Continuing Improvements. Tell Us How We’re Driving! Send us Feedback

Neocons seek to justify action against Teheran »

Posted By TechnologyExpert 1 year, 1 month ago in News

9.8

Scale of 1 to 10

Read: 44

Propped: 125

Comments: 262

Click Prop It to Raise Score

Prop it

American diplomats have been ordered to compile a dossier detailing Iran's violations of international law that some fear could be used to justify military strikes against the Islamic republic's nuclear programme.

Read Full Story at telegraph.co.uk »

262 Comments Report

Submitted By:

TechnologyExpert

I am Editor-in-Chief at Alice Hill's RealTechNews (http://www.realtechnews.com). I also have my own blog (Tech-Ex) at http://TechnologyExpert.Blogspot.com. Finally ...

Also submitted:

Why not submit a story?

Join the Discussion

+ Add Comment

Comments So Far: 262

0%
TechnologyExpert1 year, 1 month ago

If you haven't already, now is the time to start that office pool for when we will start the attack ... :-(
Reply
61 Replies
- 0%
  bumbaklotartattack1 year, 1 month ago
  
  It's the same rhetoric that happened with Gulf War 2. I can't believe people are falling for it again. CALL YOUR CONGRESS PERSON AND TELL THEM YOU DON'T WANT ANOTHER WAR BASED ON LIES.
  Senate switchboard: 202-224-3121
  Reply
  60 Replies
  - 0%
    Spinward1 year, 1 month ago
    
    Maybe we should just GIVE Iran nukes so that they will like us and not use them on us. Besides it would save them so much money and earn their friendship.
    Then we could all hold hands, sing Cumbaya, and read our Koran together at our local mosque. Happy democrats all....
    Reply
    19 Replies
    - 0%
      bumbaklotartattack1 year, 1 month ago
      
      Yeah, or maybe we should actually start protecting our borders and stop listening to lies of the government. I realize your brain is too small to understand: Iraq was never an imminent threat, we haven't found WMD in Iraq, Iraq is worse off now than before the war, Hussein was a CIA-puppet who offered to go into exile. STILL THIS WAR-MONGERING ADMINISTRATION WENT IN AND INVADED IRAQ, leading to 70k troops killed, 1 million Iraqis dead, Iraq itself is in chaos, trillions being wasted. What exactly don't you understand? We the common people are losing both sides. We aren't safer, and we're economically worse off now! God, what is wrong with you?
      Reply
      13 Replies
      - 0%
        GWHayduke1 year, 1 month ago
        
        Sorry for the neg - should have been a pos as I am in complete agreement.
        Reply
        7 Replies
        
        0%
        capecoralM1 year, 1 month ago
        
        IAEA condemns Iran's Nuke Plan - Again Nov. 29, 2003
        VIENNA: The UN nuclear watchdog unanimously condemned Wednesday Iran's nuclear program for two decades of covert activities but did not send Tehran before the UN Security Council for possible sanctions, an IAEA spokesman said.
        "The draft resolution has just been adopted by consensus," Mark Gwozdecky told reporters of a compromise proposal the United States worked out with key European allies. The text the 35-nation board of governors of the IAEA adopted within minutes of gathering here Wednesday balances the US call to condemn Iran for almost two decades of covert nuclear activities with the Euro 3's demand that Iran be rewarded for cooperating since October with the IAEA. "The resolution the UN nuclear watchdog adopted Wednesday condemning Iran's nuclear programme is the result of a "complex compromise", Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said.
        Reply
        6 Replies
        
        0%
        capecoralM1 year, 1 month ago
        
        Wednesday, November 26, 2003(CNN) The U.N. nuclear watchdog's governing board has approved a resolution condemning Iran's secret nuclear program.
        The agency's chief said Wednesday that it sent a "serious and ominous message" to Tehran that future breaches of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty would "not be tolerated."
        "It clearly strengthens my hand in fulfilling our task in ensuring Iran's program is exclusively for peaceful purposes," said Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
        The resolution, passed as expected by the IAEA's 35 members during a meeting in Vienna, notes Iran's past breaches and calls on Tehran to cooperate with the U.N. body.
        Note the date: 2003 SO Based on some remarks here I suspect that many now believe that the U.N. Is nothing more than a Neocon org?
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        capecoralM1 year, 1 month ago
        
        November 2004, Tehran signed a temporary agreement with Germany, France and Britain to cease uranium enrichment and the IAEA issued Iran a clean bill of health, effectively avoiding Security Council intervention. The IAEA said it could not confirm that Iran is not pursuing undeclared nuclear activities and referred the case to the UN Security Council.
        In May 2006, the Security Council adopted a resolution endorsing the P5 and Germany offer of diplomatic and economic incentives and demanding that Iran suspend all uranium enrichment programs by August 31. In December 2006, after Tehran's failure to comply, the Council imposed sanctions on Iran's trade in sensitive nuclear materials and technology. Following the IAEA'S offer to Tehran of a 60 day grace period where halting of the country's uranium enrichment would be exchanged for suspension of UN sanctions which Iran did not take up, the Security Council passed Resolution 1747 in March 2007, intensifying the previous sanctions package.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        capecoralM1 year, 1 month ago
        
        Security Council tightens sanctions against Iran over uranium enrichment 24 March 2007 â;; The United Nations SC acted unanimously today to tighten sanctions on Iran, imposing a ban on arms sales and expanding the freeze on assets, in response to the country's uranium-enrichment activities, which Tehran says are for peaceful purposes but which other countries contend are driven by military ambitions.
        Following the adoption of resolution 1747, Iran's Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, immediately rejected it as illegitimate, maintaining Teheran's longstanding claim that the country's nuclear programme is entirely peaceful and therefore outside of the Council's brief.
        The res.' also aims for a diplomatic breakthrough, expressing the Council's conviction that if the IAEA can verify that Iran has suspended its uranium enrichment and reprocessing, this would lead to a negotiated solution that guarantees Iran's nuclear programme is for exclusively peaceful purposes.
        Reply
        
        0%
        Grrr1 year, 1 month ago
        
        Thanks for pointing out that diplomatic solutions are already being undertaken by the UN and the IAEA and that we should probably support and abide by these international organizations' decisions and methods of mediating this conflict.
        Cool.
        No need to invade, everybody!
        That would be even more absurd than the idea of invading Iraq was.
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        capecoralM1 year, 1 month ago
        
        FYI: These are all US led Diplomatic initiatives at the UN.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        StarLord1 year, 1 month ago
        
        FYI: They are in fact mostly led by Europe - that place that Cheney can't pile enough verbal s**t on.
        Reply
      - 0%
        PatrioticAmerican1 year, 1 month ago
        
        i understand that you have never been there and that you are listening to the what the left tells you and believe it whole heartedly. 70k soldiers are you sure about that # 1 million iraqi possible terrorists dead i think that # is wrong aswell,
        WMDs were found they just werent as strong as we expected. How do you know that iraq is worse off now where you there or are you listening to the anti-american left again???? Let me guess you beleive the Polls that maybe 1000 people answered , and now are suppose to speak for ALL americans??? i dont believe ANY poll no matter if its good or bad because i have said this so many times, IF A POLL IS SUPPOSE TO REPRESENT ALL AMERICANS, THEN ALL AMERICANS SHOULD BE POLLED. until you actually know both sides of the story, follow this piece of advice okay Please do not speak of what you know UNTIL you KNOW of what you speak
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        0%
        dunkirk1 year, 1 month ago
        
        "WMDs were found they just werent as strong as we expected"
        ROFLMAO and Limpaw didnt demean and insult the troops either.
        "IF A POLL IS SUPPOSE TO REPRESENT ALL AMERICANS, THEN ALL AMERICANS SHOULD BE POLLED"
        I guess they dont go to heavily into probability and statistics too much in bible based classes. Must be the same rationale that says Intelligent Design is a science.
        "Please do not speak of what you know UNTIL you KNOW of what you speak"
        Maybe you should be taking your advice?
        Reply
        
        0%
        Justice4All1 year, 1 month ago
        
        It must be frustrating for you when all the facts are against your pre-conceived vision of the world.
        WMD's were never found. Turn off Faux news and stop listening to Rush. Quit drinking the kool-aid and maybe you will see why patriotic Americans are taking a stand against this war.
        Reply
        
        0%
        amesburyroad1 year, 1 month ago
        
        What a Foxfool this guy is!
        Reply
        
        0%
        take_no_side1 year, 1 month ago
        
        he's blood thirsty, that's why he wants another war.
        Reply
    - 0%
      UncontrollableScaldingDiarrhea1 year, 1 month ago
      
      All I hope is that we have a bipartisan effort for this war. I don't want to have a situation like last where Demobrats had no way to stop a war they did not agree with. I mean. . . hold on a sec
      . . .
      I went back and checked the voting record. Forget what I was saying, as it would distort the facts.
      Reply
    - 0%
      GWHayduke1 year, 1 month ago
      
      So opposing a war with Iran is siding with Iran?
      Thats some good thinkin' there 2nd chance.
      I guess "yer either with the Iranians or yer against em'", huh?
      
      Reply
    - 0%
      SpareChange1 year, 1 month ago
      
      - second
      you want to talk about common sense?
      what makes sense about attacking iran - we have massive deficits, no troups to send, a falling dollar, no global support and a transition in washington looming.
      it's the israel lobby at work fanning the flames of war... let's stop the tail from wagging the dog.
      Reply
    - 0%
      AnteUp1 year, 1 month ago
      
      secondchance ~
      SIDE WITH IRAN? Whaaat??
      I, for one, do not care for my country becoming the most
      aggresive nation on the face of the earth. I do NOT have
      an unlimited supply of young people I'm willing to furnish
      for this Middle Eastern meatgrinder! I am NOT looking forward to the children of my children paying off this current mess - let alone, the NEXT ONE!
      You are placing way too much emphasis on these spin monikers
      "Dems/Lefties" - talk radio speak? It is not lefties and
      Dems and pinkos and athiests - it is Americans of ALL
      political and religious beliefs who are getting a little
      fearful about the agenda of OUR country!
      Reply
    - 0%
      AnteUp1 year, 1 month ago
      
      Spin ~
      Have you read the statements of the I.A.E.A. lately?
      There IS NOT an immediate danger of nuclear weapons production
      from Iran. What, for crying-out-loud, is the rush?
      Ahmadinejad will not be in power forever. Why not spend this
      time cultivating a positive relationship with the factions
      that may eventually replace him? This is NOT the way to
      earn their trust or respect.
      Reply
  - 0%
    ETproductions1 year, 1 month ago
    
    Thing is, WE are not falling for it this time. When Bush launched his Iraq invasion, fully 70% of Americans were with him, convinced by all his lies that Iraq was somehow behind 9/11, did have WMDs, did pose an extreme risk of attacking the USA and was developing nukes.
    Today, 70% oppose him. To launch a third front in the face of those sorts of numbers would be insane beyond imagination.
    As I have said before, Iran has a perfect right under International Law and Nuclear Arms treaties it has signed to enrich uranium. The do NOT have the right to build a bomb.
    If they ever elect to weaponize the enriched uranium they produce, we will know it the moment they conduct the first, absolutely-necessary test. At that time (after we've gotten our troops out of harms way in Iraq) we can use surgical strikes to take out any nuclear weapons program they have underway.
    Reply
    18 Replies
    - 0%
      miklkit1 year, 1 month ago
      
      Aww, that's too logical. The fascists will never go along with that plan.
      Reply
    - 0%
      blinkers1 year, 1 month ago
      
      As usual, excellent comment, ET.
      The Iranians are years away from becoming a nuclear armed nation, and any US attack on the country would be insane.
      Ahmadinejad will step down before long, and with a more measured approach by the US and its allies, his successor need not be such a firebrand.
      Reply
    - 0%
      canadianrancher571 year, 1 month ago
      
      ETproductions-I agree with 90% of your comment but excuse me on the last part. If there was not a strike against Korea for there testing of a nuclear weapon why Iran, they both have the same mentallity. As for a surgical srike there would be those in the military who would want to use nuclear weapons for such a strike.
      Reply
      1 Reply
      - 0%
        Obaku1 year, 1 month ago
        
        North Korea would only be able to nuke Alaska, Iran could nuke Israel. You figure it out.
        Reply
    - 0%
      Endoscopy1 year, 1 month ago
      
      Rant and rave. Why do you people believe this obviously totally biased article. The headline tell a thinking person it is biased. "Neocon" A radical and liberal hate label. The article is written in a biased way slanting the facts if they are facts. If you stop and think for a minute and not just jump to conclusions you will realize this country MUST keep up to date dossiers on every country even our friends. Stop and think. Oh well, I guess that is an oxymoron for some people.
      Reply
      13 Replies
      - 0%
        Charlson1 year, 1 month ago
        
        The neocons wrote the war manual for invading Iraq and look where that got us - in a quagmire. It's not a stretch to think they're at it again. But this time they don't have a 9/11 tragedy to galvanize support.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        PapaWolf1 year, 1 month ago
        
        >>But this time they don't have a 9/11 tragedy to galvanize support.
        Yet.
        Reply
      - 0%
        ETproductions1 year, 1 month ago
        
        Neocons aren't some fantasy bogeyman, Endo. They are a real political movement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_in...
        The article is ABOUT what leading Neoconservatives are currently pushing for. Arguing that an article is biased because it uses the word it's about in its subject is ridiculous.
        This article is NOT about just keeping info files on a particular nation. It is about pushing to find every remote justification for war possible -- just exactly what happened in the buildup to the misguided Iraq invasion. And lots of us are saying, "Oh no! Not Again."
        Reply
        7 Replies
        
        0%
        crghss1 year, 1 month ago
        
        "The neutrality of this article is disputed."
        Reply
        5 Replies
        
        0%
        dunkirk1 year, 1 month ago
        
        The mental state of crghss has ALAYS been disputed.
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        0%
        crghss1 year, 1 month ago
        
        hahahahah Good one.
        amature
        
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        0%
        dunkirk1 year, 1 month ago
        
        Had to do something YOU could relate to.
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        crghss1 year, 1 month ago
        
        OK dumbkirk
        see a childish response, now you can relate.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        dunkirk1 year, 1 month ago
        
        ROFLMAO, Im use to that from your kind. Its YOU who seem to be quite upset when people respond in a manner you can relate to. Poor baby.
        Reply
        
        0%
        markoller1 year, 1 month ago
        
        The Wikipedia article was flattery. The 'neocons' are Zionist fanatics, willing to risk World War III, in the name of Greater Israel. As far as the Christian fundamentalists are concerned, if Greater Israel leads to World War III, so much the better. The battle of Armageddon is one of the prerequisites for the Second Coming of Jesus.
        Reply
      - 0%
        StarLord1 year, 1 month ago
        
        Ahhh..the Bush apologist strikes again - or not.
        In your sadly distorted worldview, any publication which unquestioningly supports your self-appointed messiah is an example of a right-thinking news disseminator. While anyone who has the temerity to question Him is simply a left-wing rag, unworthy of reading.
        *sniff* Orwell would be proud...it's 1984 in 2007. Unless you are prepared to accuse the Daily Telegraph (one of Britain's most respected papers) of lying, stop beating the neocon drum.
        Reply
      - 0%
        SpareChange1 year, 1 month ago
        
        endo -
        then read this article from seymour hersh.
        http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/08/0...
        Reply
      - 0%
        miklkit1 year, 1 month ago
        
        You call yourselves "neocon". This is straight up factual reporting.
        Reply
  - 0%
    NoSpinDave1 year, 1 month ago
    
    How do YOU KNOW anyone has lied to you? Are you in the CIA? The NSA? Some new secret government service? OH, yea...you and every other liberal IDIOT here gets their news the same way the rest of us do.
    FACT is you dont KNOW anything. You have an OPINION (more like you have the TYPICAL LIBERAL conspiracy theory crap), but thats it. I'll be glad to call that number and make sure to tell them I DONT WANT A NUCLEAR IRAN.
    Thanks for giving it to me.
    I see I am in the...far left, wackjob, Air America, Move On. ORG, liberal hornets nest here so bring on the negative votes treehuggers!
    Reply
    15 Replies
    - 0%
      Charlson1 year, 1 month ago
      
      The neocons wrote the war manual for invading Iraq and look where that got us - in a quagmire. It's not a stretch to think they're at it again. But this time they don't have a 9/11 tragedy to galvanize support. And you chicken hawks don't have the votes to back up Bush's further war aspirations.
      "I'll be glad to call that number and make sure to tell them I DONT WANT A NUCLEAR IRAN."
      A nuclear Iran? Just like the nuclear Iraq you all promised us?
      Reply
    - 0%
      ETproductions1 year, 1 month ago
      
      I do know some things, GoSpinDave. First, I know the only "arguments" you present above are ad hominem attacks and smears of the intelligence of anyone who questions the perfection of your unstated knowledge.
      As to what lies, here's just a tiny starter list.
      Repeatedly, in speech after speech, conflating Saddam Hussein with 911. Lie. Know to be wrong when used.
      "Saddam sought to buy Yellow cake from Niger." Lie known to be suspect intel when used.
      "We know where the WMDs are." Pure lie. If it had been true, they obviously would have found them and displayed them.
      Wooden drones to fly nukes to America.
      Saddam poses an imminent threat to the United States.
      Before telling Congress the lie that he was "...waiting to see if diplomacy would work", he had privately told the Prime Minister of Spain invasion was a done deal and would take two weeks to completely prepare.
      Reply
    - 0%
      dunkirk1 year, 1 month ago
      
      ROFLMAO seems the right is intent on saying people dont even know what they heard on the radio or hear from a complete audio clip considering they are still into denial about the Linpaw insulting of the same troops they would be using to invade Iran.
      Reply
    - 0%
      StarLord1 year, 1 month ago
      
      Yeah...personal insults are always worth a neg to me.
      Reply
      7 Replies
      - 0%
        NoSpinDave1 year, 1 month ago
        
        well... I am insulted every day here at Libscape...oh wait, Libpeller....,
        It seems to be a tactic the left uses quite often. Typical liberal hypocrisy.
        Reply
        6 Replies
        
        0%
        dunkirk1 year, 1 month ago
        
        Wow and you keep coming back. Have you seen someone about that?
        Reply
        5 Replies
        
        0%
        NoSpinDave1 year, 1 month ago
        
        LOl, insults from a bunch of sniveling liberal cowards insn't going to keep me away from spreading the good word:)
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        miklkit1 year, 1 month ago
        
        Unfortunately, all you are spreading is manure.
        Reply
        
        0%
        StarLord1 year, 1 month ago
        
        You seem to be spreading very few *good* words, and a great deal of bile.
        Reply
        
        0%
        dunkirk1 year, 1 month ago
        
        Spreading the good word? I guess that goes along with most things from the right wing these days bad is good, losing is winning, Limpaw didnt malign the troops (DESPITE an ausio clip to the contrary), 20 generals fired by Bush or who quit when they refused to speak the BUsh line clearly don't know what they talk about..... Yeah your spreading a lot altho I wouldnt call it the good word.
        But Davey Im starting a new grass root organization that will replace those "phony" soldiers the righties think are all over in Iraq with tough, no holds barred patriots like yourself. Can I include you as one of the first volunteers to do that? I mean Ive seen all you right wingers waving the flag and defending Lush over this but oddly enough I haven't got one NOT one Lush supporter to volunteer. I figure with your name "NoSpin" youwould do more then just post all those GOP talking points.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        dunkirk1 year, 1 month ago
        
        Wow Here I thought Davey would step up and be a man as the first volunteer for the Lush Limpaw Brigade of TRUE soldiers replacing all thpose "phony" soldiers in Iraq. Instead he negs the post and runs like a rabbit being chased by a Fox, oh well I guess he saw a recruiter and did what most Repugs do run like theres no tomorrow. I guess all he really wants to do IS post all those GOP talking points. Thanks Davey at least we know were YOU stand when it comes time to put your money where your mouth is.
        Reply
    - 0%
      AnteUp1 year, 1 month ago
      
      NoSpinDave ~
      Are you plugging your ears to all the military professionals
      - like GENERALS - who have decried these crazy policies??
      They're not liberals too, are they?
      The fact that most of them are retired - or have waited to say
      anything contrary to the DC spin until they have retired -
      does not detract from their years of service and their
      expertise in the field. It's the gang in the White House
      that has NO expertise in these matters.
      I am totally perplexed as to why people seem to want more
      wars launched on flimsy facts - have you learned nothing??
      Reply
      3 Replies
      - 0%
        NoSpinDave1 year, 1 month ago
        
        For every general that has come out against anything involving the war I can show you 20 who support it. Give me a break. Maybe if your side would stop gettign its news from Shaun Penn, Bradd Pitt, Bill Mahr, Al Frankin, and the rest of the hollywierd elite you might be better informed.
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        nccneon1 year, 1 month ago
        
        I think SpinninDave's handle, NoSpinDave, is a result of taking '1984' to heart. It's called newspeak.
        Reply
        
        0%
        StarLord1 year, 1 month ago
        
        Don't talk about finding generals, do so!
        Oh, and find one who actually commanded the mess - a desk-jockey's analysis reates little enough support from me.
        
        Reply
  - 0%
    MonkeyBiz1 year, 1 month ago
    
    He is a bozo for sure, even his own people don't like him much. But you are making one of those yellow cake, involved in 9-11, mushroom clouds over New York City, fabrications similar to the selling of the Iraq war.
    "He has said many times, he will wipe Israel off the map, he has also said he will wipe American off the map..."
    This is one of those false drumbeats that the neocons will attempt to use to justify an attack on Iran. How does it feel to be their patsy, nancy boy?
    Reply
  - 0%
    RedstateLib1 year, 1 month ago
    
    "Or should we just sit back and let them kill countless numbers of innocent people and do nothing about it!?"
    So in your opinion WE should be the ones to kill thousands of innocent people for no reason? It's OK to start unprovoked wars as long as we are the ones who get to decide where and when that unprovoked war should be?
    Reply
  - 0%
    Coatl1 year, 1 month ago
    
    "Or should we just sit back and let them kill countless numbers of innocent people and do nothing about it!?"
    Do you want to be the one that kill countless numbers of innocent people?
    Reply
  - 0%
    markoller1 year, 1 month ago
    
    Secondchance,
    Don't conservative Bush supporters want global nuclear war to hasten the Millennium?
    Reply
  - 0%
    AnteUp1 year, 1 month ago
    
    bumbaklotartattack ~
    Yeah ~ I've done that - but do you really think Bush will
    feel he has to consult with Congress? I can't believe it's
    happening again either - but what do we do to stop them??
    And furthermore - I don't expect much relief from my Dems -
    did you hear Hillary the other night? She totally accepted
    the Israeli version of why they HAD to invade Syrian
    airspace and bomb facilities within the country. If you've
    read anything about that raid - it's like why WE went into
    Iraq - the Israeli's are on like version #3 of "what really
    happened"!! I am not buying the rationale for that one OR
    for this Iran War their hawking - but I think it's not
    only a DONE deal, but a PACKAGE deal too.
    Reply
0%
ETproductions1 year, 1 month ago

What troubles me is that the Democratic Frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, voted with the Republicans in the Senate to declare Iran's Republican Guard a terrorist organization. That's as good as giving George W. Bush a war declaration.
Regarding her original vote to let Bush decide when to declare war on Iraq, she says, "If I had known then what I know today, I wouldn't have voted that way." She went on to explain that she though Bush would use the authorization to pressure Saddam to let the inspectors in, then let diplomacy and inspections work.
Well, it's now today, and it looks like she still can't get it through her head what this president will do if you let him play soldiers.
Reply
7 Replies
- 0%
  Spinward1 year, 1 month ago
  
  I think Hillary troubles lots of people.
  Different reasons, yes. But very, very troubling.
  Reply
  5 Replies
  - 0%
    blinkers1 year, 1 month ago
    
    Agreed. Could it be "Iron Lady" syndrome -- a Thatcher-like need to seem tough?
    Reply
    4 Replies
    - 0%
      GWHayduke1 year, 1 month ago
      
      More likely her insincerity and trustworthiness.
      Reply
      2 Replies
      - 0%
        nccneon1 year, 1 month ago
        
        I assume you meant, more likely her insincerity and lack of trustworthiness.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        GWHayduke1 year, 1 month ago
        
        Yes, I did.
        Reply
    - 0%
      StarLord1 year, 1 month ago
      
      Hmm. You may be onto something - a woman going for the top job in a traditionally male-dominated field has to act tough. Remember, there are still a few people out there who remember the days when women didn't have the vote.
      Reply
- 0%
  AnteUp1 year, 1 month ago
  
  ET ~
  I firmly believe that the top tier of Democratic candidates
  will do NOTHING to endanger the financial support of AIPAC.
  That does not bode well for us or for Israeli's - and there
  are many - who do not subscribe to the military might
  preference of their own government.
  I mean this will be a terrible development for us - but can
  you imagine living in Israel and having your government
  approve of p*ssing off everyone in the region? I'd be
  terrified - but, like us, their voices are not being heard
  either. What happens when we have eliminated the substantial
  number of Russians in Iran with our bombing runs??
  I feel like Chicken Little - but I see little reason not to!
  Reply
0%
jimdoze1 year, 1 month ago

We should continue to politely ask the Iranians to not build nuclear weapons... that's the ticket! Those cowboy Americans just do not understand polite diplomacy!!
Oh, wait a minute... why are we even thinking about diplomacy?... my bad! Americans have nuclear weapons. British have nuclear weapons. French have nuclear weapons. Soooo... why shouldn't the Iranians have nuclear weapons?
Just why do we care about Iran, anyway? They are a peace loving nation who just wants us all to get along. We should just mind our own business...
and spend our time preparing to whistle "Dixie".

Reply
19 Replies
- 0%
  ETproductions1 year, 1 month ago
  
  Americans have LOTS of nuclear weapons. Over 5,000 active and about the same number in reserve.
  No reason to cower in the corner in fear of a nuclear Iran. The moment they test in violation of the non-proliferation treaty they have signed we have the capacity to turn their entire nuclear program into a glass parking lot.
  For the moment, the IAEA inspectors tell us that Iranian boasts regarding uranium enrichment levels are actually overstated. They are not near building a bomb yet. Pray for their own sakes their people are smart enough to get rid of their corrupt rulers before they make a colossal nuclear blunder. But let's not repeat our Iraq blunder and attack yet another Middle Eastern country that currently posses no real threat to our security.
  Reply
  7 Replies
  - 0%
    Endoscopy1 year, 1 month ago
    
    "No reason to cower in the corner in fear of a nuclear Iran."
    A country that declared war against us and has vowed to eradicate Israel from the face of the Earth. They are supplying men, weapons and money to any and all in Iraq who want to fight. They support all sides against each other wanting more death and destruction. They support terrorists all over the world.
    So what if they get nuclear weapons. They won't do anything with them. "Wake up America"

Hello!

Neocons seek to justify action against Teheran »

Scale of 1 to 10

Click Prop It to Raise Score

Submitted By:

Related Articles:

Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 262