Iran...Stand Down or Else.

[zeusbheld]

Can anyone here the tip toe of Zeus?

nope.

zeus isn't going to bother for a number of reasons.....

That's a lot of chirping you just did for someone who "isn't going to bother for a number of reasons" and then going on and listing the various reasons.

oh horseshit. you know goddamn well if i were to bother i'd do a **** of a lot more than toss off a few reasons off the top of my head and a couple of snide comments.

.... hear that? it's the sound of me not addressing the bulk of your comments. it's part of 'not bothering.'

I'll buy into part of the argument. The part about possible Iranian grandstanding.

which tacitly implies you are aware that iran's military nuclear capability may be greater than my own personal military nuclear capability, but only ever so slightly.

But do any of you truly believe the U.S. is grandstanding? After telling the U.N. to go f*ck itself when the U.N. refused to enforce Iraq sanctions as the U.S. and its coalition allies went ahead and enforced them? Do you really believe the U.S. won't escalate this further (esp.with French, German and Canadian backing) if the Iranian terror regime doesn't stand down, regardless Beijing's and Moscow's objections? Thinking along those lines after everything that has taken place thus far (Iraq, Libya, North Korea) can only be considered delusional.

do you really believe that this is some deviation from standard US foreign policy, that ANY administration wouldn't do it, that it requires a "principled republican" (or, failing that, Bush)? i don't. i think this is SOP. any president would take that stance.

the real question is whether there is any nuclear capability to lob a cruise missle at... and so far, no evidence that there is.

PS "moscow's objections"? you really haven't paid much attention to putin have you. putin, iran's chief ally, has pretty much agreed with the rest of the world that iran must not have nuclear weapons. and you wonder why i'm not going to bother with this (and yeah, this *is* the sound of me not bothering, and you know it).

[steevolution]

lily liver cowards who chickened out of fighting, but have no problem seeing thousands of young americans and hundreds of thousands of iraqs dying !!

Veeblebroken, is he talkin bout u? chickens can be so hawkish.

and now after threatening to start WWIII Veeblebroken, what you got to say about the US intelligence agencies deciding there is no iranian nuclear weapons program?

the real issue has got to be penis size.

u were in the photo op on the aircraft carrier with the "mission accomplished" sign, weren't u? really puffing yor chest out?

Veeblebroken, there's just not enuff of u for everybody to get a good kick/stomp in.

[Guest iamsamtoo]

I always laugh when I read arguments like these... in a melancholic way... Its funny how people can see but not really. It reminds me of the marching hammers from the movie The Wall.

Im talking about arguments like the one below.

They are also responsible for the flow of Iranian weapons into Iraq for regional destabilization purposes.

The most destabilizing force to have ever hit the Middle East is the US and its idealism (read democratization through the barrel of a gun) which leaves no room for independent thought other than the "suggested".

Oh sorry.. I forgot.. "we" had to get rid of Saddam. Terribly sorry, my memory is short. Dont tell me, dont tell me. It was because... Saddam had weapons of math death [sic Bush] !! Wasnt it?

No wait... he supported Osama, yeah thats right... even though they both wanted each other more dead than anything else... hmm...

Or was it because of what Saddam did to the poor kurds? But... I thought we were ok with that back in the 80's? Its an issue again?

I guess the wind is blowing in all directions right now.. but I guess that has never bother people who hold such arguments. Thats the beauty of it isnt it? The ability to change in mid sentence. Animal farm and 1984 comes to mind.

[vbroker]

I always laugh when I read arguments like these...

That's because your viewpoint is a joke. Not to mention your post's laughable timing in light of this article:

Reuter's Article

The most destabilizing force to have ever hit the Middle East is the US and its idealism (read democratization through the barrel of a gun) which leaves no room for independent thought other than the "suggested".

Yeah that's right you simpleton. It's all the U.S.'s fault. The big bad U.S. You and the rest of the puny minds here keep barking the same tired bullsh*t. That's what I think of your and others "independent" thought. Have another drink.

Oh sorry.. I forgot.. "we" had to get rid of Saddam. Terribly sorry, my memory is short. Dont tell me, dont tell me. It was because... Saddam had weapons of math death [sic Bush] !! Wasnt it?

No wait... he supported Osama, yeah thats right... even though they both wanted each other more dead than anything else... hmm...

Or was it because of what Saddam did to the poor kurds? But... I thought we were ok with that back in the 80's? Its an issue again?

Memory? That was what.....beer number 13? Teerak number 72 over in the corner is all yours for the low 600 Baht barfine price and an additional 2000 Baht short time. Have at it, free thinker.

I guess the wind is blowing in all directions right now.. but I guess that has never bother people who hold such arguments. Thats the beauty of it isnt it? The ability to change in mid sentence. Animal farm and 1984 comes to mind.

Sounds more like the logic emanating from an animal brain. Like a jackass, for instance.

[steevolution]

I always laugh when I read arguments like these...

That's because your viewpoint is a joke. Not to mention your post's laughable timing in light of this article:

Reuter's Article

The most destabilizing force to have ever hit the Middle East is the US and its idealism (read democratization through the barrel of a gun) which leaves no room for independent thought other than the "suggested".

Yeah that's right you simpleton. It's all the U.S.'s fault. The big bad U.S. You and the rest of the puny minds here keep barking the same tired bullsh*t. That's what I think of your and others "independent" thought. Have another drink.

Oh sorry.. I forgot.. "we" had to get rid of Saddam. Terribly sorry, my memory is short. Dont tell me, dont tell me. It was because... Saddam had weapons of math death [sic Bush] !! Wasnt it?

No wait... he supported Osama, yeah thats right... even though they both wanted each other more dead than anything else... hmm...

Or was it because of what Saddam did to the poor kurds? But... I thought we were ok with that back in the 80's? Its an issue again?

Memory? That was what.....beer number 13? Teerak number 72 over in the corner is all yours for the low 600 Baht barfine price and an additional 2000 Baht short time. Have at it, free thinker.

I guess the wind is blowing in all directions right now.. but I guess that has never bother people who hold such arguments. Thats the beauty of it isnt it? The ability to change in mid sentence. Animal farm and 1984 comes to mind.

Sounds more like the logic emanating from an animal brain. Like a jackass, for instance.

VeebleBroken, i'll say it one more time, "your job is to lick ass from here till Sunday. and by the time you get finished it'll be dirty again and you'll have to start all over."

are you enjoying the "creative destruction" boy? cause now's about the time when the chest thumpin, struttin, red-blooded capitalists start beggin for momma, and a government bail-out. they'll get it too. trouble for the arselikkers is that the big boys consider them expendable. i'll come visit you in the computer section at Walmart.

[Zombiedriven]

Well some one had to bring this out of the closet so to say. So here we go!

Firstly in my opinion Iran is nothing much more than North Korea. Time will destroy them both not the U.S.A.

Now to my work place Afghanistan. Well as I recall we did not tell any one to Fu#k off as far as I can see it was N.A.T.O. aka here I.S.A.F. that told the U.S.A. to back off. Now ISAF is wanting more support after they decided they could more or less handle it by themselves. And for 2 years they just sat around the Big bases Tarin Kowt aka Camp Holland, Kandahar Airfield and B.A.F. and a few others I have been there they did the same thing over and over again causing mass casualties unlike the U.S.A. they would not change up and do anything different. After the 2 years of getting their asses handed to them they ask for the U.S.A. to "Send in the Marines"

And guess what the U.S.A. did they are sending in 3000 Marines.

[beej]

After the 2 years of getting their asses handed to them they ask for the U.S.A. to "Send in the Marines"

And guess what the U.S.A. did they are sending in 3000 Marines.

And what will the 3000 Marines do???

Shoot anything that moves and generally turn the whole of Afghanistan into and total anti West **** pit.

GO MARINES GO!!!

WOOOO HOOOOO

******* hard ons.

[Zombiedriven]

Hey we could have made the country into the worlds largest ski resort

[R.Win]

**** IRAN! Go ISAN!!!

[GoldMember]

He?s not the Ayatollah, he?s a very naughty boy.

[condotown]

Jimmy Carter blew it in 1979 when he had the chance to nuke Tehran.... Give a 24 hour ultimatum to release the hostages or drop the big one. Sure... lose a few Amerikan hostages... But no big deal.....Let the world know who doesn't fold to a bunch of rag-headed hostage takers.

If that would have occurred, the USA wouldn't be laughed at as the big joke it has become today.

[steevolution]

Jimmy Carter blew it in 1979 when he had the chance to nuke Tehran.... Give a 24 hour ultimatum to release the hostages or drop the big one. Sure... lose a few Amerikan hostages... But no big deal.....Let the world know who doesn't fold to a bunch of rag-headed hostage takers.

If that would have occurred, the USA wouldn't be laughed at as the big joke it has become today.

why can't America's leaders see it this way! if they were willing to really fry some civilians on a large scale, like back in the glory days of WWII, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing 100,000 people in the blink of an eye (instead of in drips an drabs over the course of a five year war) people would fear America properly. and then we could take whatever they had whenever we wanted to without them complaining about it. teach em respect for the Red White and Blue and good Christian values. that's what's lacking in the world.

it'd all be so simple if only we had some good clear-headed leaders. Adolph Hitler, now there was a guy that knew how to get things done.

[eagle]

Jimmy Carter blew it in 1979 when he had the chance to nuke Tehran.... Give a 24 hour ultimatum to release the hostages or drop the big one. Sure... lose a few Amerikan hostages... But no big deal.....Let the world know who doesn't fold to a bunch of rag-headed hostage takers.

If that would have occurred, the USA wouldn't be laughed at as the big joke it has become today.

why can't America's leaders see it this way! if they were willing to really fry some civilians on a large scale, like back in the glory days of WWII, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing 100,000 people in the blink of an eye (instead of in drips an drabs over the course of a five year war) people would fear America properly. and then we could take whatever they had whenever we wanted to without them complaining about it. teach em respect for the Red White and Blue and good Christian values. that's what's lacking in the world.

it'd all be so simple if only we had some good clear-headed leaders. Adolph Hitler, now there was a guy that knew how to get things done.

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

[vbroker]

Naaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Iran ain't nuclear. I mean sheeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiitttt. Liberals favorite leader Ahmadinejad just said the country is. So who you gonna believe, Liberals; your idol Iranian Prez Mahmoud or the TF "think" tank? And now a word from another of your favorites:

AHMADINEJAD: 'YEP, I'M NUCLEAR!'

February 17, 2010

The only man causing President Obama more headaches than Joe Biden these days is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (who, coincidentally, was right after Biden on Obama's short-list for V.P.).

Despite Obama's personal magnetism, the Iranian president persists in moving like gangbusters to build nuclear weapons, leading to Ahmadinejad's announcement last week that Iran is now a "nuclear state."

Gee, that's weird -- because I remember being told in December 2007 that all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies had concluded that Iran had ceased nuclear weapons development as of 2003.

At the time of that leak, many of us recalled that the U.S. has the worst intelligence-gathering operations in the world. The Czechs, the French, the Italians -- even the Iraqis (who were trained by the Soviets) -- all have better intelligence.

Burkina Faso has better intelligence -- and their director of intelligence is a witch doctor. The marketing division of Wal-Mart has more reliable intel than the U.S. government does.

After Watergate, the off-the-charts left-wing Congress gleefully set about dismantling this nation's intelligence operations on the theory that Watergate never would have happened if only there had been no CIA.

Ron Dellums, a typical Democrat of the time, who -- amazingly -- was a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, famously declared in 1975: "We should totally dismantle every intelligence agency in this country piece by piece, brick by brick, nail by nail."

And so they did.

So now, our "spies" are prohibited from spying. The only job of a CIA officer these days is to read foreign newspapers and leak classified information to The New York Times. It's like a secret society of newspaper readers. The reason no one at the CIA saw 9/11 coming was that there wasn't anything about it in the Islamabad Post.

(On the plus side, at least we haven't had another break-in at the Watergate.)

CIA agents can't spy because that might require them to break laws in foreign countries. They are perfectly willing to break U.S. laws to leak to The New York Times, but not in order to acquire valuable intelligence.

So it was curious that after months of warnings from the Bush administration in 2007 that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program, a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran was leaked, concluding that Iran had ceased its nuclear weapons program years earlier.

Republicans outside of the administration went ballistic over the suspicious timing and content of the Iran-Is-Peachy report. Even The New York Times, of all places, ran a column by two outside experts on Iran's nuclear programs that ridiculed the NIE's conclusion.

Gary Milhollin of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control and Valerie Lincy of Iranwatch.org cited Iran's operation of 3,000 gas centrifuges at its plant at Natanz, as well as a heavy-water reactor being built at Arak, neither of which had any peaceful energy purpose. (If only there were something plentiful in Iran that could be used for energy!)

Weirdly, our intelligence agencies missed those nuclear operations. They were too busy reading an article in the Tehran Tattler, "Iran Now Loves Israel."

Ahmadinejad was ecstatic, calling the NIE report "a declaration of the Iranian people's victory against the great powers."

The only people more triumphant than Ahmadinejad about the absurd conclusion of our vaunted "intelligence" agencies were liberals.

In Time magazine, Joe Klein gloated that the Iran report "appeared to shatter the last shreds of credibility of the White House's bomb-Iran brigade -- and especially that of Vice President D ick Cheney."

Liberal columnist Bill Press said, "No matter how badly Bush and Cheney wanted to carpet-bomb Iran, it's clear now that doing so would have been a tragic mistake."

Naturally, the most hysterical response came from MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. After donning his mother's housecoat, undergarments and fuzzy slippers, Keith brandished the NIE report, night after night, demanding that Bush apologize to the Iranians.

"Having accused Iran of doing something it had stopped doing more than four years ago," Olbermann thundered, "instead of apologizing or giving a diplomatic response of any kind, this president of the United States chuckled."

Olbermann ferociously defended innocent-as-a-lamb Mahmoud from aspersions cast by the Bush administration, asking: "Could Mr. Bush make it any more of a mess ... in response to Iran's anger at being in some respects, at least, either overrated or smeared, his response officially chuckling, how is that going to help anything?"

Bush had "smeared" Iran!

Olbermann's Ed McMahon, the ever-obliging Howard Fineman of Newsweek, agreed, saying that the leaked intelligence showed that Bush "has zero credibility."

Olbermann's even creepier sidekick, androgynous Newsweek reporter Richard Wolffe, also agreed, saying American credibility "has suffered another serious blow."

Poor Iran!

Olbermann's most macho guest, Rachel Maddow, demanded to know -- with delightful originality -- "what the president knew and when he knew it." This was on account of Bush's having disparaged the good name of a messianic, Holocaust-denying nutcase, despite the existence of a cheery report on Iran produced by our useless intelligence agencies.

Olbermann, who knows everything that's on the Daily Kos and nothing else, called those who doubted the NIE report "liars" and repeatedly demanded an investigation into when Bush knew about the NIE's laughable report.

Even if you weren't aware that the U.S. has the worst intelligence in the world, and even if you didn't notice that the leak was timed perfectly to embarrass Bush, wouldn't any normal person be suspicious of a report concluding Ahmadinejad was behaving like a prince?

Not liberals. Our intelligence agencies concluded Iran had suspended its nuclear program in 2003, so Bush owed Ahmadinejad an apology.

Feb. 11, 2010: Ahmadinejad announces that Iran is now a nuclear power.

Thanks, liberals!

COPYRIGHT 2010 ANN COULTER

DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK

1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106

[Teddy]

Adolph Hitler, now there was a guy that knew how to get things done.

The most entertaining thing Ive read all day. XD

[Stramash]

Adolph Hitler, now there was a guy that knew how to get things done.

The most entertaining thing Ive read all day. XD

Hitler???

Goddamn ***** wimp liberal!!!

Oops, sorry. I went all vbrokerish for a minute...

:wink:

[LasseDK]

why can't America's leaders see it this way! if they were willing to really fry some civilians on a large scale, like back in the glory days of WWII, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing 100,000 people in the blink of an eye (instead of in drips an drabs over the course of a five year war) people would fear America properly. and then we could take whatever they had whenever we wanted to without them complaining about it. teach em respect for the Red White and Blue and good Christian values. that's what's lacking in the world.

'back in the days' nations attacked each other, different game today, today individuals attacs nations.

I do though agree that it would be so much easier to do warfare the oldfashioned way, but you forget a few wars in between, especially Vietnam where US was tought a lesson of the effects an oldfashioned warfare has on media and public opinion.

It wasnt the world or opposing forces that made US leave vietnam, it was the people of USA, therefore it doesnt make sense to start talking about "just do it".

it'd all be so simple if only we had some good clear-headed leaders. Adolph Hitler, now there was a guy that knew how to get things done.

:shock: Yeah he did a great job didnt he ? in 5 years he levelled most of Germany into a big pile of rubbish that took decades to get back on track, and left generations im guilt not to mention all the lives that were lost for no reason at all.

[DANNO]

Adolph Hitler, now there was a guy that knew how to get things done.

The most entertaining thing Ive read all day. XD

Hitler???

Goddamn p*ssy wimp liberal!!!

Oops, sorry. I went all vbrokerish for a minute...

:wink:

Iaian actually it was all AnnCoulterish that you went ... ya wimp Pu**y :oops: