Israeli Hints at Preparation to Stop Iran

[lindisfarne]

...or WWIII, here we come ...

JERUSALEM - Israel's defense minister hinted Saturday that the Jewish state is preparing for military action to stop Iran's nuclear program, but said international diplomacy must be the first course of action.

"Israel will not be able to accept an Iranian nuclear capability and it must have the capability to defend itself, with all that that implies, and this we are preparing," Shaul Mofaz said.
<snip>
French President Jacques Chirac said Thursday that France could respond with nuclear weapons against any state-sponsored terrorist attack.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said Saturday that Chirac's threats reflect the true intentions of nuclear nations, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060122/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear;_ylt=Ass.AE9a.KUxNM4mW6OCaqhI2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

[Fire Walk With Me]

1. Anyone notice that all of the oil in the Mideast is becoming aligned

under BushCo and the Saudis/Kuwaitis? Iran has a lot a lot of oil.

Perhaps Bush has promised a religious overseer position to the Saudis just as he's promised one here at home to the Kristians.

[Megahurtz]

71. Yup.

Looking obvious.

[katty]

76. yes, Iran has lots of oil, the last piece of the bushco puzzle

[Coastie for Truth]

2. Easiest, Cleanest Way

Put some "malignant code" into their software for fuel processing. (That's viruses, spyware, zombies, etc.)

It didn't even take "malignant code" to bring down "Three Mile Island." Every system is vulnerable.

:evilgrin:

[54anickel]

3. They do like to slip that "wiped off the map" quote whenever they

can, don't they?

[MisterP]

4. it's like they're working for another war again, eh?

and what's this "Preperation"? It's a rather Dr.-Evilish turn of phrase.

[Behind the Aegis]

10. As if it weren't relevant? n/t

[54anickel]

37. Not in the way they're trying to make it. It was taken out of context and

is being beaten to death. There have been several articles giving the context of the quote, though hardly picked up by the MSM. They prefer to promote the image of a "half-crazed Jew-hater" and they can't promote that image if the quote and the basis of "anti-semitism" of the region is given in context.

[Behind the Aegis]

51. It was taken out of context?!

How was it taken out of context?! Really, I am interested how the Iranian president's words are being misused. Or are you saying the original statement was taken out of context?

On edit: Never mind, I read your other post further down. Basically, the poor Iranian president is just misunderstood. I think I am going to be sick now.

[The Stranger]

52. Why not include the quote about Sharon having "matches to light the oil,"

or something to that effect?

Certainly, that would be even more relevant. That is, if we are going to just regurgitate propaganda.

[Behind the Aegis]

55. As usual, that makes no sense.

I don't recall defending that statement. Does this mean you are defending the Iranian president's remarks, or just deflecting?

[The Stranger]

66. As usual, it makes complete sense.

Or do you not want to talk about Sharon's remark?

"We have the matches to light the oil . . . "

[Behind the Aegis]

70. It's irrelevant.

Besides you don't even know if that is the correct quote, or have you found it. Are you unaware of the topic at hand, or was this just a hijack to bash Sharon?

[The Stranger]

72. Sharon is talking about using nuclear weapons "to light the oil."

Go back and check the original thread post if you think it is still irrelevant.

[ljaycox]

63. No "half-crazed" about it...

He is a complete wacko, insane jew-hater who is unhinged by his hatred.

[Chi-Town Exile]

44. The level of anti-Israel hatred on this website is truly astounding. eom

[channa18]

46. Not to worry.......

one wonders if israel is nuked what the reaction will be.

[Behind the Aegis]

54. I can tell you...IMHO

The far right will be pissed off because it will put a crimp in their apocalyptic fantasies. They will blame the Jews. The far left will say it was deserved and blame the Israelis. Those in the middle will wail and cry, 'why didn't we do something?!' They remaining (?) Israelis will not be accepted anywhere, so a new country will be established by the UN, who will in turn start passing resolutions against it when its neighbors attack because they have been disposed and hate the Israelis. New Israel will be reviled among nations, except the US, which it will eventually come to control. Sound about right? (Now, this is hyperbole!)

A new Shoah will emerge, followed by the immediate denial and minimization of the event, as well as the claims, 'it wasn't just Jews killed, why does everyone just focus on them?!'

As much as the aforementioned is hyperbole, it does have a ring of truth to it, sadly.

[Clutch Cargo]

65. What an outstanding response! You nailed it.

I'm not Jewish, but I certainly have empathy for their circumstances. They are truly a courageous people to have withstood generation afer generation of persecution.

[54anickel]

48. Excuse me, but I am not anti-Israel, I am anti-hyperbole. You don't

know me from Jack, and I'll try not to take that as a personal attack.

[still_one]

5. All this talk about Iran

isn't it about time we worked on energy independence?

In addition, we do NOT have the resources to invade Iran, and if we did it would unite the whole middle east against us

after what happened in iraq, congress better do their job this time

[lindisfarne]

6. you're so right. but the small rich elite won't make as much money

off of solar and wind power. Peak oil will come, in an optimistic view, in about 30 years; in a pessimistic view, we may already be there (or will be there in a few years). We're going to have to adjust ... why not start now?

[Ian David]

8. Bush says we should carpool and turn off our computers and kill Rudolph

That will give us all the energy we need.

Anyone have a link to where The White House said that energy conservation is not part of the American culture?

[SOS]

49. US energy independence will not happen.

Ever.

The US had that chance in the 1980s. Carters CAFE standards, enacted in 1979, were a success.
Average mileage soared by 7 mpg by 1985. Oil prices plummeted.
American oil companies ordered Reagan to remove the standards, which he dutifully did.
If Reagan had not removed the standards, the US would have achieved complete energy independence by 1991.
We would have stopped importing oil from the Mideast in 1986.

Oil companies will never allow US energy independence.

They place their profits above the security and independence of our nation.

[bemildred]

7. This is drool. There have been more than hints, for years now.

From what Ahm-an-idjit is saying, the Iranians are not buying any of this.
The Iranian attitude is, to quote pResident Bush, is "Bring it On".

[PerceptionManagement]

9. You know, in a way, I hope Israel does bomb Iran

And as a barrel of gas goes to over $100, I'd like to see the repugs who drive Bling-Mobiles, Hummers and Pinzgauers (sorry Ahhnuld) have to pay through the nose to fill their freakin' gas tanks..

[BiggJawn]

35. Boy R U dum.

Howdy. Welcome, and let me be the first to tell you that we have hashed and re-hashed your $100-a-bbl wet dream time and again, and you know what?

$100 a barrel won't even get AHH-Nuld's attention. No matter how much fuel goes up, it is nothing more than "the buzzing of FLIES" to the people in a position to do something about it.

On the other hand, people like me will be fucked. If AHH-Nuld and the rest of the rethugs are having to pay through the nose, we poor will have to open a fucking vein just to keep from starving and freezing.

Thank you for your consideration of us.

[HuffleClaw]

11. this is a pretense.

there just aint NO WAY they will be 'going it alone' in this. none.

[Behind the Aegis]

12. Nope...

...seems the French and Germans may be on board, too.

[thebigidea]

14. yes, I'm sure we'll see French planes bombing Iran any day now.

[Behind the Aegis]

21. Not what I said, is it? Did you read the article?

[thebigidea]

22. of course.... I just wanted to match your complete absurdity.

Your "didn't read the article" replies are so boring... apparently its impossible for someone to read an article and come to a different conclusion than yours, eh?

France isn't going to do shit unless they are attacked by Iran... and why would Iran want to attack France, anyway?

There's nothing in that article to suggest that France is "on board" with an Israeli attack on Iran.

[Behind the Aegis]

23. If you read it,..

...then you can see my assertion is not absurd. Your post didn't take a different position, it denied the possibility of my assertion by making in a mocking way. Therefore, I guess your statement about someone reading an article and coming to a different conclusion is impossible is correct, since I asserted my conclusion, and you did not assert yours, but denied mine and saying something I never said.

[thebigidea]

24. point out where it says France is "on board" with an Israeli attack, then

posturing about returning fire in a hypothetical scenario where France is attacked doesn't count, now does it?

If you can't find a line that says France is on board with an Israeli attack, then yeah, i'd say your statement was pretty fucking absurd.

[Behind the Aegis]

28. point out where I said:...

"France IS on board." Considering the article is about possible Iran scenarios, being quoted as being willing to nuke someone would indicate the option is open for scenarios presented by Israel. What about Germany?

Then again, maybe you cannot accept that someone has taken away an opinion from the article different than yours, eh?

[thebigidea]

29. ah, ok, MAYBE. you said MAYBE.

so France, awash in a massive wave of Anti-Semitism, will MAYBE be on board with an Israeli attack.

"being quoted as being willing to nuke someone would indicate the option is open for scenarios presented by Israel."

being quoted as being willing to nuke someone IF THEY WERE ATTACKED BY STATE-SPONSORED TERRORISTS. Nice little bit of disengenousness, there. Absolutely nothing about them being pleased as punch with Israel's proactive can-do spirit of pre-emptive warmongering.

Explain to me how that translates into being on board for "scenarios presented by Israel."

Oh yeah, it doesn't.

Well, have fun convincing them. Night.

[Behind the Aegis]

31. You forgot Poland!!! Er, I mean Germany...

See, that wasn't so hard. I didn't declare anything other than opinion based on another poster's comment and the article. However, you continue to attribute opinions and assertions that I didn't even make.

As for France, being awash with anti-Semitism, although still a problem, it is one of the few countries world-wide where anti-Semitism actually dropped! By almost 43% in that last year!

As for your last request...well, it is apparent that no further dialog is needed because no exchange would be fruitful.

[Poll_Blind]

15. LOL, "the French and Germans may be on board"! Oh yes, I'm sure...

....they're willing to go in too! :toast:

That's beautifully rich!

If anyone is foolish enough to step up to that battle alongside Israel, it'll be the U.S. or no-one.

PB

[tatertop]

17. Poll_Blind, you are tireless in the pursuit of the truth

And for that I must thank you

[Behind the Aegis]

20. Didn't read the article, did ya?

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lovuian]

13. has been in the works ... They bombed Saddam's reactors

They have a history...

[IndianaGreen]

26. Iran is not Iraq

Iran also has long range missiles that can strike at Israel in retaliation for any attack.

Many moderates ignored the Left's warnings about the consequences of an invasion of Iraq. We now have 2,225 dead GIs with no "victory" on sight.

The Left is now warning about the far more disastrous consequences of a war against Iran, and it is time for moderates to start listening to the Left, or suffer the consequences for a fiasco greater than the First World War.

[0007]

33. World War I and II combined and then some.

Why can't the great minds come to terms and understand that Iran is not able to accept Israel's nuclear capability and it must have the capability to defend itself, and that is why they are preparing?

[channa18]

34. Interesting post.....

I WONDER what you think Israel should do in light of the fact that iran has basically told israel they are going to nuke them.

[54anickel]

38. When and where did that fact happen? Got a link?

...."the fact that iran has basically told israel they are going to nuke them.

[channa18]

39. Sure....

"Israel must be wiped off the map"

Ahmadinejad, Oct 25,2005

on edit.....

Wipe Israel off map, says Iran's president
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/27/wiran27.xml



"God willing ...we shall soon experience a world wothout the United States and Zionism."

Ahmadinejad, Sept 15. 2005

On 26 October 2005, speaking at a seminar entitled "World without Zionism," President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said: "God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism." Echoing the words of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Ahmadinejad said "As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/zionist-entity.htm




I truly look foward to your response and opinion re. these quotes.

[54anickel]

42. Again, context and an understanding of the "culture" does play a role.

He was tossing out "red meat" at a conference entitled "The World Without Zionism". The country is run by the conservative Imams and clerics. In the game of politics it can be compared to Bush tossing out tidbits to the Fundamental Christians or his speeches at the Heritage Foundation.

Most of your article cites Israel's interpretation of/reaction to his comments. That is what continues to get played, because it suits Bushco's purpose.

When Ahmadinejad was approached on the subject outside of the conference, he explained his stance. Is he playing both sides of the fence? Sure he is - don't all politicians? He is looking for support within the region.

snip>

The line that a “half-crazed” and “violently anti-Semitic” president of Iran has denied the Holocaust and threatened to wipe Israel off the map, is a useful as a tool to justify strenuous action against Iran, including war, but it creates an impression that doesn’t quite line up with the facts.

Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust remarks were a challenge to those who use the Nazi’s attempt to systematically exterminate European Jews as justification for displacing Palestinian Arabs to found a Jewish state. What he said about the Holocaust amounted to this:

“Either it took place or it didn’t. If it didn’t take place, then it is a fabrication. If it did, it wasn’t the Arabs who did it; it was the Europeans. Why then should the Palestinians pay the price of what the Europeans did against the Jews?” (Musayeb Naimi, editor of Al Wefaq, New York Times, December 20, 2005)

That, by the way, is a question those who express high moral dudgeon over the Iranian president’s comments, have steered clear of. Instead, they’ve latched onto his questioning of the Holocaust, even as a hypothetical, as the mark of a half-crazed Jew-hater.

Ahmadinejad’s remarks:

“If you committed this big crime, then why should the oppressed Palestinian nation pay? This is our proposal: If you committed the crime, then give part of your land in Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to them so that the Jews can establish their own country.” (New York Times, December 15, 2005)

“Why do you want to force Israel on the holy land of Palestine by killing Muslims? Give a piece of your land in Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska so the Jews can create their own state.” (Los Angeles Times, December 15, 2005)

“Is the killing of innocent Jewish people by Hitler, the reason for their (the Europeans’) support to the occupiers of Jerusalem? … If the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe – like in Germany, Austria or other countries – to the Zionists, and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe. You offer part of Europe, and we will support it.” (Washington Post, December 9, 2005)

To this, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s spokesman, Raanan Gissin, replied: “Just to remind Mr. Ahmadinejad, we’ve been here long before his ancestors were here. Therefore, we have a birthright to be here in the land of our forefathers and to live here.” (Washington Post, December 9, 2005) Who’s the religious fanatic?

Ahmadinejad’s assertion that Israel must be wiped from the face of the map (by which he meant the idea of Israel as a Jewish homeland, founded on expulsion of Palestinians) has, predictably, been deliberately misinterpreted as a call for a second Holocaust, this serving the necessary pro-war propaganda function of painting Ahmadinejad as beyond the pale – a new Hitler whose country must be contained, crushed and subordinated, like the countries of all the other propaganda program-fabricated monsters the US and its janissaries have argued they needed to take out.


http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2006/01/1724134.php

[channa18]

43. Thank you for your response.

You are certainly free to attribute his remarks to politics, bluster or scare tactics.

I believe he means it 100% and only after israel is nuked will some say...'oh...i guess he really DID mean it after all.'

Apparently Mr. Chirac has recently decided that IRAN MEANS WHAT IT SAYS and any THREAT to nukes will be met with nukes by France. Weird world.

[54anickel]

47. That's one scenario

...after israel is nuked will some say...'oh...i guess he really DID mean it after all.

That assumes that Iran has the capability to nuke Israel today. Maybe, maybe not. I mainly question it because Bolton is behind pushing that idea - not exactly a trustworthy source.

Another possible scenario might be the reverse. Israel/US bomb Iran and there's a replay of "no WMD found in Iraq" and some will say...'oh...i guess he really DID mean it after all.' (The nuke weapons were dumped and the uranium enrichment was only for power plants.) Or the outcome may be something altogether different. My crystal ball is in the shop for repairs so I'm not 100% sure of any of my thoughts on the matter. I'm about 50% confident that I've heard this same drum beat in the background. :shrug:

Going back to the beginning in Sept 2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/hardtalk/3704816.stm
snip>

Iran insists its nuclear programme is for peaceful means.

But the United States is not convinced.

Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, John Bolton, has said the US is concerned that Iran is continuing to pursue a strategic decision to acquire nuclear weapons.


The US has called for the issue to be sent to the United Nations Security Council to consider.

But the Director General of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, told HARDtalk that diplomacy has not been exhausted yet.


What happened after that?

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2004/ebsp2004n017.html

snip>

On 28 November 2004, I received a letter from Iran in which it refers to the 20 sets of centrifuge components, and states that Iran "permits the IAEA to place these sets of components under Agency surveillance." In the letter Iran also states that it "will not conduct any testing of these sets of components." In that letter, Iran also informed me that, as previously indicated, it would provide the Agency with the identification numbers of these components.

Today, Agency inspectors put surveillance cameras in place to monitor the 20 sets of centrifuge components. The identification numbers have also been received. As a consequence, all measures necessary for the verification of Iran's suspension of enrichment related activities are now in place. Naturally, in accordance with the draft resolution before you, I will inform Board members should the suspension not be fully sustained, or should the Agency be prevented from verifying all elements of the suspension.


Fast forward to Sept of 2005 - so why did the US push for the IAEA vote?

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=7431

snip>

A logical reason emerges by reviewing the process that led to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. First, the pressure on Iraq to submit to intrusive inspections was ratcheted up. While the stated purpose was to get Iraq to "come clean" about its alleged WMD programs, the real purpose as revealed by the Downing Street memos was to induce Iraq to refuse inspections, thus providing an excuse for invasion. That didn't work. Plan B was then that the Security Council resolution 1441 of November 2002 provided at least a tenuous excuse for the United States to argue that its invasion of Iraq was justified (see President Bush's speech of March 17, 2003) , as the SC had found Iraq "in breach of its obligations" regarding nonexistent WMD. All along the process leading to the March 2003 military invasion of Iraq, the stated purpose of U.S. diplomatic activity was very different from its real intentions.

Similarly, there is only one logical reason to explain the current diplomatic push by the U.S. to haul Iran before the SC even without any consensus within the IAEA. Because when Iran's case comes before the SC and no sanctions are passed due to Russia's and China's vetoes, the U.S. will be left with no diplomatic options – not a desirable position to be in, unless the purpose all along was to resort to a military option.

Ideally for U.S. hawks, Iran will react to the threat of sanctions by rejecting the IAEA additional protocol, or even better, by expelling inspectors and withdrawing from the NPT. Then the hawks can argue that there is no way to know how many nuclear bombs Iran is building and how far along it is, and that it is better to do something sooner rather than later. Even if that does not happen, the U.S. can argue based on the resolution just passed by IAEA that Iran is in noncompliance with the NPT. None of the European coalition partners is likely to be "willing" this time, but that will not deter the U.S. from "preemptive" military action.


Weird world or interesting times?

There's a chronology of events of the IAEA here: http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/iran_timeline.shtml
It's interesting to review the DG statements and the change of tone along side some of the headlines from the same time periods.

[IndianaGreen]

45. Are the anti-Semitic rantings of Ahmadinejad justification for killing..

innocent Iranians? Is a bad President reason to kill innocent people?

If you believe in that, then you are in the same league as Osama bin Laden and George W. Bush.

I doubt that you will find very many people in the Arab world that don't harbor ill will towards Israel, just as you find people in Israel that harbor similar feelings towards Arabs.

Israel and her allies shot their collective "wads" over Iraq. You now have to live with the consequences of maneuvering the American people into the Iraq quagmire, one of which is that none of you have any credibility over WMDs.

The fact is that we are debating a neocon talking point in here. Ahmadinejad never said he was getting atomic weapons, despite the efforts of a CNN translator to make it appear so. This is nothing more than Iraq Redux.

If you are so concerned about WMDs, let's start with the reduction of American and Russian WMDs stockpiles, and then move on to other countries, including Israel.

[rustydad]

57. OK

The new Iranian President is actually quite precise in his statements unlike the mentally challenged American President. If you read his whole statement, not the snippet in the papers you would perhaps be better informed. He was referring to the issue of right of return and democracy in Israel/Palestine. To paraphrase, if the Israeli government lived up to all the UN Resolutions millions of refugee Palestinians living out of Palestine would return. The demographics would shift to a Palestinian majority. The Palestinians would vote to integrate all of greater Palestine and the state of Israel would cease to exist. I.E no longer on the map. Do you really think Iran would like to bomb Israel off the map? With millions of Palestinians killed and Muslims 3rd holiest place destroyed? Think hard please. Bob

[stoxx]

32. More on the history...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4636048.stm

[High Plains]

16. How would Iran respond to limited air strikes against its facilities?

Is there much it could do? Realistically?

Shut down its oil exports (and their revenues)?

Launch missiles back at Israel (oh, silly me, Israel HAS nukes, and can defend itself)?

[Zynx]

18. They could double the price they charge for oil exports.

They'd still get paid. Oil markets would go insane. US would suffer.

[lovuian]

25. Bingo and maybe give a call to its buddy China for a

helping hand...

[IndianaGreen]

27. Iran has long range missiles that can strike Israel

Israel using nukes against Iran? No one in Israel is that crazy!

[Barkley]

59. Israel has Arrow ballistic missile defense system

as well as Jericho intermediate range ballistic missiles that can strike about 1/3 of Iran.

Iran's missile are probably not accurate enough to intentially
hit an Israeli reactor but they can hit Israeli cities.

I still think oil and natural gas are Iran's strongest weapons not its missiles.

[IndianaGreen]

61. Israel has no oil

If Iran shuts down the Strait of Hormuz what are the Israelis going to do to keep their mighty military running? For that matter, what are the Americans going to do?

What do you think will happen to our GIs in Iraq if the ayatollahs declare war on them?

[Pavulon]

41. Nukes are not DEFENSE

They are purely offensive weapons. That is part of the reason they have not been used in any conflict since ww2.

They have one purpose. To kill cities.

[IndianaGreen]

50. Nukes are a deterrent to US invasion

You don't see our beloved dictator attacking North Korea because they have nukes. You don't see him attacking India or Pakistan for the very same reason.

Any country that fears a US attack, or an Israeli attack, should arm themselves with nukes because that is the only way of preventing their homeland from becoming another Iraq.

Thanks to the Bush dictatorship, and the enabling Democrats in Congress, we now live in a world in which might makes right. In such a world, nukes are the only logical deterrent to aggression.

[Zynx]

58. Nukes are actually the best strategic defense weapon available

Killing cities makes a very good deterrent against being attacked. Nukes are also supremely effective against troop concentrations and staging areas.

[High Plains]

69. Hmmm, maybe it would be prudent for Iran to get some nukes

Given the wolves on its borders and the Israelis just over the horizon.

[Zynx]

19. Not by themselves. They don't have the aircraft or the range.

[Glidescube]

36. They have refueling capabilities

But I'm wondering how are they going to take out a facility that is under ground?

[Pavulon]

40. Bunker buster

let the presssure wave do the rest.

They could just attack the government, kill the pres and the mullas.

Or they could use a earth penetrator and subkiloton fission bomb.

There are numerous ways ranging from aircraft to actually putting people on the ground and compromising the facility.

[m0nkeyneck]

53. deadline - march 2006

http://www.energybulletin.net/12125.html

[54anickel]

68. Next IAEA director general report also just happens to be scheduled

for March 6 and his tone has changed. Is he really loosing patience or is he being pressured? :shrug:

Poor link - no paragraph breaks
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ft/20060122/bs_ft/fto012220061634484254

Iran: Origins of the nuclear dispute

big snip>

Mohamed ElBaradei, IAEA director general, had hoped that a temporary de facto suspension of Iran's nuclear activities might grow into a more permanent entente between the various sides. But after two years of trying to facilitate talks between Iran and the EU3, he has publicly said that his patience is running out. Mr ElBaradei's next report on Iran on March 6, which will be the basis for the IAEA discussions, is likely to break with his previous efforts, which have taken pains to be even-handed. Instead, he is set to report that he has made "no progress" in persuading Iran to allow access to suspect sites or to hand over documents that could cast light on whether Tehran has sought to develop nuclear weapons.

[agincourt]

56. Ahmadinejad has learned from the WTC MIHOP

If he gets an attack from the US and Israel on his nuke sites, he figures he will reap a political bonanza like Bush did after the WTC destruction. When we blindly worship a jackass after a major attack, other world leaders get the message and think it may work for them as well. Ahmadinejad is politically weak in his country like Bush was before 9/11. An attack would give him more support.

[Spinoza]

60. Where Have I Seen This Movie Before?

An authoritarian national demagogue rants about evil zionists and wiping millions of Jewish Israelis off the map. Well meaning liberals around the world state the demagogue didn't really mean it, has some legitimate grievances, must be understood in "context", has no choice, is harmless etc. Didn't that movie play somewhere in the 30s? What was its name, again?

[IndianaGreen]

62. Same script, almost the same cast, the same AIPAC puppets

Iran is today's Emmanuel Goldstein. I wonder who will be tomorrow's Emmanuel Goldstein?

[channa18]

64. Amazingly non-caring about the consequences,

6 million....10 million .....if you only knew,

[Poll_Blind]

67. Are you trying to slime Indiana with some oblique Holocaust reference?

Just wondering, a reasonable person is likely to assume you're referring to the number of Jews killed during the Holocaust when you say "6 million....10 million .....if you only knew,".

Please, help us understand to what you are referring! Much thanks!

PB

[Tight_rope]

73. And who is going to help them fight!

Is this why they raised the age limit from 35 to 40 years old, so they can draft everyone who is 40 and below. Well, I hate to tell you, but I still ain't going.

[Snivi Yllom]

74. start saving your money

$200 oil and $10 a gallon gasoline is coming.

[Megahurtz]

75. They would be STUPID to even bother.

:nuke: