^ Thanks for your input. But don't get mad at me because you're continually wrong concerning just about everything.

8/23/2010 11:44:24 AM

So is most of the world then.

8/23/2010 1:35:52 PM

Missed this part before. Meet Iran's newest "ambassador" to the United States:



Iran's Robotic 'Ambassador of Death' is More Envoy of Annoyance

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/08/irans-ambassador-of-death-drone-is-more-envoy-of-annoyance/

You just can't make this stuff up.

8/30/2010 8:00:05 PM

Quote :

"Looks like they're going to wheel that toy off the stage and have the local high school put on Brigadoon at 7pm."

8/30/2010 8:22:30 PM

Quote :

"Americans like their wars to be honorable, feel-good affairs"

Operation Enduring Freedom.

Mission Accomplished.

War is Peace.

8/31/2010 1:55:59 AM

Tony Blair: West should use force if Iran 'continues to develop nuclear weapons
'Former prime minister says it is wholly unacceptable for Tehran to seek nuclear weapons capability
September 1, 2010

Quote :

"'Now other people may say: "Come on, the consequences of taking them on are too great, you've got to be so very careful, you'll simply upset everybody, you'll destabilise it." I understand all of those arguments. But I wouldn't take the risk of Iran with a nuclear weapon.' In the postscript to his book, Blair writes: 'Iran with a nuclear bomb would mean others in the region acquiring the same capability; it would dramatically alter the balance of power in the region, but also within Islam.'"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/01/tony-blair-west-use-force-iran-nuclear-weapons

Blair's no rabid right-winger.

[Edited on September 6, 2010 at 1:28 AM. Reason : MORE LAPDOG!!!1]

9/6/2010 1:27:34 AM

any missile tech iran develops is going to be medium range.

israel is all grown up now, they can take care of it.

9/6/2010 2:12:56 AM

And that time draws near.

9/6/2010 2:15:28 AM

What about Israel's having nuclear weapons creating a region that is unstable and wants to develop nuclear weapons?

Lets use force to keep Israel from having a nuclear arsenal!

9/6/2010 12:19:44 PM

you are so predictable and pathetic

9/6/2010 1:31:45 PM

We're waiting waiting waiting waiting until iran has nuclear weapons and then we are going to attack, lol.

9/6/2010 3:14:22 PM

Iran accused of building secret underground nuclear plant
Iran has been secretly constructing a vast underground complex to hide a nuclear facility in the mountains east of Tehran in a development that would violate the UN sanctions regime, it has been claimed.
Sept. 9, 2010

Quote :

"The site, code-named 311, is set inside a military base near Abyek, 75 miles outside the capital, and consists of a series of four bombproof tunnels made from reinforced concrete set 656ft (200m) deep inside a desert ridge. The People's Mujahedeen of Iran, an opposition group with an extensive network inside the country, said Tehran launched construction at the facility in 2005 and had spent $100 million (£65 million) on the tunnels. The group has previously revealed secret atomic plants at Natanz and Qom that the Iranian regime has subsequently acknowledged to be nuclear facilities."

http://tinyurl.com/3ynptbz

9/9/2010 6:08:45 PM

nuclear power plants are the best way to make power. If we weren't a bunch of faggots we would be making bank building those plants for the Iranians while scoring heartnmind points at the same time.

9/9/2010 6:11:15 PM

^ As if nuclear power plants were Iran's only motivation.

9/9/2010 6:15:29 PM

we cant know because we dont fucking talk to them.

9/9/2010 6:18:31 PM

^^as if any indications point elsewhere

9/9/2010 6:22:38 PM

^^ Oh, we know. And we've tried.



[Edited on September 9, 2010 at 6:23 PM. Reason : ^ Doesn't merit a response. ]

9/9/2010 6:23:03 PM

US walks out on Ahmadinejad's UN speech

Quote :

"The U.S. delegation left the hall after Ahmadinejad said there were three theories about the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks: _That "powerful and complex terrorist group" penetrated U.S. intelligence and defenses. _"That some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime. The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view." The Americans stood and walked out without listening to the third theory, that the attack was the work of "a terrorist group but the American government supported and took advantage of the situation.""

Continued at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100923/ap_on_re_us/un_un_world_summit_ahmadinejad

He's pretty much right, those are the three general theories. The first one is certainly true, the second lacks supporting evidence. The third theory is also true, I would say. There's no doubt that the United States government took advantage of the American people's fear, passing the PATRIOT act and invading Afghanistan.

Of course, it doesn't matter that he was right on those counts...all that matters is that he even hinted at the "inside job" bullshit. That was enough to warrant walking out of the speech, apparently.

9/23/2010 11:56:53 PM

oh, that guy...

9/26/2010 8:18:43 AM

Quote :

"I would say. There's no doubt that the United States government took advantage of the American people's fear, passing the PATRIOT act and invading Afghanistan."

1. That's not the same thing as the U.S. gov't "supporting" the attack, and both this and #1 cannot simultaneously be true.
2. Invading Afghanistan was a no-brainer. It was originally mostly spec-ops troops operating with the Northern Alliance, anyway. The nation-building thing that it turned into is debatable.
3. I don't think the USAPATRIOT Act was taking advantage of public fear so much as it was a manifestation of fear by the lawmakers that was tolerated due to fear within the public. Maybe it was some of both.
4. Whatever, fuck Ahmadinejad and Iran.

9/26/2010 8:33:08 AM

I like the way you think

9/26/2010 11:09:39 AM

What an intelligent man. He completely ripped this shawn tool apart. If people would listen to what he says and not what hannity says he says maybe they would understand him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-LDK3yaEhE

the best part is when he asked him to swear to allah that he wasn't building a nuke and "why should we believe you aren't"

[Edited on September 26, 2010 at 11:24 AM. Reason : he took him to school]

9/26/2010 11:16:07 AM

You're in over your head, sugar tits.

9/27/2010 9:16:27 AM

Quote :

"1. That's not the same thing as the U.S. gov't "supporting" the attack, and both this and #1 cannot simultaneously be true."

I think saying that the United States government supported the attack falls in with the "insider job" theory. Clearly, we supported the rise of Al Qaeda, decades ago. In any case, I think a government that already wanted to go to war used the attack is a convenient excuse to do so.

Quote :

"Invading Afghanistan was a no-brainer. It was originally mostly spec-ops troops operating with the Northern Alliance, anyway. The nation-building thing that it turned into is debatable."

Sure, invading Afghanistan might have been justified, but occupying it never was. I don't agree with the idea that we have to stay there and rebuild the government because we "want to make sure they don't support terror."

Quote :

"I don't think the USAPATRIOT Act was taking advantage of public fear so much as it was a manifestation of fear by the lawmakers that was tolerated due to fear within the public. Maybe it was some of both."

I'm sure it was some of both, but some of clear violations of liberty (including financial regulations) should have been enough to shoot down the bill. The way it was passed is what's really offensive. Congressmen should at least have to read the bill.

Ahmadinejad is a douche. Iran, however, is made up of a lot of innocent people, and when we impose sanctions on the country, those are the people we're hurting. Now, given that your opinion is "fuck Iran," maybe that's okay. I can tell you that Ahmadinejad and the elite are not the ones suffering from sanctions...they'll get what they need, no matter what. We're just fostering hostility towards the United States at this point though, and if we ever want the Iranian people to come to their senses and say enough is enough, our current policy is not going to cut it.

[Edited on September 27, 2010 at 11:37 AM. Reason : ]

[Edited on September 27, 2010 at 11:37 AM. Reason : ]

9/27/2010 11:36:52 AM

Quote :

"Sure, invading Afghanistan might have been justified, but occupying it never was. I don't agree with the idea that we have to stay there and rebuild the government because we "want to make sure they don't support terror." "

removing the Taliban and leaving wouldve just created a vacuum for some other militant group to seize power with. either that, or the tribes wouldve begun a civil war 5-way. either way, be would have to return to sort it out. we tried the whole "blow shit up and bounce" strategy when the Soviets were defeated. it failed miserably.

if you accept we had to go in to remove the safe haven, you have to accept that we had to at least try to prevent another group from seizing power or a humanitarian disaster. whether or not we will succeed is another argument, but we had to try.

9/27/2010 1:40:01 PM

we have to leave sometime....don't we?

9/27/2010 6:18:08 PM

sure. the idea is you leave after you have given the people the ability to protect themselves, which they clearly have lacked over the last century.

9/27/2010 10:36:50 PM

assuming those same people aren't the ones that we're protecting them from and that there is no likelihood of a destabilizing depression or civil war.

9/27/2010 10:55:46 PM

Quote :

"Clearly, we supported the rise of Al Qaeda"

Oh hell no. I know what you're saying, but our care and feeding of the mujahideen is not the same thing as supporting the rise of al qaeda. I'd say that we actively opposed the rise of al qaeda since at least the mid-90s, maybe a little earlier.

Quote :

"if you accept we had to go in to remove the safe haven, you have to accept that we had to at least try to prevent another group from seizing power or a humanitarian disaster. whether or not we will succeed is another argument, but we had to try."

That's actually exactly what I'm not so sure I accept. I'm not convinced that it isn't actually more in our interests to just play whack-a-mole with al qaeda (and their ilk).

Nation-building success in Afghanistan is far from certain, and the best case scenario is a brokered peace at a significant cost (money, life and limb, and the foreign policy and military readiness costs of having your troops tied up). After all that, even if we succeed, they'll just go to Somalia or somewhere. I think that the whack-a-mole game is pretty much necessary in dealing with them, and if you're going to do that, it just isn't practical to nation build everywhere you chase them to.

On top of that, if people know that al qaeda showing up means that we're going to come in and tear the hell out of the place, then leave, they will be a lot less hospitable to them.

9/28/2010 8:00:00 AM

The only reason we have interest in nation building is to have access to the fine metals.

9/28/2010 8:41:04 AM

^ what’s wrong with that? Supporting long term access of resources is a valid goal for any country.

9/28/2010 8:57:24 AM

Quote :

" That's actually exactly what I'm not so sure I accept. I'm not convinced that it isn't actually more in our interests to just play whack-a-mole with al qaeda (and their ilk). Nation-building success in Afghanistan is far from certain, and the best case scenario is a brokered peace at a significant cost (money, life and limb, and the foreign policy and military readiness costs of having your troops tied up). After all that, even if we succeed, they'll just go to Somalia or somewhere. I think that the whack-a-mole game is pretty much necessary in dealing with them, and if you're going to do that, it just isn't practical to nation build everywhere you chase them to. On top of that, if people know that al qaeda showing up means that we're going to come in and tear the hell out of the place, then leave, they will be a lot less hospitable to them."

I never thought about it like that. That is an interesting perspective.

I do keep going back in my mind to the 80's when we helped rout the Soviets...if we had only stayed and helped rebuild the country, in what kind of state would Afghanistan be today? would OSB have been able to grasp the same foothold somewhere else?

9/28/2010 9:01:57 AM

Yeah, who knows? I think that preventing their rise might have been doable, in hindsight, but it probably would have involved more than just rebuilding Afghanistan. You had the Arab (particularly Saudi) world churning out jihadists and giving them lots of money, OBL would have been pissed regardless, and the Pakistani ISI undermining our efforts in Afghanistan.

The whole thing with Al Qaeda is that they're nebulous by design. It's not that being more selective at an earlier stage in who we supported (i.e., getting more directly involved ourselves earlier in the game rather than deferring to the ISI), making a more earnest effort at stability in Afghanistan back in the 90s, etc wouldn't have been beneficial...but I don't know that those things alone would have prevented our Al Qaeda problem.

^^, ^^^ While the mineral wealth could possibly be good for Afghanistan (or bad, like diamonds in Africa), I really don't think that has anything to do with our involvement. Our involvement is not really about "spreading freedom" or any other happy bullshit like people like to talk about--it's about American national interests. However, our interest in this one, in my opinion, isn't really about treasure or even geopolitics so much as simply security.
^^^

[Edited on September 28, 2010 at 2:37 PM. Reason : ]

9/28/2010 2:33:04 PM

Its pretty distorted to think that huts in Afghanistan pose a unique threat to US security. Security is done at home and the location of us interests abroad. Organizations will always be able to operate regardless if they have a "safe haven" or not.

9/28/2010 10:57:31 PM

Well, no, I'd say that they need a safe haven, at least to have anywhere near the effectiveness and power that they enjoy(ed)...but that safe haven doesn't have to be Afghanistan.

9/29/2010 12:46:58 AM

Quote :

"Our involvement is not really about "spreading freedom" or any other happy bullshit like people like to talk about--it's about American national interests. However, our interest in this one, in my opinion, isn't really about treasure or even geopolitics so much as simply security."

Even if you don't care about the welfare of brown people half way around the world, you would still be wrong in writing off Afghan democracy as "happy bulllshit" while claiming to care about "American national interests." The ways in which a stable, free, and democratic Afghanistan benefit the United States are innumerable, especially when compared to the alternative.

[Edited on September 29, 2010 at 9:26 AM. Reason : ]

9/29/2010 9:25:59 AM

Quote :

"Afghans find tons of explosive devices transferred from Iran Kabul, Afghanistan (CNN) -- Authorities in southwestern Afghanistan have seized 19 tons of explosive devices that had been transferred across the border from Iran, police said. Nimruz Police Chief Abdul Jabar Purdel said a suspect was detained. Nimruz province, in Afghanistan's southwestern corner, borders Iran and Pakistan The devices had been placed in 337 boxes inside a 40-foot shipping container transferred from Iran over a bridge linking Afghanistan and Iran, he said. Earlier this year, a senior U.S. Defense Department official said that new U.S. military intelligence suggests Iran planned to smuggle new shipments of weapons into Afghanistan as part of an increased effort to interfere with coalition operations. The information came from an "Iranian source" whose tips on past shipments have been verified by the United States, the official said in April. The official also noted that Iran -- a majority Shiite country -- and the Sunni Taliban almost went to war with one another in the late 1990s, so it's not really in their interest to be a major source of top-shelf arms to the Taliban. Tehran has consistently denied supporting groups opposed to the Afghan government. U.S. and coalition troops have found evidence of some Iranian weapons inside Afghanistan in seized caches or in the aftermath of attacks."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/10/06/afghanistan.iran.weapons/index.html?hpt=T2

10/6/2010 11:38:33 AM

http://www.examiner.com/foreign-policy-in-national/breaking-ahmadinejad-to-resign

Quote :

"A few minutes ago on May 5, 2011, Arab TV announced that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini requested Iran's President Ahmadinejad to step down from his post. This has not been confirmed nor verified by Western media as yet, however, it has been reported that several of his close aides are already under arrest. The UK Guardian reported today that many of Ahmadinejad's aides were accused of using 'supernatural powers', including invoking jinns (spirits) in an attempt to further the president's agenda against Khameini. This includes Irani Chief of Staff Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei"

here's the guardian article
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/05/ahmadinejad-allies-charged-with-sorcery

o rly??

[Edited on May 5, 2011 at 6:37 PM. Reason : didn't see any other media reports on the resignation yet]

5/5/2011 6:35:49 PM

and this, in a nutshell, is why they shouldnt have nuclear anything.

5/6/2011 8:00:05 AM

5/6/2011 6:45:58 PM

^^^strange. Khameini has been an untiring supporter of him and his extremely conservative policies from the get-go, particularly, the way he pushes the Islamic Nationalist movement. . .what's interesting to note is that Khameini is ardently against the creation of nuclear weapons, as it is against Islam, apparently....makes ya wonder if they are indeed stockpiling them

I wonder, too, what exactly of Khameini's agenda Ahm is against....interesting.

[Edited on May 7, 2011 at 9:57 AM. Reason : asdfdsssaaaaaaaaaaaa]

5/7/2011 9:53:13 AM

No bttt yet?

10/12/2011 3:22:45 PM

It's old hat. Well, in this case Old Quds.

10/12/2011 4:03:53 PM

This is modern day propaganda. Pretty preposterous that Washington is pinning this on the Iranian government to push the global agenda's of us, the saudi's and Israel while simultaneously trying to convince china and russia to tie their own hands behind their back.

Its a sad ploy to deflect attention away from our dire domestic situation.

10/12/2011 6:55:12 PM

Don't believe in this "Iranian plot"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFQO60H6fSU

10/13/2011 4:22:08 PM

Did you really just post a link to a clip from a state-run Russian news outlet?

10/13/2011 7:20:11 PM

As opposed to what? State run American news?

10/13/2011 7:48:11 PM

RT is one of the most unbiased news outlets on the web. Honestly, I'm not sure if I buy this story either.

The whole idea that Iran would here some Mexican drug runners to assassinate a Saudi official is just plain comical. Do you realize how good the Iranian special forces and intelligence agencies are?

10/13/2011 8:50:31 PM

^ How good they are compared to what? Mall cops? Real quick we spend 700b a year they spend 9b.

10/13/2011 9:04:04 PM

I fell for the whole weapons of mass destruction thing back in '03. Since then I've learned not to trust our government when it comes to their mideast relations anything they say. In fact now I just assume the opposite of what they say is true because it is more fun to pinpoint the underlying motivations/power players involved.

10/13/2011 9:29:16 PM