Do you even know who that is, or do you just see hipsters wearing his image on a shirt?

11/10/2009 9:27:25 AM

If I was in the position of having to defend my hawkish beliefs, I might also post a picture of a well-known marxist in lieu of an actual argument.

11/10/2009 9:31:58 AM

American arabs? Honkies that move to Syria? They're worth even less.

Arab Americans? Well, depends on where their allegiances really lie.

1 American > 10,000 Persians.

[Edited on November 10, 2009 at 10:14 AM. Reason : *]

11/10/2009 10:12:27 AM

Hope you're trolling

11/10/2009 10:21:30 AM

Well folks on peopleofwalmart.com are an even exchange. 1 white trash == 1 Arab or Persian.

I mean we have standards here.

11/10/2009 11:02:39 AM

lol

11/10/2009 11:07:24 AM

Iran calls on Russia to fulfill missile sales deal
Thu Nov 12, 2009

Quote :

"TEHRAN (Reuters) - Russia should honor a contract to sell a missile defense system to Iran and not bend to outside pressure, the Islamic Republic's defense minister said in remarks published on Thursday. Russia, which is under Western pressure to distance itself from Iran, has not followed through on proposals to supply high-grade S-300 air defense missiles. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praised Russia last month for not providing the arms to Iran, which is at odds with the West over its nuclear and missile programs. Israel says the S-300 systems could be used to defend Iranian nuclear facilities against potential air strikes."

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5AB1A920091112

11/12/2009 8:12:39 AM

A perspective from the other side, The palestine telegraph:

http://www.paltelegraph.com/diaries/featured-articles/2827-the-wests-threat-to-iran-and-the-iaea

Not saying I agree with him, just interesting to see how they rationalize the situation

11/12/2009 10:24:51 AM

U.S. Moves to Seize Properties Tied to Iran
November 12, 2009

Quote :

"Federal prosecutors in Manhattan began legal action on Thursday to seize properties in Queens and across the country where several mosques are located in a broad move against a nonprofit organization that was accused of illegally providing money and other services to Iran. The organization, the Alavi Foundation, owns the land on which the mosques sit, as well as a majority interest in an office tower at 650 Fifth Avenue in Manhattan, which has also been slated for seizure by the government. The authorities accused the Alavi Foundation of spending millions of dollars to obtain and develop the properties, in violation of federal laws that ban trade with Iran."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/nyregion/13seize.html

11/13/2009 7:19:44 AM

hooksaw let me help you out: http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=iran

no need to post anymore

11/13/2009 7:20:54 AM

^ Why don't you follow your own advice--you're not required to comment, asshole. I'm convinced that many here simply don't follow the news, despite their emphatic assertions to the contrary.

11/13/2009 7:28:28 AM

Iran Expanding Effort to Stifle the Opposition
November 23, 2009

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/world/middleeast/24iran.html

GG.

11/24/2009 1:29:33 PM

Quote :

"1 American > 10,000 Persians."

If you're talking about body weight, that's probably pretty close.

11/24/2009 1:50:51 PM

haven't we decimated any iranians yet?

come on obama already... i can't wait for some'o'dat persian blood to spill. nuke'em already, man. watch "300" for inspiration, obama.


[Edited on November 24, 2009 at 5:40 PM. Reason : ]

11/24/2009 5:39:16 PM

^Who is we?

11/25/2009 7:01:17 AM

Israel

11/25/2009 8:06:14 PM

IAEA chief: Iran investigation at 'dead end'
(AP) – 1 day ago

Quote :

"VIENNA — The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency says his probe of allegations that Iran tried to make nuclear arms is at 'a dead end' because Tehran is not cooperating. He is also critical of Iran for trying to change a plan endorsed by six world powers. That plan would delay Tehran's ability to make such weapons by committing it to ship out most of its enriched uranium and have it returned as nuclear fuel. IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei spoke at the start of the IAEA's 35-nation board meeting. That gathering will likely vote on a resolution critical of Iran's nuclear defiance backed by six world powers negotiating with Iran; the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iRqjZV1Meppj40hTs8IBOv4DdsQwD9C761C81

Will some of you now have the stones to finally admit that Iran has no intention of cooperating?

[Edited on November 27, 2009 at 8:29 PM. Reason : You know, since "evil warmonger" Bush isn't saying it? ]

11/27/2009 8:03:12 PM

What if we had the "stones" before? Back when "warmonger" Bush was saying it.

[Edited on November 27, 2009 at 9:10 PM. Reason : .]

11/27/2009 9:10:24 PM

^^ Admitting it means nothing. The problem is that we don't have any realistic means of doing anything about it.

11/27/2009 9:14:25 PM

i think what a lot of people have been saying is, "what are we supposed to do about it now?"

11/27/2009 10:14:51 PM

What should the United States do? See the hooksaw plan listed throughout this thread. In the meantime, this is what's happening:

Russia and China Endorse Agency’s Rebuke of Iran
November 27, 2009

Quote :

"WASHINGTON — The United Nations nuclear watchdog demanded Friday that Iran immediately freeze operations at a once secret uranium enrichment plant, a sharp rebuke that bore added weight because it was endorsed by Russia and China. The governing body of the watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, meeting in Vienna, also expressed 'serious concern' about potential military aspects of Iran's nuclear program. Administration officials held up the statement as a victory for President Obama's diplomatic efforts to coax both Russia and China to increase the pressure on Iran. They said that they had begun working on a sanctions package, which would be brought before the United Nations Security Council if Iran did not meet the year-end deadline imposed by Mr. Obama to make progress on the issue. 'Today's overwhelming vote at the I.A.E.A.'s Board of Governors demonstrates the resolve and unity of the international community with regard to Iran's nuclear program,' the White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said in a statement. 'Indeed, the fact that 25 countries from all parts of the world cast their votes in favor shows the urgent need for Iran to address the growing international deficit of confidence in its intentions.' In recent weeks, the Obama administration has been painstakingly wooing Russia and China, the two permanent members of the Security Council most averse to imposing sanctions."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/28/world/28nuke.html

Why aren't some of you cheering Obama's alleged diplomatic "victory"?

11/28/2009 7:03:50 PM

because with the subtle hostility of your post above comes uncertainty as to whether you are mocking his "diplomatic victory" or praising it. therefore we are hesitant to publicly embrace something without knowing your opinion on it first.

[Edited on November 29, 2009 at 3:19 AM. Reason : .]

11/29/2009 3:14:28 AM

^ Um. . .yeah. . .whatever. I didn't put "diplomatic victory" in quotation marks--I put "victory" in quotation marks. If you're going to quote me, please do so accurately.

I put "victory" in quotation marks (1) because it is a word directly quoted from The New York Times story I posted above and (2) whether the diplomatic maneuvering at issue is an actual victory (define it) remains to be seen. These points, however, should have been self-evident.

11/29/2009 4:40:54 AM

personally, i view an "actual" victory as sanctions on iran, so called "crippling" sanctions, that focus on petroleum imports. This 25-3 vote will not cause that to happen. IMO.(therefore I don't find this to be an "actual" victory, but rather just one of those "feelgood" news stories, thats good to hear over the long holiday break.) China does too much business with Iran to go on board with sanctions. The fact of the matter is china's second leading producer of oil is iran, china supplies 1/3 of irans petro imports, and china just signed a 6.5 billion dollar agreement to build more refineries in Iran. Lack of refineries is the whole reason we want sanctions on petro imports in the first place! The other side of the equation is that this would almost certainly unify the Iranian public behind ahmadinejad against the west. Big bully zionist america making lives of ordinary Iranians more unpleasant, even those that supported reformists etc, which I don't think is positive or any kind of "victory", either. I am very pleased that the IAEA FINALLY got some backbone. That was a breath of fresh air long overdue.

As for quoting you incorrectly, I did that purposely; I guess to prove a point on how it seemed like you were framing the question disingenuously. I think the point was made because you posted why you quoted it the way you did. (which after my "judging a book by its cover" post, I find admirable) So I apoligize for that and shan't misquote you again.

[Edited on November 29, 2009 at 5:27 AM. Reason : ;>,\]

11/29/2009 5:03:21 AM

^ Fair enough. sir. Thank you.

11/29/2009 5:32:29 AM

I just tried to edit the blasted thing again! Past 30 minutes. I want to be clear on my position. Hope this doesn't bother anyone to post such a similar block of text. But a few of the changes are big clarifications in my opinion.

Quote :

"personally, i view an "actual" victory as sanctions on iran, so called "crippling" sanctions, that focus on petroleum imports. This 25-3 vote will not cause that to happen. IMO.(therefore I don't find this to be an "actual" victory, but rather just one of those "feelgood" news stories, thats good to hear over the long holiday break.) China does too much business with Iran to go on board with sanctions. The fact of the matter is china's second leading producer of oil is iran, china supplies 1/3 of irans petro imports, and china just signed a 6.5 billion dollar agreement to build more refineries in Iran. Lack of refineries is the whole reason we want sanctions on petro imports in the first place! The other side of the equation is that this would almost certainly unify the Iranian public behind ahmadinejad against the west. Big bully zionist america making lives of ordinary Iranians more unpleasant, even those that supported reformists etc. Given the option of China to keep on stonewalling a sanctions resolution and the international community getting nowhere in this, or having a unified Iranian public thats dealing with sanctions that make their life tougher, I pick sanctions. I am very pleased that the IAEA FINALLY got some backbone. That was a breath of fresh air long overdue. As for quoting you incorrectly, I did that purposely; I guess to prove a point on how it seemed like you were framing the question disingenuously. I think the point was made because you posted why you quoted it the way you did. (which after my "judging a book by its cover" post, I find admirable) So I apoligize for that and shan't misquote you again."

Furthermore, Iran threatening to pull out of the NPT, because of this vote, plays into our hands and I don't think they will be foolish enough to go through with it.

[Edited on November 29, 2009 at 5:40 AM. Reason : .]

11/29/2009 5:35:32 AM

Someone sent this to me:

Iran earmarks $20 million to support militants
Nov 29, 2009

Quote :

"TEHRAN, Iran – Iran's parliament passed a law on Sunday earmarking $20 million to support militant groups opposing the West and investigate alleged U.S. and British plots against the Islamic Republic."

Quote :

"It was not immediately clear which groups would receive funding from Iran, but Tehran already backs the Islamic militants Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The bill also taps funds to 'confront plots and unjust restrictions' by the Washington and London against Tehran and to disclose 'human rights abuses by the two countries.'"

Quote :

"Iran's parliament speaker, Ali Larijani, warned on Sunday that Tehran could scale back its cooperation with the IAEA if the West continues to pressure Tehran over its nuclear program. That follows similar threats from other Iranian officials in recent days. To that end, lawmakers asked the government on Sunday to begin drawing up a bill to reduce cooperation with U.N. nuclear agency."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091129/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran

11/29/2009 9:46:46 PM

Who is "someone"? Obviously must be a super cool source if you go out of your way to mention it like that. What listserv did you grab this off of?

Ok, let's play the most likely doomsday scenario:

fearing a nuclear Iran, Israel or the US in concert with Israel launches a tactical strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. do you think Iran would just cower in fear of our might or would they be more likely to retaliate against civilian targets, either on their own or through proxies?

How likely is the first scenario?

And though I'm sure you'll hilariously claim this as anti-Semetic, why should we have to respond to a threat to anything but our own civilian population or military members abroad, esp. when the target itself is more than capable of defending itself? Should we be intervening militarily or even diplomatically (w/o being asked to) in more places to protect more populations other than the Israelis? Just picking the brain of the war hawk on this one, more than anything.

[Edited on November 29, 2009 at 10:08 PM. Reason : .]

11/29/2009 10:07:09 PM

Quote :

"Someone sent this to me: Iran earmarks $20 million to support militants Nov 29, 2009"

It almost seems like Iran views the United States as its roll model...following in its foot steps and all.

11/29/2009 10:24:07 PM

^^ I assume you mean anti-Semitic, genius?

I have made my position perfectly clear--read the thread. But many in TSB simply can't allow themselves to admit that I am and have been right about Iran. They have no real answer--other than to simply let Iran go nuclear in some half-baked moral equivalence ("We have nukes, so why can't Iran have them?").

We should always pursue diplomacy to its utmost. But when the hostile party in question, Iran, clearly has no intention of engaging in serious diplomacy--and has every intention of pursuing and possibly even using a weapon of mass destruction--we must stop this by any means necessary.

Israel--the nation threatened the most by a nuclear Iran--needs to strike heavy, hard, and soon. And the United States and other nations of the world need to support them in this--and the United States in particular should back them to the hilt (this would not be without far-reaching ramifications, of course). Keep in mind that I am advocating a direct and overwhelming attack on the direct threat--not an attack on the people of Iran. Clearly, there is a significant difference.

The people of Iran should initiate any regime change. And I wish they would do it sooner rather than later--perhaps any escalation could then be avoided.

I do not wish for war--I wish for peace. But peace does not simply mean the absence of conflict; it means the presence of justice.

^ Do you mean role model, genius?

11/30/2009 4:43:59 AM

no, roll...because thats how they like to roll...who's the genius now...

Quote :

"I have made my position perfectly clear--read the thread. But many in TSB simply can't allow themselves to admit that I am and have been right about Iran. They have no real answer--other than to simply let Iran go nuclear in some half-baked moral equivalence ("We have nukes, so why can't Iran have them?"). We should always pursue diplomacy to its utmost. But when the hostile party in question, Iran, clearly has no intention of engaging in serious diplomacy--and has every intention of pursuing and possibly even using a weapon of mass destruction--we must stop this by any means necessary."

Everything Iran is doing, America has done first...but its ok if America does it because we're the good guys, right?

[Edited on November 30, 2009 at 8:49 AM. Reason : .]

11/30/2009 8:48:36 AM

Yes. And until they stop supporting terrorism and terrorist organizations they'll continue to be the bad guys.

11/30/2009 12:34:35 PM

Again, this is nothing new that the United States hasn't done. These 'terrorist organizations' you speak of are labeled as such because thats what your government tells you they are. I mean Israel (same thing i suppose).

As soon as the United States realizes that this is a two way street the better off things will be and the more respect you will get with these conflicted nations.

But that will never happen because you, the American public, live in a bubble and can't see anything beyond your own borders.

11/30/2009 1:49:09 PM

Tell me why we should give a shit.

11/30/2009 2:13:00 PM

You don't have to give a shit...but if you don't give a shit then keep out of everyone else's affairs.

The United States represents people from all over the world, like it or not. This country is made up of every nationality you can think of...but unfortunately it treats the international community like its a sand box.

[Edited on November 30, 2009 at 2:20 PM. Reason : .]

11/30/2009 2:18:13 PM

It is a sand box.

11/30/2009 2:22:42 PM

*crickets*

11/30/2009 2:24:17 PM

Sand crickets?

11/30/2009 2:40:46 PM

^ Mujahideen sand crickets.

11/30/2009 2:52:27 PM

LOL

With tiny little RPGs.

11/30/2009 3:02:21 PM

Quote :

"Everything Iran is doing, America has done first...but its ok if America does it because we're the good guys, right? "

Golovko

Quote :

"But many in TSB simply can't allow themselves to admit that I am and have been right about Iran. They have no real answer--other than to simply let Iran go nuclear in some half-baked moral equivalence ('We have nukes, so why can't Iran have them?')."

hooksaw

QED.

11/30/2009 3:37:45 PM

You can tell yourself that you're right or have been right all day, but you're still dead wrong. What part of "we're completely out of money to fund more invasions" don't you get? I'm sure in your warped view of the world, you believe that invasion or bombing is necessary. That's really too bad, because we can't (and shouldn't) pay for it. If Iran is a threat to Israel, let them take care of it. They aren't a threat to us, and we shouldn't be doing a single thing to interfere with whatever they're doing, because it simply isn't our place.

There's a fundamental difference in philosophy, here. You believe that the United States should police the world. You think we should go around to whatever country is doing something we don't like, and force them to stop. If we were to somehow take care of Iran, it'd be North Korea next. Then it'd be some other country. The foreign intervention would never stop. The reality that you refuse to accept is that this non-stop cycle of waging wars and enforcing nuclear non-proliferation is unsustainable.

11/30/2009 3:49:28 PM

^erm? i'm hoping thats to hooksaw.

11/30/2009 3:50:23 PM

Yes.

11/30/2009 3:51:18 PM

Quote :

""Someone sent this to me: Iran earmarks $20 million to support militants Nov 29, 2009""

There is a Sunni terrorist group inside Iran that commits terrorist activities against the Iranian government, and the group is definitely classified as a terrorist group by the EU and the US State Department.

And the US just gave them millions a couple of years ago to try to destabilize Iran.

And US money is (and has been for the past few decades) used to burn down Palestinian orange and olive trees, confiscate the land they are on, put up fences and walls, and then build Israeli settlements terrorist homes on that very land where Palestinian orange and olive trees [and humans] used to be. If that's not terrorism, I don't know what is.

11/30/2009 3:52:17 PM

^your enemies enemy is your friend. or something along those lines...and then they too become your enemy.

11/30/2009 3:53:27 PM

Might is Right.

That's the world we live in.

11/30/2009 3:57:55 PM

Quote :

"If Iran is a threat to Israel, let them take care of it. "

So a nuclear holocaust between Israel and Iran is the preferred solution then?

11/30/2009 4:01:17 PM

more like Israel is a threat to everyone in that region

11/30/2009 4:04:00 PM

^^^ Exactly. So let's bomb the fuck out of these piss ants and get it over with.

Has Israel ever attacked Syria? Jordan? Egypt?

Just because the entire massed middle east can get their asses handed to them in 6 days WHEN THEY START SHIT doesn't mean Israel is a threat.

[Edited on November 30, 2009 at 4:06 PM. Reason : *]

11/30/2009 4:05:02 PM