. You are constantly accusing those who disagree with you of favoring the Muslims. Pure drivel. In my view, the general inclination on the blog is to be anti-Muslem, and 100% anti-Islamist.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  60. .

    WiO,

    The one reasonable argument that you offered up are that those who disagree with your position (again, I can’t emphasize enough, whatever that is) are naïve. It’s a judgment call, one you have backed it up with some examples of your own. Obviously, there are those here that find you reasoning unconvincing and disagree with your call. But yoyrs is a legitimate argument.

    All the rest that you have offered up are mere farts in the wind.

    As an aside, I would point out those bloggers who agreed with you most yesterday, who accused the US of being unsupportive and venal, while ranting most loudly about sanctions and the things we are doing, like you, failed to state what it is they propose we do. Easy to argue, yet avoiding any true discussion. Or perhaps, in a matter as important as launching a war, we should just assume what they meant. In my opinion, that is the height of hypocrisy, implying a warlike stance while maintaining palusible deniability in case things go south south.

    More farts in the wind.


    .

    ReplyDelete

  61. tell me oh wise one, how many military battles did we lose there?

    tick, tick, tick, tick...

    we lost the will to win sport..

    not the ability…


    Come spring take up horse shoes.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Anonymous said...
    Deuce - u worry too much.
    Does the bar serve some cheese to go with your whine?
    Do something about it old man if it's so important to u.

    Sat Feb 04, 09:10:00 AM EST


    As a 35 year old First Sgt. said to me once, "listen up asshole, you want to become an old man, don’t be a stupid young man.”

    I already know who you are anon.

    ReplyDelete
  63. "As for the chances that this disaster (a military attack against Iran) could occur, this question would be better addressed to those who keep mentioning this as an option that remains on the table,”

    “The consequences will be really grave, and we are seriously concerned about this.”

    “This will not be an easy walk, and it's impossible to calculate all of the possible consequences."

    Finally, an attack against Iran would also "pour oil on the…smoldering flames of the Sunni-Shiite confrontation,"

    "Then a chain reaction will begin, and I don't know where it will stop.”

    ReplyDelete
  64. The western pressure on Iran seems to have backfired. Iran is not having much difficulty in selling its oil and is refusing to sell its oil to some European countries. The resultant increasing oil prices are hurting the European economies which are already going through a very serious crisis. The net result of the situations in Syria and Iran can be:

    · An increase in the Russian influence in the world and a decrease in the western influence

    · Russia, China, and India moving closer and further blocking the western influence in the world

    · A faster transition from a unipolar world to a multipolar world

    · Quicker shift of power from the West to the East

    · More rapid establishment of Asia as the leading region of the world

    · Increasing differences between America and Europe

    · Improved relations between Europe and China

    · Boosting Russia’s efforts to form a Eurasian Union by drawing together the former members of the Soviet Union

    · Reducing the chances of starting a Third World War

    ReplyDelete
  65. Iran will be a crucial partner in fulfilling India's energy needs.

    While a rupee trade arrangement with Iran may be ideal, it remains doubtful if such an arrangement is possible, given the fact that the rupee has been the worst-performing Asian currency in 2011. Moreover, the viability of such an arrangement may be limited, given the huge trade deficit we have with Iran.

    We should seek new methods, including the use of Indian banks which don't have exposure to American markets and financial institutions, for routing payments for oil imports from Iran.

    Moreover, given the uncertainties on American policies and security presence in Afghanistan after 2014, Iran, which is our primary gateway to Afghanistan and Central Asia, will be a crucial partner in safeguarding our interests in Afghanistan, as it was in the years preceding the ouster of the Taliban Regime.

    ReplyDelete
  66. On behalf of Iranian students who are totally against Islamic regime, I strongly recommend you who want war do not to attack Iran. that would be initiation of world war 3. not to mention, some of you, even your governors, knew Iran and used to like it. in line with that, If hypothetically Iran gains full capability to make some nuclear rockets, it won't start the war. please calm yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  67. .

    Your blog is probably more reminiscent of what's wrong with America. Folks sitting on their ass blogging all day instead of working; expecting the government to provide their well being.



    Ah yes, the old 'Producers" versus the 'Pirates' theme. Accusing those those who are in their sixties and having worked for forty years or so for not getting out there and getting a job while he sits at work posting on company time.

    Humorous and a bit ironic.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  68. India, which imports 12 per cent of its oil from Iran, will not scale down its petroleum imports from Tehran despite US and European sanctions against the Islamic republic, the Finance Minister, Mr Pranab Mukherjee, has said.

    “It is not possible for India to take any decision to reduce the imports from Iran drastically, because among the countries which can provide the requirement of the emerging economies, Iran is an important country among them,” he told reporters here.

    Speaking at the end of a two-day visit aimed at wooing US investment, Mr Pranab Mukherjee yesterday said: “Some other countries, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and the other Gulf countries also contribute but Iran contributes substantially.”

    “We (India) imports 110 million tonnes of crude per year.

    We will not decrease imports from Iran. Iran is an important country for India despite US and European sanctions on Iran,”
    the Finance Minister said.

    ReplyDelete
  69. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  70. anon sees war as a series of battles, when that is not what war is, at all.

    We see, therefore, that War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means.

    War is an expression of political will.

    As Colin Powell asked, after his experience in the Vietnam debacle...
    Is a vital national security interest threatened?

    Do we have a clear, attainable objective?

    Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analysed?

    Have all other non-violent policy means been exhausted?

    Is there a plausible exit strategy?

    Have the consequences been fully considered?

    Is the action supported by the American people?

    Does the US have broad international support?


    What General Powell did not ask, but is even more important ...

    Will the support of the American people for the war be sustained for the duration?

    It was not in Vietnam.

    It will not be in Iran, when the real whirled costs are realized by the American people.

    ReplyDelete
  71. .

    WiO, you have used this entire blog stream (and others) as a billboard for your views. You have listed 100 points in favor of your argument.

    Some may be legitimate but all have been argued against here in the past. When that happens, the discussion quickly goes from a dialogue to a monologue. You take your ball and run home.

    When challenged, you offer up comments like "You don't deserve and answer," or "Why should I waste my time," or merely silence.

    I would suggest that instead of giving us this barrage daily, you put all of these on a single Word sheet, save it, and post it once a month, or if you must once a week. It will save us all a lot of scrolling.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  72. Some one mentioned the Chinese would stand by, because the oil flow would only be disrupted...

    "... for a couple of months"

    Such hubris is not supported by any historical reality.

    Monday, 12 July 2004
    GLOBAL GUERRILLA TARGET: IRAQI OIL PRODUCTION

    Global guerrillas operating in Iraq have been spectacularly successful. May's oil exports averaged only 0.86 m barrels a day. June's numbers are likely worse. In general, global guerrillas have limited Iraq's oil exports to less than 1/3 of those anticipated by the US coalition planners
    .

    ReplyDelete
  73. From 2004, over a year after Saddam was deposed.

    The costs of defending against these attacks goes beyond lost oil export revenue. Over 1/3 of Iraq's men in uniform have been dedicated to the defense of critical infrastructure. Mercenary outfits like Erinys (whose contract was just extended) are making money hand over fist providing 14,000 guards for the oil industry. Over 25% of all reconstruction dollars are currently being spent on private security. This distraction prevents the allocation of critical security resources to the discovery and elimination of the networks and financiers driving the bazaar. It is very reminiscent of the guerrilla strategy used by Lawrence of Arabia (who started operations just a few miles from where bin Laden was born and raised) against the Turks in 1916-17.

    Global guerrilla attacks against the Iraqi oil industry are not only increasingly sophisticated, they are also multiplexed (which means they attack along different vectors). Additionally, the frequency of attacks have been high enough to keep defensive forces off balance. Tactics used by global guerrillas so far in the 130+ attacks on the Iraq oil network fall into three categories:

    ReplyDelete
  74. Pipeline disruptions. Over one hundred attacks against the 4,300 miles of Iraqi oil pipelines have been made. These attacks increasingly target remote sections of pipeline, junctions, large capacity pipelines, and pumping stations; all of which serve complicate repairs. Many of these attacks have destroyed critical equipment that is in short supply.
    Assaults against oil industry personnel. Targeted assassinations (or attempts) as well as a general lack of security (Iraq's roads are free fire zones) have led engineering companies working on oil infrastructure to depart the country.
    Facility and dependent infrastructure attacks. 33 attacks have been made against oil and gas pipelines that feed refineries around Baghdad, particularly the huge Bayji refinery complex north of the city. A control room and warehouse for a gas plant was burned. A water treatment facility used to process water for the oil industry was disrupted. Over one hundred attacks against electricity infrastructure have impaired the functioning of electricity intensive oil production equipment.

    This data demonstrates that the most effective start-ups in Iraq's bazaar of violence are global guerrilla networks. They have shown an ability to attract (either through ideology or money) the oil industry personnel with the vital data needed to make these attacks effective. Global guerrillas have stayed small to keep OPSEC (operational security) extraordinarily high -- coalition and government agents haven't been able to penetrate their networks. They have made attacks that have had incredible ROI (rates of return on investment) and have suffered few casualties. They are able, despite their small numbers, to keep a nation-state in failure. They are so successful as entrepreneurial start-ups, Geoffrey Moore should write a book on them.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Like we didn't know this

    WHY OBAMA WILL BE RE-ELECTED IN 2012 - No Matter What

    By Dr. Walter Williams

    Can President Obama be defeated in 2012? No. He can't. I am going on record as saying that President Barak Obama will win a second term. The media won't tell you this because a good election campaign means hundreds of millions (or in Obama's case billions) of dollars to them in advertising. But the truth is, there simply are no conditions under which Barak Obama can be defeated in 2012. The quality of the Republican candidate doesn't matter. Obama gets reelected.

    Nine percent unemployment? No problem. Obama will win.
    Gas prices moving toward five dollars a gallon? He still wins.
    The economy soars or goes into the gutter. Obama wins.
    War in the Middle East ? He wins a second term.

    America's role as the leading Superpower disappears? Just what he wants!
    The U.S. government rushes toward bankruptcy, the dollar continues to sink on world markets and the price of daily goods and services soars due to inflation fueled by Obama's extraordinary deficit spending? No matter. Obama wins handily.

    Many will say, “You are crazy Williams. Don't you understand how volatile politics can be when overall economic, government, and world conditions are declining?” Sure I do.

    And that's why I know Obama will win. The American people are notoriously ignorant of economics. And economics is the key to why Obama should be defeated.

    Even when Obama's policies lead the nation to final ruin, the majority of the American people are going to believe the bait-and-switch tactics Obama and his supporters in the media will use to explain why it isn't his fault. After all, things were much worse than understood when he took office.

    Obama's reelection is really a very, very simple math problem. Consider the following:

    1) Blacks will vote for Obama blindly. Period. Doesn't matter what he does. It's a race thing. He's one of us. That’s why the media destroyed Herman Cain so handily. Too big a threat.

    2) College educated women will vote for Obama. Though they will be offended by this, they swoon at his oratory. It's really not more complex than that.

    3) Liberals will vote for Obama. He is their great hope.

    4) Democrats will vote for Obama. He is the leader of their party and his coat tails will carry them to victory nationwide.

    5) Hispanics will vote for Obama. He is the path to citizenship for those who are here illegally and Hispanic leaders recognize the political clout they carry in the Democratic Party.

    6) Union members will vote overwhelmingly for Obama. He is their key to money and power in business, state and local politics.


    7) Big Business will support Obama. They already have. He has almost $1 Billion dollars in his reelection purse gained largely from his connections with Big Business and is gaining more every day. Big Business loves Obama because he gives them access to taxpayer money so long as they support his social and political agenda.

    8) The media love him. They may attack the people who work for him, but they love him. After all, to not love him would be racist.

    9) Most other minorities and special interest groups will vote for him. Oddly, the overwhelming majority of Jews and Muslims will support him because they won't vote Republican. American Indians will support him. Homosexuals tend to vote Democratic. And lastly…

    10) Approximately half of independents will vote for Obama. And he doesn't need anywhere near that number because he has all of the groups previously mentioned. The President will win an overwhelming victory in 2012.

    Dr. Walter Williams

    ReplyDelete
  76. Obama will win

    because Republicans don't see a problem with Mitt Romney paying less than 15% in Federal Taxes,

    and having a Swiss Bank Account.

    ReplyDelete
  77. A Swiss Bank Account that he "forgot" to declare, btw.

    ReplyDelete
  78. "Forgetting" about a Swiss Bank Account?

    That's like "Forgetting about your Swiss Supermodel Mistress."

    Ain't gonna happen.

    ReplyDelete
  79. The American citizenry will, quite correctly, ascertain that Mittens is just another "Rich Crook."

    ReplyDelete
  80. But, that's not even Romney's biggest problem. Americans will elect a crook. They do it all the time.

    Romney's biggest problem is that he is "tone-deaf." His "I'm not worried about the poor" comment is proof that he has no chance in a General Election.

    By the time Team Obama gets through tying his Swiss Bank Acct. in with his "not worried about the poor" comment, Romney will be lucky to carry Alabama, and Mississippi.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Quirk said...
    .

    WiO, you have used this entire blog stream (and others) as a billboard for your views. You have listed 100 points in favor of your argument.

    Some may be legitimate but all have been argued against here in the past. When that happens, the discussion quickly goes from a dialogue to a monologue. You take your ball and run home.

    When challenged, you offer up comments like "You don't deserve and answer," or "Why should I waste my time," or merely silence.

    I would suggest that instead of giving us this barrage daily, you put all of these on a single Word sheet, save it, and post it once a month, or if you must once a week. It will save us all a lot of scrolling.



    Thanks for the input.

    I'd love to see a thread that doesnt blame Israel for the world's ill.

    But as long a thread is put up with israel bashing slime?

    I will do as I feel.

    However feel free to print out my more reasonable responses and put them on your wall, in your pocket or even frame them.

    My unreasonable responses?

    scroll by...

    By the way, you can collapse any or all posts you wish to not to read...

    ReplyDelete
  82. “We r broke with 45 million on food stamps because of a possible war with Iran.

    Really deuce?

    Your blog is probably more reminiscent of what's wrong with America. Folks sitting on their ass blogging all day instead of working; expecting the government to provide their well being.

    I already know who you are anon.”


    You clearly stated not too long ago that no one gets IP’d here. Was this your attempt at gaining peoples trust as obviously you are a liar because how else in the world would you be able to Identify an anonymous poster?? The Disgrace continues to grow.
    TALK ABOUT DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY FROM THE INSIDE!

    Another thing, what the hell is your obsession with food stamps?
    All you Bozo’s freaking out about stupid food stamps look at all the free food aid we send all over the world HOW ABOUT AMERICA FIRST like you want to try getting people to believe that is what you are all about. What a bunch of BS. Money is your Deity, period.
    (The truth be told, Mr. Transparency, I would not be surprised if the engine behind this food stamp obsession has a racial component, like your comparison of MLK and his movement with Yasser Arafat and the PLO. Of course if you admitted it you would be immediately labeled a racist, this is something you simply cannot afford, so Paulian of you!

    ReplyDelete
  83. I understand that you're talking about the perception of wrongdoing.

    If Romney paid less than 15% of his income but all that he owed then, he did nothing wrong under the law.

    Right?

    ReplyDelete
  84. "As a 35 year old First Sgt. said to me once, "listen up asshole, you want to become an old man, don’t be a stupid young man.”

    Can't speak to whether you are stupid or not, but anyone who reads the blog from time to time realizes you whine about Israel this and Israel that and all your whining doesn't amount to anything.

    Fact.

    ReplyDelete
  85. As I said, "You Can Not "forget" about your Swiss Bank Account" when it's time to file your taxes.


    People aren't stupid; there's only ONE reason to have a "Swiss Bank Account."

    ReplyDelete
  86. According to what I read, he paid the taxes on the $1700 interest from the UBS account.

    He failed to note the account on his financial dislosure forms. He says the account was closed in 2010.

    ReplyDelete
  87. The American people aren't going to care whether he paid taxes on some small amount of interest. They're going to ask,

    "What was that money doing there to start with?"

    I guess he figured that if he closed the account, and didn't disclose it, no one would notice.

    I wonder how many more times he's going to be "surprised" before this is over?


    I'm sure everything he did was "within the law," and I'm sure that will satisfy the Republicans, and I'm equally sure the Republicans will be "surprised" when it doesn't satisfy anyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Have you always been so "sure" of things?

    ReplyDelete
  89. There are valid/legitimate reasons for parking a few million in a Swiss bank account. I'm sure the liberal US media will not disclose them.

    ReplyDelete
  90. And, none of those "reasons" are going to sound good to "Small-town Joe."

    ReplyDelete
  91. "Israeli and US constant threats are the incentive for Iranian nuclear ambitions. Leave them alone and they will leave us alone. Mind our own business and focus on the interests of US citizens, all of them."

    I think perhaps if we leave them alone, they'll have nuclear weapons.

    The President's heart is not in stopping them from acquiring them, he's just going through the motions, like attending church for the photo-op.

    In the modern era, where "fairness" is the over-riding concern, nuclear weapons inequity is as important as economic and class inequities.

    As such, America cannot be in the business of picking winners in the global equity competitions, we must be fair with our support and distribution of support.

    Why shouldn't Iran have as many nuclear weapons as they desire?

    Why should the raw bigotry of the West hobble dictate what the Iranians can and can't have? As has been pointed out, Iran is a peaceful nation, a rational player in comparison to global Imperialists.


    After centuries of Zionist bullying and threat, the Persians are finally going to stand ground. Obama senses this, and will help them in their quest for freedom, and fairness, the Persian Nuclear Spring.

    And when the people of Iran finally have the security, respect and Nuclear arsenal they deserve, the entire mid-east will breathe a great sigh of relief.

    ReplyDelete
  92. He knew he couldn't make any of those reasons sound good; that's why He Didn't Disclose the account, himself.

    ReplyDelete
  93. :)

    You forgot your /sarc tag, Toshtu.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Sounds like he had maybe a whopping 30 or 40 thousand dollars parked there, rather than millions.

    May the kids like to ski?

    ReplyDelete
  95. But, the fact is: it Has been over 2,000 yrs since Iran picked a fight with Anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Doesn't matter "how much." He tried to Hide it, and that's all that matters.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Try to tell "Small town Joe" that you

    "Forgot" about the $30,000.00 you had stashed in the Swiss Bank."


    It's like GHW Bush marveling at the RFID Scanner at Walmart. Completely out of touch.

    ReplyDelete
  98. "It's like GHW Bush marveling at the RFID Scanner at Walmart. Completely out of touch."

    C'mon, do you actually believe this phony NYT bullshit decades after it was debunked?

    ReplyDelete
  99. .

    I sense a tad bit of sarcasm there Toshtu.

    Clever but not real helpful IMO.

    Once again, what are you proposing we do? What is your solution? How would Toshtu stop Iran from getting the bomb?

    These are not idle questions. Cynical remarks are not the basis for an argument. I watched all day yesterday as bloggers pissed all over Obama and called bloggers here who actually take a position or who support Obama's policy on Iran be accusaed of being venal, appeasers, new-age Chamberlains, and cowards though most of them have seen more action than most of the accusers. Yet, I saw no actual new proposals on what we should be doing.

    If you wish to have an actual debate rather than a monologue, tell us Toshtu, what is it you want the US to do.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  100. I imagine the issue of Romeny's bank accounts and tax rates means squat to the voter.

    We have a president with the equivalent of a swiss-bank-account past and absolutely no history that suggests effective leadership.

    We can handle a rich white guy, even if he's a Mormon. After all, we elected Obama despite his decades with a fairly radical church.

    Radical enough that he had to leave the church, for political reasons.

    We're electing a manager, not an ideologue.

    ReplyDelete
  101. "Once again, what are you proposing we do? What is your solution? How would Toshtu stop Iran from getting the bomb?"

    Sit back and let the Israelis take care of it. No skin off our ass.

    All this bluster about attacking America, fat chance.

    As I said previously, post-strike there will be another round of bluster and condemnations, then the Russians will happily sell Iran more stuff to reconstitute the program, lather, rinse, repeat.

    There will be neither Perisan rockets nor Persian death squads laying waste to America.

    Bombs away, baby.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Rufus: Try to tell "Small town Joe" that you

    "Forgot" about the $30,000.00 you had stashed in the Swiss Bank."


    I'll bet you ten thousand dollars that's his Superbowl betting fund. And this is the fiscal conservative we want to manage the country's finances. Willing to throw away 10 large on bets.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Sometimes I get the feeling Iran is viewed as the modern era's "sleeping giant", that we dare not provoke to the degree that we incur the Mighty Wrath of the 12th Imam.

    Oh gosh, if Israel bombs those facilities, the Iranian people will hate America! They'll riot and burn Obama in effigy and hang scores of homosexuals! Big whoop.

    And oh my, fuel costs might rise!

    That's a big WIN for this administration, and all others invested ideologically and financially in the Great New Age of Sun and Wind and Corn.

    Bombs away, baby.


    On another front...

    There is an upside to eventual Iranian nuclear weapons, it opens up a market . The US will cash in on that, we're the best at it.

    ReplyDelete
  104. "Willing to throw away 10 large on bets."

    It's the hooker fund.

    ReplyDelete
  105. .

    Sit back and let the Israelis take care of it. No skin off our ass.



    Finally, a clear position statement. Can we quote you on that?

    Your statement is pretty much in consensus with the majority on this blog. However, this statement is somewhat at variance with your statements yesterday (pardon me if I misread it; we may need to get you a sarcasm app) that the US will stand aside for annihilation to keep prices low. I believe your words were, "Kill a Jew, save a union job."

    If somehow I have misinterpreted this, I apologize but will still contend it reeks of unwarranted cynicism and creates a little confusion as to what your true feelings are on the Iran matter.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  106. Anonobob: I would not be surprised if the engine behind this food stamp obsession has a racial component

    36.7% of food stamp recipients have a white head of household, vs. 22% black.

    Note to lazy, shiftless white people: get a job losers!

    ReplyDelete
  107. Michelle bought a 20 or 30 thousand necklace the other day....where is the outrage?

    ReplyDelete
  108. Rufus: That's like "Forgetting about your Swiss Supermodel Mistress."

    Yeah, like this one, totally slipped my mind.

    ReplyDelete
  109. "I believe your words were, "Kill a Jew, save a union job."

    "If somehow I have misinterpreted this, I apologize but will still contend it reeks of unwarranted cynicism and creates a little confusion as to what your true feelings are on the Iran matter."

    My position on Iran is summed up in the previous posts, bomb away, baby.

    I'm a lazy writer, you'll have to wade through a lot of crap to ascertain whether statements like "Kill a Jew, save a union job" are meaningful or just whimsical, farcical, stream of (some degree of) consciousness toss-asides. Context helps.

    ReplyDelete
  110. .

    With regard the foodstamps, as I remember it somewhat mirrors the population.

    Leaving out the head of household numbers, I recall seeing something on recipients like,

    80% White
    14% Black
    6% Spanish.

    I backed into the number for blacks because the two numbers that caught my attention were the high number for whites and the low number for the Spanish.

    I have looked for the article that stated these statistics but couldn't locate it. I am prepared to be proven wrong if the numbers are but I recall them mainly because of the high number on the whites and the statistically low number for the Spanish.


    .

    ReplyDelete
  111. .

    I'm a lazy writer, you'll have to wade through a lot of crap to ascertain whether statements like "Kill a Jew, save a union job" are meaningful or just whimsical, farcical, stream of (some degree of) consciousness toss-asides. Context helps.

    Not so much crap. It was rather easy to go through all your posts of yesterday to make sure I had the context. Did so before putting up my previous post.

    Still remain a little confused, but perhaps that is my problem.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  112. "36.7% of food stamp recipients have a white head of household, vs. 22% black.

    Note to lazy, shiftless white people: get a job losers!"

    Blacks are 13% of the population, whites are about 80%

    FWIW.

    ReplyDelete
  113. "Still remain a little confused, but perhaps that is my problem."

    Bomb.

    Baby.

    Bomb.

    Let the Israelis do what they do well, the magnificent sneaky bastards.

    Using Saudi and Kuwaiti airspace, wink wink.

    They're telegraphing their intentions, with our help. I think Pannetta may have announced the date, time, and targets in the NYT by now.

    Iran is dodging and feinting, but in the end, it's the Israeli's call, and they're not going to tuck tail while Iran strengthens facilities.

    ReplyDelete

  114. Bye bye DC, bye bye NYC....


    I got just two words. Puh Leeze.

    They have to trick their kids into clearing land mines.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Iran has the Drone, Wasp.

    They can strap little kids to drones, and those little kids will release charges over our most vulnerable cities then kamikazee into shopping malls and sporting events, earning valuable virgin points.


    The demoralization of the American public, splattered as they are by flying Iranian youth, will lead to regime change, here.

    Meet President Abul-Farsi.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Again, the simple fact is: If Iran wants Nukes, Iran will have Nukes.

    There is, really, no way short of occupation, to stop it.

    And, we're Not going to occupy Iran.

    ReplyDelete
  117. If Iran wants nukes, they'll have nukes, but at the cost of their socialized society.

    Surely the Persians will accept an initiative that reduces their quality of life drastically, to save themselves from the certain threat of annihilation by the Jews, who have been calling for the elimination of Iran for so long.

    You gotta hand it to the Persians, having managed to live their day-to-day lives with this gripping fear.

    They'll give up their cars and Ipads and big meals and electricity so the Mullahs can devote the entirety of national treasure to build an umbrella of defense.

    Or, maybe not.

    If the nuclear program can be continually pestered, driving costs higher and higher while stalling for time, the Iranian people just might decide to have a little Persian Spring event, deposing the Regime of Rationality.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Rufus II said...

    Well, then, I suggest you put the lollipops on hold for a couple of years, and go join the IDF.

    Get yourself a "taste of it" before you try to rope my kids into doing your dirty work.


    I think he'll probably claim an exemption from military duty because he's an expert on the Law of Moses.

    ReplyDelete
  119. "...and we're not going to occupy Iran."

    Geez, you finally admitted it.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Toshtu: If the nuclear program can be continually pestered, driving costs higher and higher while stalling for time, the Iranian people just might decide to have a little Persian Spring event, deposing the Regime of Rationality.

    I like that strategy. After all, how much does it cost to make a refrigerator magnet bomb?

    ReplyDelete
  121. BioProcess Algae LLC and Green Plains Renewable Energy Inc. announced Feb. 1 that they have begun constructing a five acre algae production facility in southwest Iowa at the site of Green Plains’ 65 MMgy ethanol plant near Shenandoah. Construction of the algae facility is expected to progress quickly and the facility is slated to begin operating in the third quarter of this year.

    The five acre facility is the next step in a long-term algae production project being carried out by BioProcess Algae, a joint venture between Green Plains, water filtration product manufacturer Clarcor Inc., clean-tech research and development company BioHoldings Ltd., and global renewable energy investment group NTR plc. Since first installing its trademarked Grower Harvester bioreactors at the Shenandoah plant in 2009, the project has continually met or exceeded its expectations, with the latest expansion being no exception. The company announced last fall that it planned to construct the five-acre farm in the spring and is now moving ahead as scheduled . . . .



    Inputs required to produce algae in the Grower Harvesters include wastewater, heat and CO2 from an industrial facility such as an ethanol plant, and, of course, sunlight. According to Becker, the Shenandoah plant can easily meet the needs of the five acre farm. An ethanol plant with a 65 MMgy production capacity generally produces about 175,000 tons of CO2 annually, he said. The production process being used by BioProcess Algae has a 2:1 CO2-to-algae conversion rate, so the five acre site will only require 400 tons of CO2 on an annual basis to operate. Scaling up the process even further, a 400 acre site, which is BioProcess Algae’s next planned expansion, would use 20 percent of the CO2 produced at a 65 MMgy ethanol plant and would produce 16,000 tons of algae annually.


    More, and More Bang for the Buck

    ReplyDelete
  122. No, I've been saying for quite some time that there is no way, short of conquest, and full-blown occupation that can keep a country from developing nukes.

    Pakistan, and N. Korea should be all the proof anyone needs.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Golly, after all this tosh.2 tells us he agrees with me.

    Just another cowardly appeaser, by the "occupation" standard.

    Welcome aboard!

    ReplyDelete
  124. "I like that strategy. After all, how much does it cost to make a refrigerator magnet bomb?"

    It's the shipping & Handling costs that'll kill 'em.

    ReplyDelete
  125. wasp: I think he'll probably claim an exemption from military duty because he's an expert on the Law of Moses.


    Hardly, but their standards are much higher than America, after all they let you in the US Armed services and that is scraping bottom.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Occupy iran?

    What on Earth for?

    It's already occupied by Persians who will eventually tire of the costs of their rational government.

    No-one is advocating the bombing of the Iranian people. Hell, they've got their own government for that.

    The only infidel feet on the ground will be painting targets and engaging in costly mischief.

    And even they will likely be Persians.

    ReplyDelete
  127. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  128. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Pakistan, and N. Korea should be all the proof anyone needs."

    How about Saddam's Iraq and Syria? They weren't able to complete their programs, and the Jews never had to occupy them.

    That's what airplanes are for.

    Your cites are proof that once a regime actually gets the weapon, they have much greater power to extract concessions and money from the west.

    Damn good argument for trying a little harder this time.

    And, if NoKo and Pakistan were direct, announced threats to Israel in the years of development, do you think they'd have nukes today?

    Let the Jews handle it. All that US aid they get has to be mostly spent on US-made weaponry. Let's see them put all that expensive technology to practical use.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Whatever concessions Iran is making to the West in regards to inspections and other niceties is just a stall for time.

    While people with funny accents and an air of absolute authority drive around in their Land Cruisers, drinking sweet green tea and declaring the painfully obvious: "Non, No Nuke!", Iran will be quietly hardening their facilities. That's what a Rational government would do.

    That's why Israel is hot to trot. Once those facilities are hardened, that reduces options considerably.

    ReplyDelete
  131. I thought there was something wrong with those statistics.

    Gingrich is holding a press conference at the Venetian at 8pm PST in Las Vegas. This is Sheldon Adelson's joint,
    the guy that's been giving him the big bucks. The polls show him losing badly in Nevada cause of all the Mormons. Wonder what is up.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Wasp said…
    "36.7% of food stamp recipients have a white head of household, vs. 22% black.

    Note to lazy, shiftless white people: get a job losers!"

    Blacks are 13% of the population, whites are about 80%




    The racial aspect is a red herring, but when you run out of argument play the race card.

    Also cute but false; your math is wrong:


    80/13 is a ratio of 6.5 to 1
    36.7/22 = 1.66 to 1
    6.5/1.66 = 3.99 to 1 thus on a percentage of population basis, blacks are 4x more likely to be on food stamps than whites.

    Sat Feb 04, 05:04:00 PM EST

    ReplyDelete
  133. I misattributed T-1 for T-2. I am remorseful about the error.

    ReplyDelete
  134. I did see some math.

    blacks are 4x more likely to be on food stamps than whites

    ReplyDelete
  135. Toshtu, a few questions if I might:

    You have stated that Iran would respond to an Israeli attack with bluster and hand wringing and little more. Would they be capable of a stronger response if they chose and what might that be? Could the Israelis counter it comfortably? Would the US need get involved (i.e. act on their promise to keep the Straits of Hormuz open)?

    How confident are you that the Iranian nuclear sites are not already hardened? How confident are you that the Israelis even know where all their sites are?

    Do the Israelis have the military capacity to take them all out?

    ReplyDelete
  136. Lastly, how do you think Persian society will respond to such an attack? I've read that they are very proud of their nuclear program (and other high end scientific pursuits). Might not their growing dissatisfaction with the Mullahs et al be mitigated by such an attack dampening the apparent 'spring' we've seen giving more solidity to their fight against all those enemies 'outside'?

    ReplyDelete
  137. .

    You didn't ask for my opinion Ash but I'll give it to you anyway.

    If Israel feels that Iran's ability to construct a bomb poses an existential threat to them they will likely try military action.

    How successful they would be is hard to say. WiO provided us a list of known or suspected nuclear sites. Would an air strike wipe out their capability? Would it delay it? Is setting back any plans they have for a bomb back a couple years worth the potential damage Israel might suffer? Questions Israel will have to decide.

    The US has asked Israel(according to reports) not to attack Iran. If she does, we will have to react to any result their decision has on us. Israel would be unlikely suffer any more diplomatic damage since we would probably veto any kind of sanctions that might come up in the UN.

    If Iran shuts the Straits, I am not sure if that action would have any direct bearing on Isreal; however, it would have an impact on us and many other nations.

    The Strait is an international waterway. Closing it would constitute a threat to US interests and more importantly an act of war. We, like many other countries, would likely react.

    For that reason, as well as the fact that Iran would be cutting it's own throat by cutting off the waterway that provides most of the purchased goods coming in as well as the bulk of their revenue from oil going out, I don't think Iran would actually try to do it.

    I do agree with you that it would be naive to assume that if Iran was attacked the opposition would rise up and try to overthrow the government. Dictators have been using the outside agitator and war gimmicks for centuries to quell internal unrest. We see that tactic currently being used Egypt.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  138. Khamenei said Israel was a “cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut,” and added that the U.S. would suffer defeat and lose standing in the region if it decides to use military force to stop the country’s nuclear program.

    Dear Ash - Is Israel and its population a “cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut" according to Khameini?

    ReplyDelete
  139. "Would they be capable of a stronger response if they chose and what might that be?"

    I expect they'd concentrate on the straits. I don't think they'd risk an air war.

    No matter what they do, they have to consider the risk of drawing in the Great Satan. It wouldn't take much to cripple the Iranian economy.

    Then, there's terror threats there and here - Jews worldwide are battening down the hatches already.

    "Could the Israelis counter it comfortably? "

    If it is a direct attack on Israel, I believe so. As for global interests, those could be hit.

    But you don't cripple military power by blowing up a Synagogue in Topeka.


    I don't think there really is much Iran could do, without a high degree of risk.


    "Would the US need get involved (i.e. act on their promise to keep the Straits of Hormuz open)"

    Yep. Our position on that responsibility is clear.


    "How confident are you that the Iranian nuclear sites are not already hardened?"

    I'm sure they are, to the degree they can be at this point - but need more protection.

    I suspect israeli intelligence on this issue is why they are pushing so hard right now.

    "How confident are you that the Israelis even know where all their sites are?"

    I'm fairly confident Israel will not put weapons in the air with vague targeting, that's not their way.

    They probably won't succeed in disabling all targets, but they don't need to.

    "Do the Israelis have the military capacity to take them all out?"

    Yes.

    They have nukes.

    But they won't need them. They're not trying to blow Iran off the map.

    ReplyDelete
  140. One question. Suppose we totally destabilize Iran, as we have in Iraq, what follows?

    ReplyDelete
  141. "Lastly, how do you think Persian society will respond to such an attack? I've read that they are very proud of their nuclear program (and other high end scientific pursuits). Might not their growing dissatisfaction with the Mullahs et al be mitigated by such an attack dampening the apparent 'spring' we've seen giving more solidity to their fight against all those enemies 'outside'?"


    The Ayatollahs will make sure the street is filled with rage.

    But I doubt the Iranian people are so wholly committed to the Ayatollahs that they'll consent to be used as pawns, as are the North Koreans.

    They've already offered guarantees that sanctions will not deter them, that means "our people are ready face any hardship to further the aims of the regime".

    I'm not so sure that's entirely true.

    ReplyDelete
  142. How has destabilization worked out in Libya, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq? How has it worked in Chechnya, former Yugoslavia and Afghanistan?

    ReplyDelete
  143. Fact: Iran has never started a war (in its modern history).

    Fact.: Khamenei said Israel was a “cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut.

    See, if you're a talker, then he's just talking.

    But for some old timers; they take folks for their word

    Maybe your Sergeant didn't teach you that Deuce

    ReplyDelete
  144. "One question. Suppose we totally destabilize Iran, as we have in Iraq, what follows?"

    Jumanji.

    Then someone will rise to power from the chaos.

    Who that is, anyone's guess.

    ReplyDelete
  145. …and what have Israelis, their supporters here and elsewhere been saying about should happen to Iran?

    ReplyDelete
  146. I wouldn't doubt that there are factions within Iran waiting for a moment to make their play.

    They may very well be involved in the mysterious deaths and explosions, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  147. …as a rule it always gets worse.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Deuce said...
    One question. Suppose we totally destabilize Iran, as we have in Iraq, what follows?


    the breakup if Iran.

    Most of Iran aint even persian.

    Want a new middle east?

    Break up the game.

    It's all fake anyhow...

    Syria, Iraq, iran and turkey all squat on Kurdish lands.

    If the fake nationalistic people called "palestinians" are due a state, the REAL separate, unique people called KURDS deserve self determination.

    Look a map of Iran. There are SEVERAL natural divisions just waiting to happen..

    WE COULD HELP THE PROCESS.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iran_ethnoreligious_distribution_2004.jpg

    check out what an Iran would look like if natural separations were to occur...

    ReplyDelete
  149. Deuce said...
    How has destabilization worked out in Libya, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq? How has it worked in Chechnya, former Yugoslavia and Afghanistan?


    How did it work out in the USSR?

    Oh yeah..

    it worked

    ReplyDelete
  150. Deuce said...
    How has destabilization worked out in Libya


    it wasnt destabilization there, America picked the islamists to be the winner...

    Egypt

    it wasnt destabilization there, America picked the islamists to be the winner...

    Lebanon

    it wasnt destabilization there, America picked the islamists to be the winner...

    Syria

    it wasnt destabilization there, America picked the islamists to be the winner...

    Iraq?

    Was working until America picked the islamists to be the winner...

    Chechnya, former Yugoslavia

    it wasnt destabilization there, America picked the islamists to be the winner...

    Afghanistan?

    it wasnt destabilization there, America picked the islamists to be the winner...


    hmmm i sense a pattern...

    ReplyDelete
  151. A country of six million is always on screen calling a country 15 times their size an existential threat. How would you expect a nationalist or politician to respond to those fighting words?

    The fact is Israel can start a war on her terms but the likelihood of her finishing it according to plan is a risk not worth taking unless you are some fundamentalist crazy of any stripe.

    ReplyDelete
  152. A quick google of polls suggests American support Israel in this possibility across the board.

    That means my prediction of an Obama condemnation may be not so guaranteed. Politically risky.

    However, should Iran up the ante in the straits and the gulf, Obama's initial reaction to the strike will be mostly irrelevant.

    I believe Obama will react as any other President is duty-bound to in regards to disturbance of shipping in the straits.

    You know that battle plan is worked daily.

    ReplyDelete
  153. Deuce said...
    …and what have Israelis, their supporters here and elsewhere been saying about should happen to Iran?


    put real biting sanctions on Iran

    destroy their domestic diesel and gasoline production ability

    put a bounty on all Revolutionary Guards.

    put a bounty on hezbollah's leadership

    put a bounty on hamas's leadership

    ban all food, medicine and technology sales to iran

    stop all foreign aid to any nation that supports iran (including pakistan)

    shut down all Iranian embassy's and consulates in the USA, including the UN.

    put an interpol arrest warrant out for Pres Ahmadinejad for the kidnapping of the US embassy in Iran.

    announce the expansion of the strategic oil reserve by 50% for at once construction

    announce any bank that does business with iran with any amount greater than 100,000 dollars cannot do business with the USA

    and any firm that does business with iran for any product cannot do business inside America.

    open up drilling for gas in the gulf and montana and announce it.

    announce to the world the goal for the USA to be an exporter of natural gas in 12 months.

    make it a policy of the USA to drive the price of oil down to 26 dollars a barrel.

    there is your list quirk...

    ReplyDelete
  154. "The fact is Israel can start a war on her terms but the likelihood of her finishing it according to plan is a risk not worth taking unless you are some fundamentalist crazy of any stripe."

    I think the risks to Israel and the west are overblown.

    The risks of escalation is much greater for Iran than anyone.

    Their infrastructure, physical and economic, is extremely vulnerable.

    Any action that costs the people will create an opening for the ever-present internal opposition forces.

    I don't think the Ayatollahs are confident enough to risk.

    I could be wrong, they may go full-tilt boogie, but I see no advantage for them in guaranteeing a severe disruption in Iranian daily life.

    Which would be very easy to achieve through air strikes alone.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Deuce said...
    A country of six million is always on screen calling a country 15 times their size an existential threat. How would you expect a nationalist or politician to respond to those fighting words?

    The fact is Israel can start a war on her terms but the likelihood of her finishing it according to plan is a risk not worth taking unless you are some fundamentalist crazy of any stripe.


    You know what is crazy?

    betting that your nation of 7 million will survive one day with an iranian nuclear weapon.

    ReplyDelete
  156. Maybe deuce you never have seen the joy, the delight and the pure crazed enjoyment islamic people have in physically ripping out the beating hearts of Jews.

    Or maybe the pride they have when their sons or daughters set themselves off in suicide bombing of pizza joints, schools or kindergardens..

    no deuce, I doubt you understand the true nature of these "jihadists"

    ReplyDelete
  157. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  158. "You know what is crazy?

    betting that your nation of 7 million will survive one day with an iranian nuclear weapon."

    Iran wants power over the mideast, they don't really want to run the Jews into the sea, not yet, and not all at once.

    Kill the Dragon the first week on the job, and you're out of a job.

    If Israel is gone, who will the people rally against?

    It is in every Muslim national interest to keep israel alive, but continually attacked as a show of power.

    That is why I don't believe Iran is prepared to absorb the cost of escalation, of flipping the switch.

    They are bluffing.

    The longer they can appear to be ahead of the game, to their own people.

    They can continue to pursue goals in proud defiance for a helluva long time, this is know as "Milking the Jew" in certain tribes.

    ReplyDelete
  159. .

    put real biting sanctions on Iran


    We are already having trouble getting Russia, China, and the EU to go along with tougher sanctions than we have now.


    destroy their domestic diesel and gasoline production ability


    Declare war. Are you talking the US or Israel?


    put a bounty on all Revolutionary Guards.

    put a bounty on hezbollah's leadership

    put a bounty on hamas's leadership



    Sounds simple. Think is will actually slow down the bomb program?


    ban all food, medicine and technology sales to iran


    Right. Turn the world against the US overnight. Genius.


    stop all foreign aid to any nation that supports iran (including pakistan)


    I would support this. Think it will happen? We already don't know how we get around trying to impose the current sanctions with regard to China. Russia could give a shit. The EU will suffer under the current sanctions regime.


    shut down all Iranian embassy's and consulates in the USA, including the UN.


    As far as I know Iran doesn't have any embassies in the US. We have no direct diplomatic relations with them. What do you want to do shut down the Pakistan Embassy we use as a drop box? How does the US communicate with Iran and accept their surrender? Disallow personnell from Iran from attending the UN? You are losing it.


    put an interpol arrest warrant out for Pres Ahmadinejad for the kidnapping of the US embassy in Iran.


    :)

    First, getting it to happen wouldn't be a walk in the park. What did Ahmdinejad have to do with the US embassy hostages? He was 23 at the time. He didn't become president until 2005. What would the Red Report say, Crime: Wanted for pissing WiO off?


    announce the expansion of the strategic oil reserve by 50% for at once construction


    Iran would love that. It would drive up the price of oil. And how long would it take? You forget we are running out of time here.


    announce any bank that does business with iran with any amount greater than 100,000 dollars cannot do business with the USA


    Don't we already have something like that written into the current or proposed sanctions?


    and any firm that does business with iran for any product cannot do business inside America.


    Might be a good idea. However, the main people pushing Obama for a stronger protocol would be the first to reject this idea if it affected a business in their state.


    open up drilling for gas in the gulf and montana and announce it.


    Fine. Remember, you have a year to work with. Then it's too late (if you can believe the intelligence).


    announce to the world the goal for the USA to be an exporter of natural gas in 12 months.


    A worthy plan. You think it will have an effect on whether Iran gets the bomb or not?


    make it a policy of the USA to drive the price of oil down to 26 dollars a barrel.


    Hell, why not make it our policy?. It has about as much chance of happening as us getting the deficit down to zero in the next five years.


    there is your list quirk...


    Yeh, well thanks WiO. I'll sleep a lot better tonight.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  160. quirk:
    Yeh, well thanks WiO. I'll sleep a lot better tonight.



    Thanks quirk for proving my point.

    You cannot think outside of a McDonald's box.

    You are a waste of time for serious ideas

    ReplyDelete
  161. The Indians, Chinese, Russians and Turks all have banks that do not do business in the US.

    They are structuring their business with Iran through those banks.

    Rather than taking that route,, the Japanese are requesting an exemption.

    That's the 2nd and 3rd largest economies in the whirled, in China and Japan.

    The Indians, our newest nuckear friend.

    Read Dr Singh's post.
    Or the one by the finance minister of India.

    Isolationism, is that really the route the US should take?

    If so, vote for Doctor Paul, if given the opportunity.
    Not Mitt or Barack.

    ReplyDelete
  162. .

    You cannot think outside of a McDonald's box.

    You are a waste of time for serious ideas




    :)

    Well I will admit you do think out of the box WIO.

    Remember to tell Interpol they need to start thinking out of the box.

    Tell them they can pick up Ahmdinejad at the Iranian Embassy in the US.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  163. My God, I've never read so much nonsense on one page. A couple of you need to do a simple google of "Iran."

    The nation is crippled by the Islamocrazies, at present, but it's still "Persia."

    600,000 Sq. Miles, and one of the oldest, and most sophisticated cultures on earth.

    ReplyDelete
  164. from wiki:

    Ancient Iranians built Qanats and Yakhchal to provide and keep water. The first windmill appeared in Iran in the 9th century.[210] Iranians contributed significantly to the current understanding of astronomy, natural science, medicine, mathematics, and philosophy. Khwarizmi is widely hailed as the father of algebra. Ethanol (alcohol) was first identified by Persian alchemists such as Muhammad ibn Zakarīya Rāzi. Throughout the Middle Ages, the natural philosophy and mathematics of the Ancient Greeks and Persians were furthered and preserved within Persia. The Academy of Gundishapur was a renowned centre of learning in the city of Gundeshapur during late antiquity and was the most important medical centre of the ancient world during the 6th and 7th centuries.[211] During this period, Persia became a centre for the manufacture of scientific instruments, retaining its reputation for quality well into the 19th century.

    Iran strives to revive the golden age of Persian science. The country has increased its publication output nearly tenfold from 1996 through 2004, and has been ranked first in terms of output growth rate followed by China.[212] Despite the limitations in funds, facilities, and international collaborations, Iranian scientists remain highly productive in several experimental fields, such as pharmacology, pharmaceutical chemistry, organic chemistry, and polymer chemistry. Iranian scientists are also helping construct the Compact Muon Solenoid, a detector for CERN's Large Hadron Collider. In 2009, a SUSE Linux-based HPC system made by the Aerospace Research Institute of Iran (ARI) was launched with 32 cores and now runs 96 cores. Its performance was pegged at 192 GFLOPS.[213]

    In the biomedical sciences, Iran's Institute of Biochemistry and Biophysics is a UNESCO chair in biology.[214] In late 2006, Iranian scientists successfully cloned a sheep by somatic cell nuclear transfer, at the Rouyan research centre in Tehran.[215] According to a study by David Morrison and Ali Khademhosseini (Harvard-MIT and Cambridge), stem cell research in Iran is amongst the top 10 in the world.[216] Iran ranks 15th in the world in nanotechnologies.[217][218][219]





    An 18th century Persian astrolabe
    The Iranian nuclear program was launched in the 1950s. Iran is the 7th country in production of uranium hexafluoride.[220] Iran now controls the entire cycle for producing nuclear fuel.[221] Iran's current facilities includes several research reactors, a uranium mine, an almost complete commercial nuclear reactor, and uranium processing facilities that include a uranium enrichment plant.

    The Iranian Space Agency launched its first reconnaissance satellite named Sina-1 in 2006, and a space rocket in 2007,[222] which aimed at improving science and research for university students.[223] Iran placed its domestically built satellite, Omid into orbit on the 30th anniversary of the Iranian Revolution, on 2 February 2009,[224] through Safir rocket, becoming the ninth country in the world capable of both producing a satellite and sending it into space from a domestically made launcher.[225]

    Iranian scientists outside Iran have also made some major contributions to science. In 1960, Ali Javan co-invented the first gas laser and fuzzy set theory was introduced by Lotfi Zadeh.[226] Iranian cardiologist, Tofy Mussivand invented and developed the first artificial cardiac pump, the precursor of the artificial heart. Furthering research and treatment of diabetes, HbA1c was discovered by Samuel Rahbar. Iranian physics is especially strong in string theory, with many papers being published in Iran.[227] Iranian-American string theorist Cumrun Vafa proposed the Vafa-Witten theorem together with Edward Witten . . . . . .

    ReplyDelete
  165. Add the land area of France, Germany, Poland, The Czech Republic, Slovakia, and throw in Switzerland, and you still have room for Belgium, and a country to be named later.

    ReplyDelete
  166. one of the most sophisticated cultures on earth

    Used to be, Rufus, used to be.

    ReplyDelete
  167. "They are structuring their business with Iran through those banks."

    The market at work.

    Regimes in turmoil, facing sanctions, they pay more. Risk costs.

    When Iran is no longer able to pay the bills, the people scrambling for a way to sell to the regime will walk away.

    It will be very easy to put Iran in a financial bind, it's their greatest weakness.

    They know it.

    If they send their Super Speedboats of Death to sink a US Carrier, we will blow the living hell,outof their refining facilities two minutes later, regardless of what happens to the carrier.

    I don't think Iran is in a position to fuck with a very lethal US military, I think if they are rational, they know this.

    ReplyDelete
  168. All these 'facts' presented by Nick Parry are really beside the point. It's not how many weapons we have, the point of the argument is, what would they do with the ones they are developing?

    Whole article is propaganda for a point of view.

    Maybe they can be deterred but then maybe not. If the major powers had any sense they'd all gang up against further spread of nuclear weapons, and put a total halt to it.

    ReplyDelete
  169. DUBAI, United Arab Emirates NYT

    American and European officials said Friday that a mission by international nuclear inspectors to Tehran this week had failed to address their key concerns, indicating that Iran’s leaders believe they can resist pressure to open up the nation’s nuclear program.

    The assessment came as Iran’s supreme leader lashed out at the United States, vowing to retaliate against oil sanctions and threats of military action and warning that any attack “would be 10 times worse for the interests of the United States” than it would be for Iran.

    While the inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, who returned to Vienna after a three-day mission in Tehran, said nothing substantive about their trip and were planning to return to Iran later this month, diplomats briefed on the trip said that Iranian officials had not answered the questions raised in an incriminating report issued by the agency in November.

    That report cited documents and evidence of experiments with detonators that strongly suggested Iran might have worked on technologies to turn its nuclear fuel into working weapons and warheads. Tehran has insisted its uranium enrichment activities are peaceful and has dismissed the evidence suggesting otherwise as fabricated or taken out of context, and has refused to engage in substantive discussions or inspections


    Whole situation seems to me a great example of Luther's 'sin bravely', that is, you don't know what to do, but you got to do something, and doing nothing is something too, so, knowing you might get it wrong - sin = missing the mark, like an arrow - give it the best decision you can with what you know.

    ReplyDelete
  170. Business people face these dilemmas all the time.

    "Well, looking back on it, it all went to hell, but, knowing just what I knew then, I'd do it all over again, because I made the right decision with what I knew."

    ReplyDelete
  171. Should Animals Be Given Human Rights?

    “All five of these orcas were violently seized from the ocean and taken from their families as babies,” PETA President Ingrid E. Newkirk was quoted in a statement. “They are denied freedom and everything else that is natural and important to them while kept in small concrete tanks and reduced to performing stupid tricks. The 13th Amendment prohibits slavery, and these orcas are, by definition, slaves.” That the 13th Amendment applies only to people, does seem to present a problem.

    They at least should be given a choice in the matter, to stay or go, like an open seaway to ocean!

    ReplyDelete
  172. .

    "Well, looking back on it, it all went to hell, but, knowing just what I knew then, I'd do it all over again, because I made the right decision with what I knew."


    said the ex-CEO.

    :0


    .

    ReplyDelete
  173. I got to go?
    Said the CEO
    'taint fair, he whined
    Getting the booting
    For lousy crap shooting

    ReplyDelete
  174. From Haaretz

    All Israeli wars since 1973 were flawed wars of choice. Israel initiated all of them. None of them was inevitable, none resulted in any benefit that could not have been achieved using different means. In fact all of them were disastrous for us, even if the disaster was even greater for the other side.

    The most megalomaniac of them all, the Second Lebanon War, was also the most disastrous of them all. This bears remembering when debating the even greater megalomania of an attack on Iran.

    In both the Second Lebanon War and the war in the Gaza Strip Israel lost more than it gained. But these were only the trailers for what is liable to happen in the First Iran War. It has the potential to be the most monstrous war of all. Even if we accept the reassurances of the next minister of war, Barak, hundreds of Israeli civilian deaths are anticipated. Even if we believe his forecast we must keep in mind that no one can predict how a war will develop and what it will bring.

    Iran's nuclear program is dangerous. So are those of Pakistan and North Korea, with which the world has learned to live. An Israeli strike on Iran could turn out to be even more dangerous. Everything has already been said about its effects, which at best will only delay Tehran's nuclear weapons development and could actually accelerate it. Everything has already been said about the shot in the arm it will give the Iranian regime, about the implications for Israeli relations with the United States and the danger of thousands of missiles hitting Israel. Israel must do all it can to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons - everything except launching another war of choice.

    The decision is in the wrong hands. We can no longer depend on the United States to stop it. Even worse, we can no longer depend on the Israeli government to safely sail the ship of state. A government that missed the opportunity to reach an agreement with the Palestinians as it has is a dangerous government.

    And so we have entered the time of fear. The time has come to admit it, even to encourage it. Israel has not been led by cowards for a long time, the type whose fear caused them to act wisely and cautiously. For far too long now Israel has been headed by heroes, the kind who don't hesitate to take the country on yet another dangerous, purposeless adventure. We must tell them now, loudly: We are a-f-r-ai-d.

    ReplyDelete
  175. Same article

    And so, it must be said: Danger, Israeli attack ahead (possibly). And yes, we can and should fear it, with every fiber of our being.

    The impression is that the majority of Israelis are not afraid. No one is fleeing in panic, no one is stocking up on fear. The decision is left up to a handful of people who have decided that the public, as usual, trusts them blindly, obediently. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak will decide, and we will trust them implicitly. We don't count on them to deal with the Carmel forest fire or the goings-on in their own offices, but an attack on Iran? Life and death, mainly the latter, on a mass scale? Sure, we'll trust them. That's how it was with all of Israel's wars, before they began. Israelis cheered those who started them. Only at the end, when the blood was spilled and the damages racked up, did they come after them.


    Let the disaster begin.

    ReplyDelete
  176. It amuses me, the childish trust of politicians by many when it comes to the entering of an optional war:

    “They have information that we don’t.”

    “They must know what they are doing.”

    They sure do.

    I wonder what the genius George Bush is doing on the ranch while the human wreckage of a division level of wounded, maimed, scarred and grossly deformed US military veterans try to recover the pittance left of their lives, the ones who actually showed up for their national guard weekends, actually picked up a gun other than at the firing range, where are they, where is Georgie boy?

    The flotsam of the conned. It never changes. The same blowhards, war in war out, the 4ferrs in my day and the right wing flag waivers on talk radio today, those cheering it on but never quite getting it on when their time was on. They always have their war plans, heroically woven in their brains but never on their fingers. They love the sounds of marching but not on their feet.

    Go get em boys, check back in when you get back. I’ll be cheering for you. God bless. I feel awful that I can’t be there with you, awful but it’s my knee you see. It will heal, sometime after my fortieth birthday perhaps. I’ll be there to loathe the pussies that want to stop the next division or two from having had the privilege to serve.

    ReplyDelete
  177. Yeah Deuce, the best and the brightest got it all figured out.

    Another calculation for the go after Iran crowd would have to be the upcoming US presidential election. I would think that Obama would not be at all happy if an Israeli strike were to occur before the election because if they did it would force all kinds of decision upon the US administration and the unknowables could throw his steady march to re-election up in the air. Sure, on the one hand it may help him as Americans rally around their leader in times of war but war may not involve the US, at least not right away, and all those variables could make trouble.

    That's got to play into Bibi's game plan. Heck, he might even be looking for a little Quid pro Quo with Obama - they delay a strike until November or December and Obama...

    ReplyDelete
  178. tosh.2 makes my arguments against the "occupation" plan, for me. Sanctions can make life uncomfortable for the Iranians, but then, it already is that.

    Obama could always have the US military defend the sovereignty of Iraqi airspace.

    Without the correct IFF codes the Israeli attack goes down in flames.

    Splash.

    It'd not hurt his reelection opportunities. Not nearly as much as $5.00 per gallon gasoline would.

    Or let the first attack through, but no more than that. Close the door after the first strike.

    Take down some IDF planes on their way home, to placate the Iranians.

    It'd make that initial effort worthless. The Israeli cannot take out the Iranian capacity, with one attack.

    There are over three hundred target points. As Bibi has said, only the US has the capacity to successfully strike Iran's nuclear infrastructure.

    ReplyDelete
  179. Obama would just have to announce that he thought those planes were really Egyptian.

    The Star of David painted on the tails, merely a ruse.

    ReplyDelete
  180. Egypt's military-led government appeared by daybreak Sunday to have ended, at least for now, a siege of its interior ministry.

    ReplyDelete
  181. While the Israeli government has selective sight, seeing what it wants to, denying what is uncomfortable to it, to be sure.

    Ya'alon said in an interview with Army Radio he did not believe an Islamist regime would take power in Syria in the event of Assad's demise.

    "There is a big difference between Egypt and Syria," Ya'alon stated, saying that the Muslim Brotherhood was much weaker in Syria than in Egypt.

    The strategic affairs minister added that he envisions a government led by intellectuals and generals taking control of the country eventually.


    Right on!

    Power to the intellectuals, not the guns that take down the Alawi.

    Unbelievably blind to reality.

    That's what happens to looters of the American purse, their vision becomes skewed.

    ReplyDelete
  182. After all that allen and "occupation" have told us, this is an impossibility. Israel denounces "The War on Islam"

    There ARE moderate Islamoids, now that it suits Israel.

    “I don’t see a Muslim Brotherhood regime [rising in Syria], I see a relatively moderate Sunni regime based on an intellectual middle class, not the Muslim Brotherhood,” Ya’alon added.

    The Israeli pushing the "Moderate Muslim" meme.

    Who'd have ever guessed.

    Especially after a decade of Israeli mouthpieces here in the US denying the possibility of there being "Moderate Muslims".

    ReplyDelete
  183. One has to assume that

    "Nuking the Rock"

    would radicalize even "Moderate Muslims"

    The Israeli even promoting the idea that the Muslims would respect the religious minorities, in Syria.

    Labor MK Isaac Herzog called on Netanyahu to buck this trend by opening Sunday's cabinet meeting with a statement saying he identifies with the Syrian people's pain and condemns the bloodshed.

    Herzog told Army Radio that he is personally in contact with Syria's opposition, which he characterized as "largely secular."

    The Labor MK said he does not fear revenge against Syria's Alawite minority, to which Assad belongs, in the event of his ouster.


    Since Mr Herzog is neither an Alawi nor in Syria, he does have little to fear.

    But the history of the Muslims show the depth of his dishonesty.

    Just ask Doug.

    ReplyDelete
  184. Deuce: The flotsam of the conned. It never changes. The same blowhards, war in war out, the 4ferrs in my day and the right wing flag waivers on talk radio today, those cheering it on but never quite getting it on when their time was on.

    They sit here in the rear with the gear like the teacher in All Quiet on the Western Front calling for his students to enlist for the great barb-wired, enfiladed paper shredder, but call people who did serve against Iran in Reagan's Navy the "bottom of the barrel".

    ReplyDelete
  185. We will wait for the dd-214 challenged to rebut.

    ReplyDelete
  186. A member of the Israeli government now telling us that there are moderate, mostly secular, Muslims.

    ReplyDelete
  187. There are plenty of rational Israelis that know this is madness. Let’s just hope their fears about the consequences of war with Iran are not confirmed by future events. Only an attack on Iran can solidify support for for the mullahs.

    ReplyDelete
  188. Deuce said...
    There are plenty of rational Israelis that know this is madness. Let’s just hope their fears about the consequences of war with Iran are not confirmed by future events. Only an attack on Iran can solidify support for for the mullahs.



    There were plenty of murdered Jews that never thought the nazis would shove them in ovens either.

    6.5 million to be exact.

    An Iranian nuclear weapon is a existential threat to the state of israel, the stability of the middle east and the world.

    the good news?

    meaningless armchair appeasers will not enter the fray either way.

    sadly I do not have the ability to watch your foolishness come to completion without it being a genocide for Israel and Jews worldwide. Otherwise I'd wish you well living in the hell hole you are advocating.

    But I can tell you this.

    Iran's threat is real. Just listen to their words.

    Think they are blowhards? Think they exaggerate?

    It aint your lives you are gambling with.

    Now those that sit in safety in AZ or MS or other safe havens in America are quite strong about their opinions about how Iran is nothing...

    Armchair appeasers...

    Armchair pussies...

    or Armchair naive people...

    take your pick...

    SO scared that Iran will get pissed at them that they dare do nothing to stop a genocidal nation from actually getting WMD...

    They sit and point their bony fingers at me and those that advocate a strong offensive against nazi like nations while actually doing nothing about it.

    They go fishing, they go horseback riding, they live off of government retirements and not once do I hear of them going to washington dc and advocating anything productive.

    I do that, like me or not, think I accomplish something or not? too bad...

    I have helped get several serious sanction acts passed against terrorist nations (iran, syria and the palestinian accountablity act) even if those efforts have been sidelined by a president that sees no reason to actually push hard on real biting sanctions.

    But you folks?

    just sit and moan and point fingers at bibi and call him names.

    The reality?

    It's only been 60 years since genocide has been visited on Jews. And i remember those that sound KUST like you folks that didnt lift a feather to stop the genocide.

    Jews and israel have learned. Not the europeans, not the americans and not anyone will do anything against jew hating genocidal nations and groups...

    that has been proven. sadly over and over again

    so excuse me if some people find your pussylike, appeasing nonsense a bit thick...

    now go back to your saddles, your rocking chairs, collect your government retirement check and get out of the way...

    ReplyDelete
  189. wasp: but call people who did serve against Iran in Reagan's Navy the "bottom of the barrel".


    no not "people" just you a lying sack of fake lesbian catholic shit...

    so you can twist all you like my words but it doesnt change the fact that it is YOU that i was referring to..

    you the one that actually admits you have no ethics.

    trailer trash scum that you are...

    no offense to trash or trailers...

    ReplyDelete
  190. The confectioner from Ohio is going to put down that spoon, and pick up that rifle any day, now.

    Off to join the IDF he will be.

    Sho' nuff.

    ReplyDelete
  191. WTH?

    Is there some kind of "Nervous Nellie" contagion or some kind of anti-Iran war social hysteria?

    No one wants to go to war. NO ONE, not even Bibi.

    Get a grip people.

    ReplyDelete