Norman Podhoretz Urges Israel to Strike Iran

[jimnyc]

I'm not sure what I think of this whole thing, and I definitely disagree with the lame "deal" that was made, and will continue that way until I see inspectors in there full time and not being limited in any fashion. Outside of that, much of what this guy writes is true. I honestly believe that Iran WOULD eliminate Israel if they truly could. I honestly believe that they would love to make nukes, but don't see enough proof yet that they are there. Looking at reports from years ago, and then today, it's obvious that they are building up and up and up. I would give them limited time and continue to make demand after demand after demand from the UN an the IAEA. If this fails, and they start dodging at all, then I won't lose any sleep if they take this recommendation. And I would even fully support if they were solely going there to take out nuclear installations.


Conservative commentator Norman Podhoretz has urged Israel to make a pre-emptive strike against Iran.

In an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Podhoretz claims that the result of a nuclear war between the two nations would be "far worse than any imaginable consequences of an Israeli conventional strike today."

Podhoretz said that by attacking now Israel has the opportunity "to put at least a temporary halt, and conceivably even a permanent one, to the relentless Iranian quest for the bomb."

Last month the U.S and five other world powers agreed on a temporary six-month deal to lift a limited number of economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for the country cutting back on its nuclear program by stopping uranium enrichment.

However, Podhoretz said, "The Obama administration tells us that the interim agreement puts Iran on a track that will lead to the abandonment of its quest for a nuclear arsenal. But the Iranians are jubilant because they know that the only abandonment going on is of our own effort to keep them from getting the bomb."

Ruled by fanatical Shiite mullahs, Iran has vowed to wipe its historical enemy Israel off the map while calling it a "cancer." Although Iran has repeatedly claimed that its enrichment facilities are not aimed at creating a nuclear weapon, Podhoretz maintains its leadership is "lying," and suggest that an Iran armed with atomic bombs is inevitable.

He said, "Adherents of the new consensus would have us believe that only two choices remain: a war to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons or containment of a nuclear Iran — with containment the only responsible option.

"I remain convinced that containment is impossible, from which it follows that the two choices before us are not war vs. containment but a conventional war now or a nuclear war later."

Podhoretz pointed out in his Wall Street Journal opinion piece that it is very unlikely that President Barack Obama "would ever take" military action against Iran even if they become a nuclear power.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/israel-iran-preemptive-strike/2013/12/12/id/541482

[Gaffer]

Until we take this country back Israel is on their own. A preemptive strike is the best thing they can do to prevent a nuclear war. The iranians are building long range missiles systems and even more nuclear facilities to increase their output of fusion material. They have more than enough right now for electric power and medical use, and probably enough for one or two bombs. Time to put a crimp in their plans.

[revelarts]

Until we take this country back Israel is on their own. A preemptive strike is the best thing they can do to prevent a nuclear war. The iranians are building long range missiles systems and even more nuclear facilities to increase their output of fusion material. They have more than enough right now for electric power and medical use, and probably enough for one or two bombs. Time to put a crimp in their plans.

"A preemptive strike is the best thing they can do to prevent a nuclear war."

man-o-man Gaffer c'mon, is it really gone that far with you.
Another war of Aggression, another invasion.
because your crystal ball is perfect and your mind reading abilities are without flaw.
So thousands of peaceful Iranians must die NOW so we in the perfectly known future won't even be threatened.
sorry Gaffer but that just sounds like militaristic BS

the "Bush doctrine" of "preemptive war" is just a lame euphemism for what the Nuremberg trials called WAR of AGGRESSION and Unprovoked INVASION
to me sounds like BS war monger talk. and it's based on PURE FEAR fueled by propaganda.
"During the trial, the chief American prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Jackson), stated:

<dl><dd>To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
</dd></dl>Germany was accused and convicted of this, how many times will the U.S. be "if we take the country back"?


maybe this will make it clearer

At least Mandela attacked burned and killed people after he and others had suffered years of oppression rape and murder.
you are trying to justify bombing and killing people BEFORE, while we all sit comfortably at home completely unaffected by Iran in ANYWAY, just scared they MIGHT do something... one day maybe.

I don't know how people can make their minds go around what they are proposing.

[aboutime]

I'm not sure what I think of this whole thing, and I definitely disagree with the lame "deal" that was made, and will continue that way until I see inspectors in there full time and not being limited in any fashion. Outside of that, much of what this guy writes is true. I honestly believe that Iran WOULD eliminate Israel if they truly could. I honestly believe that they would love to make nukes, but don't see enough proof yet that they are there. Looking at reports from years ago, and then today, it's obvious that they are building up and up and up. I would give them limited time and continue to make demand after demand after demand from the UN an the IAEA. If this fails, and they start dodging at all, then I won't lose any sleep if they take this recommendation. And I would even fully support if they were solely going there to take out nuclear installations.



http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/israel-iran-preemptive-strike/2013/12/12/id/541482



Jim, and all. There's an old Sailor Saying I remember from years ago that now apply to what
John Kerry, and his status as Secretary of State has evolved into for WE THE PEOPLE.

And that saying is "With Kerry (ala Hanoi Jane) We the people have been SCREWED, BLUED, AND TATTOOD!

Iran has gotten everything it has been demanding from the COWARD we call Obama, with the blessings of the Idiot Kerry who will now....

Lead Us All in....."BENDING OVER, GRABBING OUR ANKLES, and BEGGING FOR MORE!"

[jimnyc]

man-o-man Gaffer c'mon, is it really gone that far with you.
Another war of Aggression, another invasion.
because your crystal ball is perfect and your mind reading abilities are without flaw.
So thousands of peaceful Iranians must die NOW so we in the perfectly known future won't even be threatened.
sorry Gaffer but that just sounds like militaristic BS

What about the aggression from Iran, and threats towards Israel? Just dismiss it since they haven't done anything yet, cross their fingers and hope Iran never gets a chance? And I don't know about peaceful Iranians "must" having to die. I think, but could be wrong, that most would expect them to take out nuclear installations, and not having a full out war with Iran. I have a sneaky suspicion that Gaffer wasn't calling for a "war" either, but preemptive strikes on their nuclear sites.

And again, it's all avoided and the point is moot if they simply go forth allowing full inspections, unfettered, no denials or delays. If Iran isn't up to no good and has nothing to hide, then they will simply abide by the latest deal and any/all UN resolutions. If they refuse/fail to do so, then I think taking care of their nuke program for them is what should be done.

[aboutime]

What about the aggression from Iran, and threats towards Israel? Just dismiss it since they haven't done anything yet, cross their fingers and hope Iran never gets a chance? And I don't know about peaceful Iranians "must" having to die. I think, but could be wrong, that most would expect them to take out nuclear installations, and not having a full out war with Iran. I have a sneaky suspicion that Gaffer wasn't calling for a "war" either, but preemptive strikes on their nuclear sites.

And again, it's all avoided and the point is moot if they simply go forth allowing full inspections, unfettered, no denials or delays. If Iran isn't up to no good and has nothing to hide, then they will simply abide by the latest deal and any/all UN resolutions. If they refuse/fail to do so, then I think taking care of their nuke program for them is what should be done.


Jim. Rev is a prime example of appeasement, bowing down, kissing the ring, and honestly believing everything in this terrible, mixed-up world can be solved with Happy Songs, Wonderful speeches, Singing, Dancing, and Everyone forgiving everyone in a PERFECT WORLD.

Rev always has reminded me of a modern version of Neville Chamberlain.

If rev had a direct line to the White House with Obama. Rev might find himself a prisoner of the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD.....Washington DC Chapter.

[Gaffer]

"A preemptive strike is the best thing they can do to prevent a nuclear war."

man-o-man Gaffer c'mon, is it really gone that far with you.
Another war of Aggression, another invasion.
because your crystal ball is perfect and your mind reading abilities are without flaw.
So thousands of peaceful Iranians must die NOW so we in the perfectly known future won't even be threatened.
sorry Gaffer but that just sounds like militaristic BS

the "Bush doctrine" of "preemptive war" is just a lame euphemism for what the Nuremberg trials called WAR of AGGRESSION and Unprovoked INVASION
to me sounds like BS war monger talk. and it's based on PURE FEAR fueled by propaganda.
"During the trial, the chief American prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Jackson), stated:

<dl><dd>To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
</dd></dl>Germany was accused and convicted of this, how many times will the U.S. be "if we take the country back"?


maybe this will make it clearer

At least Mandela attacked burned and killed people after he and others had suffered years of oppression rape and murder.
you are trying to justify bombing and killing people BEFORE, while we all sit comfortably at home completely unaffected by Iran in ANYWAY, just scared they MIGHT do something... one day maybe.

I don't know how people can make their minds go around what they are proposing.

This country is not going to do a thing. You can sit back and feel safe as you watch the goings on. Israel is the one in the cross hairs right now. And anything they do they will do without support from anyone. mandela used terror to get people on his side. Terrorize the communities to get them to give you support. The old help us or your family gets the same as that family did routine. It's an old commie tactic.

iran is a dangerous, fanatical theocracy, and the only one standing up to them is Israel.

I've always stated that a preemptive strike is the best way to keep aggressive countries from attacking you. And we are not involved in any war as this will be a surgical strike carried out by Israel. No boots on the ground and all that happy horse shit.

[jimnyc]

Jim. Rev is a prime example of appeasement, bowing down, kissing the ring, and honestly believing everything in this terrible, mixed-up world can be solved with Happy Songs, Wonderful speeches, Singing, Dancing, and Everyone forgiving everyone in a PERFECT WORLD.

Rev always has reminded me of a modern version of Neville Chamberlain.

If rev had a direct line to the White House with Obama. Rev might find himself a prisoner of the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD.....Washington DC Chapter.

Honestly, I don't agree with that assessment. I think Rev is a tad too soft on certain targets for my liking, and he distrusts anything at all coming from any government, and... suffice to say, he and I disagree often on our stances, but often agree as well. But certainly not appeasing, bowing down or kissing rings. I think if anything he is full of distrust for government. He has the same distrust for various authority figures, based on abuse. And if anything, that dirty bastard THINKS that if we don't sometimes do things he considers bad, that things may work out. My belief is that if we don't do things people call bad, more people die and we lose. But that's just difference in opinion. I don't think he a fan of Obama either, nor anyone else in ALL of politics, unless you count Rand Paul, who gets a nod by bloodline.

If Rev had that direct line, Obama would probably have the line disconnected as Rev would be calling daily and quoting the Constitution to him! :)

[red states rule]

I hope this happens

That way Iran can devote all its resources to clearing the rubble and decide what to do with its new vacant lot

Lord knows Obama does not have the guts (or common sense) to do what must be done

[revelarts]

What about the aggression from Iran, and threats towards Israel? Just dismiss it since they haven't done anything yet, cross their fingers and hope Iran never gets a chance?
And the guy in you articles is making "threats" toward Iran on behalf of Israel.
But what direct aggression as Iran committed? against any of it's neighbors.
have they bomded Israel themselves? Hezbollah, yep absolutely, THEY should be stopped. we didn't attack the soviets in Viet nam or Korea or Cuba etc. we attacked (for better or worse) the groups that were actually doing the serious fighting not the suppliers an Allies

But it seems Hezbollah can't even keep it position in Lebanon at this point. And they are not attacking Israel or, more importantly, the U.S.

But have Israel or the U.S. been aggressive against Iran? does killing scienist count? does bombing buildings count? does supporting the terrorist group Jundullah outside and inside the country count?

that's OK, but hezbollah and harsh talk from the Iranians cannot be allowed to stand.
I just don't get it.

They have to allow inspectors anywhere at anytime or i PROVES they are trying to start a nuke war so someone must Bomb them ASAP.

There no logic or moral balance there at all.

And again why is it a forgone conclusion that they will USE the nukes even if they get them? "take the chance" are the cops that have to shoot the kid that we THINK is going to be trouble latter in life. "we can't take that chance BANG.
we're not God. we don't know what they'll do and its wrong to kill or jail people BEFORE they do something wrong . period. why do have to debate that?



...And I don't know about peaceful Iranians "must" having to die. I think, but could be wrong, that most would expect them to take out nuclear installations, and not having a full out war with Iran. I have a sneaky suspicion that Gaffer wasn't calling for a "war" either, but preemptive strikes on their nuclear sites.
...
well if you bomb another country that usually means war.
If Iran bombed our nuke silos in Nevada and said "we are just bombing your nukes this isn't war" would you by that? When we bomb others we expect them to take it somehow, but if others THINK about bombing us we are offended.

And I'd guess that unless their imagined nuke facilities are on the moon there will probably be innocent Iranians killed.
a war crime... worse than Mandela
just a war of aggression.

[revelarts]

If Rev had that direct line, Obama would probably have the line disconnected as Rev would be calling daily and quoting the Constitution to him! :)
Amen


Honestly, I don't agree with that assessment. I think Rev is a tad too soft on certain targets for my liking, and he distrusts anything at all coming from any government, and... suffice to say, he and I disagree often on our stances, but often agree as well. But certainly not appeasing, bowing down or kissing rings. I think if anything he is full of distrust for government. He has the same distrust for various authority figures, based on abuse. And if anything, that dirty bastard THINKS that if we don't sometimes do things he considers bad, that things may work out. My belief is that if we don't do things people call bad, more people die and we lose. But that's just difference in opinion. I don't think he a fan of Obama either, nor anyone else in ALL of politics, unless you count Rand Paul, who gets a nod by bloodline.
..

that's not a bad way to make try to make the distinction.

however here is my take on that. you and others seem ALWAYS ready to do something bad for us, but have NO mercy or room for error when others just THINK about doing bad (or look like they are thinking) let alone follow though on doing bad.

It seems some here are a law and order people until you "feel" threatened. then laws can go to H3LL.

The Nuremberg treaty, Geneva conventions, federal laws, constitution, teachings of Jesus
none apply if we feel like we might be attacked ONE DAY.

And I'm not saying everything is always going to be fine, tra lala, if we follow our on laws.
I'm saying we've got to follow the laws if we HALFWAY expect others to think about following them.
and because they are our laws and we SAY everyone should. Why? because many of those laws were put in place so countries don't do the evil things done in the past.

It just seems many are very willing to be living murderous hypocrites, rather than dead honorable people.
But probably more like living nervous honorable people in a dangerous world .

But does anyone here honestly believe Iran will destroy America? I don't want to be to proud but for some reason i think in an all out fight with a nuclear Iran we'd literally wipe them out of existence.
so continued pent up fear over a nuclear Iran in my mind is just kinda weird.

and to kill other so that we NEVER have a chance to suffer EVER is just crazy to me. there will always be enemies, will we kill them all ..before they get to us?

[jimnyc]

Imagine a major country spending many, many years publicly and privately stating they wanted to eliminate us from the planet, calling us a cancer and all other kinds of wild shit. Then we find out they are creating nuclear installations. I would be MORE than worried at that point. But I suppose I would hold back a bit if international investigators were in control. But if they couldn't gain control, or the threatening country refused them, while satellites still show activity where they were supposed to be shut down - then the installations should be removed for them.

I understand your opinion, Rev, I just disagree. If a countries very existence has been threatened, and then those people allegedly start making nukes, far be it from me to say they can't use a preemptive strike to 'guarantee' that they don't get hit with a nuke.


They have to allow inspectors anywhere at anytime or i PROVES they are trying to start a nuke war so someone must Bomb them ASAP.

And look, it seems like you are already defending them. It may not prove anything necessarily, but what would be the point in making deals and resolutions if everyone is just going to back away if they fail to live up to them? What would you suggest, just keep remaking deals and have inspectors maybe cross that date off their calendar and maybe come back another month?

Do you support resolutions of any kind, whether from the UN or from major countries? I know you used to, but I'll ask anyway. You used to use Blix and other IAEA guys within your debates. Do you still support the IAEA? Do you still think their inspections and reports are worth anything? Did you support the recent agreement between the major countries and Iran?

And yes, I believe if they are trying to hide things and refusing inspections as per their agreement - then I think the installations should be closed for them. Targeted strikes would take out them only, with minimal loss of life, if any at all.

[Gaffer]

Amen



that's not a bad way to make try to make the distinction.

however here is my take on that. you and others seem ALWAYS ready to do something bad for us, but have NO mercy or room for error when others just THINK about doing bad (or look like they are thinking) let alone follow though on doing bad.

It seems some here are a law and order people until you "feel" threatened. then laws can go to H3LL.

The Nuremberg treaty, Geneva conventions, federal laws, constitution, teachings of Jesus
none apply if we feel like we might be attacked ONE DAY.

And I'm not saying everything is always going to be fine, tra lala, if we follow our on laws.
I'm saying we've got to follow the laws if we HALFWAY expect others to think about following them.
and because they are our laws and we SAY everyone should. Why? because many of those laws were put in place so countries don't do the evil things done in the past.

It just seems many are very willing to be living murderous hypocrites, rather than dead honorable people.
But probably more like living nervous honorable people in a dangerous world .

But does anyone here honestly believe Iran will destroy America? I don't want to be to proud but for some reason i think in an all out fight with a nuclear Iran we'd literally wipe them out of existence.
so continued pent up fear over a nuclear Iran in my mind is just kinda weird.

and to kill other so that we NEVER have a chance to suffer EVER is just crazy to me. there will always be enemies, will we kill them all ..before they get to us?

Let's sit back and see if iran uses it's nukes on us. They can only hurt us a little bit, while we can wipe them out completely. Of course, I want you and yours to be the victims of the iran attack. I will be glad to wipe them out in your name and you will be remembered as a victim of a horrendous attack. Or we could prevent them from having the capability and you get to live your life.

Laws only effect those who follow them. Our enemies aren't concerned with laws.

[revelarts]

Laws only effect those who follow them. Our enemies aren't concerned with laws.
so why don't we obey our own laws gaffer? Are we concerned with them? or are we the same as they are, lawless just wanting our way or else.



Let's sit back and see if Iran uses it's nukes on us. They can only hurt us a little bit, while we can wipe them out completely. Of course, I want you and yours to be the victims of the iran attack. I will be glad to wipe them out in your name and you will be remembered as a victim of a horrendous attack. Or we could prevent them from having the capability and you get to live your life.

And if the Attack you KNOW is coming NEVER comes in our lifetimes you can die in your bed worrying about it for your grand kids or you can die worrying about the NEW threat for them on the scene.


Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it.
Douglas MacArthur


During my lifetime Iran and Alqeda have been the least threatening of the foreign horrors that were going to gobble us up at any minute. The USSR was the one that truly loomed large, it is gone. The nukes aren't but the EVER PRESENT threat of possible M.A.D. is.
Personally i have very little doubt Iran won't to take the chance just for a dying blow.

but you think you know better.

[Gaffer]

so why don't we obey our own laws gaffer? Are we concerned with them? or are we the same as they are, lawless just wanting our way or else.



And if the Attack you KNOW is coming NEVER comes in our lifetimes you can die in your bed worrying about it for your grand kids or you can die worrying about the NEW threat for them on the scene.


Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it.
Douglas MacArthur


During my lifetime Iran and Alqeda have been the least threatening of the foreign horrors that were going to gobble us up at any minute. The USSR was the one that truly loomed large, it is gone. The nukes aren't but the EVER PRESENT threat of possible M.A.D. is.
Personally i have very little doubt Iran won't to take the chance just for a dying blow.

but you think you know better.





iran was responsible for the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon. They supplied the shite fighters in iraq with IED's and weapons to kill thousands of our troops. They ship rockets and weapons to hezbo for attacks on Israel. They have been behind attacks throughout the world.

alqaeda has bombed numerous embassies throughout the world, since the 90's. They fought and killed our troops in iraq. You think 911 was not threatening? Benghazi was nothing? They basically have taken over lybia and are heavily involved in syria. But hey, they're not a big threat, right?

[red states rule]

iran was responsible for the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon. They supplied the shite fighters in iraq with IED's and weapons to kill thousands of our troops. They ship rockets and weapons to hezbo for attacks on Israel. They have been behind attacks throughout the world.

alqaeda has bombed numerous embassies throughout the world, since the 90's. They fought and killed our troops in iraq. You think 911 was not threatening? Benghazi was nothing? They basically have taken over lybia and are heavily involved in syria. But hey, they're not a big threat, right?

Come on Gaffer

That is just more right wing propaganda put out by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the war mongers on the right

:poke:


Meanwhile in the real world....................


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_8yBmwXW4XEM/TIpRYRZkIrI/AAAAAAAAKv8/Gsbse2-6Yqg/s400/BEING+NICE+TO+IRAN,+OBAMACARTOON.jpg

[revelarts]

iran was responsible for the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon. They supplied the shite fighters in iraq with IED's and weapons to kill thousands of our troops. They ship rockets and weapons to hezbo for attacks on Israel. They have been behind attacks throughout the world.

alqaeda has bombed numerous embassies throughout the world, since the 90's. They fought and killed our troops in iraq. You think 911 was not threatening? Benghazi was nothing? They basically have taken over lybia and are heavily involved in syria. But hey, they're not a big threat, right?

iran was responsible for the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon.
OK yes Iran, Syria and the native Lebanese fighters made a horrible strike on the U.S. ... in 1983.
during a civil war in Lebanon, yes.
while both countries had troop their, yes.
Is Iran an enemy, Yes.
what did Reagan decide to do?
not have any more men staying in harms way IN A FOREIGN war zone.


And before i reply furhter Let me just say none of you reply to my points as directly as i reply to yours. I say 'the water is wet touch it', you say 'the top of the rock (sticking out of the water) is dry so the water cant be wet. THEREFORE IT'S DRY. the whole area is dry.'

'They supplied the shite fighters in iraq with IED's and weapons to kill thousands of our troops.'

So during our Iraqi Invasion the Iranians slipped in HOMEMADE bombs and other weapon to ..during a war... to our enemies. killing thousands of troops. stationed in a country that boarders them. that they have natural ties too.
Yes that's what they say. I don't doubt it. But is it shocking.
Have we supplied arms to our friends around the world during wars, we do it all the time. yet some how we act like when other do it to us they should be smashed?
IS THAT TRUE?

that's a direct question i'd like and honest answer too.
do we get to supply arms to our friends and have NO expectation of direct retaliation but other HAVE TO be held accountable and never forgotten?

"They ship rockets and weapons to hezbo for attacks on Israel."

I've discussed that EVER TIME this issues has come up. the last time i mentioned that at this point Hezo is on shaky ground and weaken and HAS not attacked Israel in quite some time.
the Israelis have been doing a fine job dealing with that problem.


'Benghazi was nothing?'
CIA running Guns supplies Unknown s including AQs? Doing dirt unknown dirt in foreign countries and not backing up our own people when it goes south. doing God know what


'alqaeda has bombed numerous embassies throughout the world, since the 90's. They fought and killed our troops in iraq. ....They basically have taken over lybia and are heavily involved in syria. But hey, they're not a big threat,'
And we've support alqeda before 911 and SINCE 911 and help them get to power in Libya. are prone to give them MORE support in Syria and in other countries where we LIKE their terrorism.


I say AQ is a threat. but not a threat i'm going to lose sleep over or a threat we have to attack every country in the world to stop, by killing thousands of bystanders to make some in the U.S. feel more secure while fomenting MORE hatred and more terror.


and Iran has been a thorn in our side but JUST a thorn. not a MONSTER.
that's my point.
we do not need to act like they are some MONSTER that will gobble us in the night if we don't SMASH their heads in BEFORE they DO something.

[jimnyc]

'Benghazi was nothing?'
CIA running Guns supplies Unknown s including AQs? Doing dirt unknown dirt in foreign countries and not backing up our own people when it goes south. doing God know what

A side point... Why is it when many of us post horrible things that people are doing around the world, often you dismiss it as propaganda or lack of proof. But in instances like this you are outright convince that the CIA was involved. Anyway, did the 4 Americans deserve to die by a terror group as a result?

We KNOW Iran is developing nuclear weapons and we know they will use them on Israel. That is more than enough for me to be cool with them taking out the nuke sites.

[revelarts]

A side point... Why is it when many of us post horrible things that people are doing around the world, often you dismiss it as propaganda or lack of proof. But in instances like this you are outright convince that the CIA was involved. Anyway, did the 4 Americans deserve to die by a terror group as a result?

We KNOW Iran is developing nuclear weapons and we know they will use them on Israel. That is more than enough for me to be cool with them taking out the nuke sites.

Jim usually I'm not dismissing or denying ANY of the reports you and others give of things around the world, Usually i ADD to them what we've done.
look at the above post, do i deny Iran helped attack troops in Lebanon, or Iraq, or AQ in Libya.
not once.
I just fleshed out the picture by putting the attacks in context.

as adding our own activity that been reported as well
as far as Benghazi goes again i'm adding to the picture
CIA 'running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was attacked'
The CIA has been subjecting operatives to monthly polygraph tests in an attempt to suppress details of a reported US arms smuggling operation in Benghazi that was ongoing when its ambassador was killed by a mob in the city last year, according to reports.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/10218288/CIA-running-arms-smuggling-team-in-Benghazi-when-consulate-was-attacked.html


Concerning Iran being a evil Monster about to attack Israel and the Us any minute and worthy of being BOMBED, or even surgically struck. Yes it's propaganda that they are SOOOO evil and SOOOO threatening that they must be Bombed out of existence or surgically struck , with no innocent deaths (YOU are the ONLY person here or in the media i've heard add that caveat BTW) .

Still no ones answered my questions
If America were "surgically struck', only our weapons or nukes. Would that be an act of war
or would we consider it an act of "self defense" by the foreign power?

[jimnyc]

Jim usually I'm not dismissing or denying ANY of the reports you and others give of things around the world, Usually i ADD to them what we've done.
look at the above post, do i deny Iran helped attack troops in Lebanon, or Iraq, or AQ in Libya.
not once.
I just fleshed out the picture by putting the attacks in context.

as adding our own activity that been reported as well
as far as Benghazi goes again i'm adding to the picture
CIA 'running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was attacked'
The CIA has been subjecting operatives to monthly polygraph tests in an attempt to suppress details of a reported US arms smuggling operation in Benghazi that was ongoing when its ambassador was killed by a mob in the city last year, according to reports.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/10218288/CIA-running-arms-smuggling-team-in-Benghazi-when-consulate-was-attacked.html


Concerning Iran being a evil Monster about to attack Israel and the Us any minute and worthy of being BOMBED, or even surgically struck. Yes it's propaganda that they are SOOOO evil and SOOOO threatening that they must be Bombed out of existence or surgically struck , with no innocent deaths (YOU are the ONLY person here or in the media i've heard add that caveat BTW) .

Still no ones answered my questions
If America were "surgically struck', only our weapons or nukes. Would that be an act of war
or would we consider it an act of "self defense" by the foreign power?

I can post articles that show that Iran IS developing nuclear weapons, and factually so. If and when I post this, then you'll agree that they are lying and on their way to making nuclear weapons, correct?

As to your question, which quite frankly is a dumb comparison...

Yes, it would be an act of war. But there's a huge difference between the USA and Iran at this time and I doubt anyone feels they need to take out our installations in order to prevent an attack in the near future. And YES, it would of course be an act of war by Israel - so what? Let Iran retaliate then. If they bomb the sites because they refuse to cooperate, and then Iran responds in kind, then they will get hurt even more by Israel. I'm not saying WE should bomb them, just Israel.

If Canada was a rogue nation, threatening to eliminate us for years and years, have a government that supports terror groups, are known to be developing nukes, and refuse to fully cooperate with international inspectors as agreed upon - then I would be calling for the USA to eliminate their installations.

But again, you take that article as 100% proof that the CIA was "to blame", since you would rather point to them than the terrorists who killed Americans - so I would expect you to do the same when articles are posted showing that Iran is developing nuclear weapons while claiming they are not. So I post a foreign article showing this - you will then admit that Iran is faking everyone and going for the bomb, right?

[revelarts]

I can post articles that show that Iran IS developing nuclear weapons, and factually so. If and when I post this, then you'll agree that they are lying and on their way to making nuclear weapons, correct?

As to your question, which quite frankly is a dumb comparison...

Yes, it would be an act of war. But there's a huge difference between the USA and Iran at this time and I doubt anyone feels they need to take out our installations in order to prevent an attack in the near future. And YES, it would of course be an act of war by Israel - so what? Let Iran retaliate then. If they bomb the sites because they refuse to cooperate, and then Iran responds in kind, then they will get hurt even more by Israel. I'm not saying WE should bomb them, just Israel.

If Canada was a rogue nation, threatening to eliminate us for years and years, have a government that supports terror groups, are known to be developing nukes, and refuse to fully cooperate with international inspectors as agreed upon - then I would be calling for the USA to eliminate their installations.

But again, you take that article as 100% proof that the CIA was "to blame", since you would rather point to them than the terrorists who killed Americans - so I would expect you to do the same when articles are posted showing that Iran is developing nuclear weapons while claiming they are not. So I post a foreign article showing this - you will then admit that Iran is faking everyone and going for the bomb, right?

I'm not saying the CIa is completely to blame the attackers are to blame,

but here again we see a double standard. Iran is TO BLAME for everything Hezbollah does but the CIA are NOT to blame for anything anywhere. that JUST AQ and terrorist not the cia suppliers.

BOTH are responsible to various degrees.

And i've mentioned several times that I would not be surprised if Iran WERE making nukes. If I were them I'd try to make nukes.

I've tried to make clear is that I don't believe they will EVER use them or try to slip them to others. frankly i trust them MORE than pakistan WHO has nukes and claim to be our friend but harbors AQ INCLUDING bin LADEN!!
he was Pakistan not IRAN! Pakistan sent money to Mohhemend ATTA before 9-11. not Iran or Iraq.
if we can LIVE with nuclear Pakistan why can't we live with a Nuclear Iran? IF Iran is really making nukes some day maybe.

I just don't get the SAME BS PANIC over iran as over Iraq. it's BS.

and as far us demanding we be able to run up another country's asre anytime anywhere looking for nukes or else .
Well, would WE let others inspect Us in the same way. they are alrerady compliant with IAEA standards, what the ehheck else do we want really?

Jim are other sovereign countries really sovereign or must they all bow down and kiss our butts if we don't like they way they talk.

[jimnyc]

BOTH are responsible to various degrees.

Can you please articulate this for me? Show me how the CIA is responsible for getting Americans killed. Sorry, but that's solely and 100% the fault of the murderers/terrorists. Nothing gives these vermin the right or an excuse to murder people, nor does it make others somehow responsible. I'm not saying the CIA wasn't over there, I honestly don't know. But even if they were, that doesn't mean terrorists are somehow less responsible for killing innocent people.

[revelarts]

Can you please articulate this for me? Show me how the CIA is responsible for getting Americans killed. Sorry, but that's solely and 100% the fault of the murderers/terrorists. Nothing gives these vermin the right or an excuse to murder people, nor does it make others somehow responsible. I'm not saying the CIA wasn't over there, I honestly don't know. But even if they were, that doesn't mean terrorists are somehow less responsible for killing innocent people.
"too various degrees" i said.

I think you'd agree that , based on what we've heard so far that some of the loss at Benghazi could have been avoid if our people had acted in defense properly. And if the cia had warned of what they knew.

the trigger pullers are ultimately completely responsible. i agree, but it your an innocent man living at a frat house were your unaware a lot of drug dealing is going on then suddenly the house is all shot to h3ll by some "associates" of those dealers living in the house. your house mates aren't 'to blame' but they do hold some responsibility.
at least in my book.

We may never know the whole story but so far that seem to be the way it looks.


Thomas R. Eddlem
thenewamerican.com (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/16219-mainstream-media-on-benghazi-it-was-about-gun-running)
August 7, 2013

The mainstream media in the United States have increasingly come to the conclusion that the Benghazi attacks were related to a secret gun-running operation managed by the U.S. government to ferry weapons used by Libyan rebels to Syria. Establishment media outlets reporting on the reputed CIA gun-running operation over the past week included Fox News’ Geraldo Rivera (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3NLZglUvul8), London’s Daily Telegraph newspaper, (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/10218288/CIA-running-arms-smuggling-team-in-Benghazi-when-consulate-was-attacked.html) and CNN television (http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/01/exclusive-dozens-of-cia-operatives-on-the-ground-during-benghazi-attack/). The New American reported the same likely theory back in October (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/13455-benghazi-backfire-was-obama-arming-jihadists)and December (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/13994-benghazi-report-ignores-wh-lies-obama-gunrunning-to-jihadists)2012.
The September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks against the U.S. government compound in Benghazi in Libya resulted in the death of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
Stevens was officially on a diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya’s second largest city, though it has become abundantly clear that the U.S. “Special Mission Compound” building had more to do with the CIA than diplomacy. The idea that Stevens could have been involved in redirecting arms from Libya to Syria is hardly a stretch. He had the perfect résumé for gun-running, as he had helped manage gun-running to the Libyan rebels during the insurgency against former dictator Moammar Gadhafi. The White House named (http://abcnewsradioonline.com/world-news/us-names-chris-stevens-liaison-to-libyan-opposition.html%20)Stevens liaison to the Libyan rebels in March 2011, months before Gadhafi’s August 2011 ouster.
The August 1 CNN story (http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/01/exclusive-dozens-of-cia-operatives-on-the-ground-during-benghazi-attack/)on Benghazi mentioned above reported the gun-running story only as “speculation,” but CNN charged that there were “dozens of CIA operatives on the ground during the Benghazi attack,” and that “the CIA is involved in what one source calls an unprecedented attempt to keep the spy agency’s Benghazi secrets from ever leaking out.” These attempts include “frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations, according to a source with deep inside knowledge of the agency’s workings” in an attempt to intimidate witnesses who may be called before congressional investigators.
The CIA has responded to the CNN story with denials that it is trying to quash whistleblowers. “CIA employees are always free to speak to Congress if they want,” a CIA statement to the August 2 London Telegraph claimed (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/10218288/CIA-running-arms-smuggling-team-in-Benghazi-when-consulate-was-attacked.html). “The CIA enabled all officers involved in Benghazi the opportunity to meet with Congress. We are not aware of any CIA employee who has experienced retaliation, including any non-routine security procedures, or who has been prevented from sharing a concern with Congress about the Benghazi incident.”
Of course, the same cannot be said of State Department employees. State Department officer Gregory Hicks told congressional investigators, in the words (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/us/politics/official-offers-account-from-libya-of-benghazi-attack.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)of the New York Times, that he “was later ‘effectively demoted’ to desk officer at headquarters, in what he believes was retaliation for speaking up” to congressional investigators.....

[gabosaurus]

Sometimes I wonder if these kooks know their geography. If any country strikes Iran with a nuclear weapon, the fallout would quickly spread to other countries. Including Israel.

[jimnyc]

Sometimes I wonder if these kooks know their geography. If any country strikes Iran with a nuclear weapon, the fallout would quickly spread to other countries. Including Israel.

Huh? Once again, post without reading! LOL Nowhere in this thread is there discussion about anyone hitting Iran with a nuclear weapon. BUT, even if it ever came to that, you're still wrong.

[Gaffer]

iran was responsible for the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon.
OK yes Iran, Syria and the native Lebanese fighters made a horrible strike on the U.S. ... in 1983.
during a civil war in Lebanon, yes.
while both countries had troop their, yes.
Is Iran an enemy, Yes.
what did Reagan decide to do?
not have any more men staying in harms way IN A FOREIGN war zone.


And before i reply furhter Let me just say none of you reply to my points as directly as i reply to yours. I say 'the water is wet touch it', you say 'the top of the rock (sticking out of the water) is dry so the water cant be wet. THEREFORE IT'S DRY. the whole area is dry.'

You want direct replies to your points. I can do that, but it takes time and I have to do it this way cause isolating each line in quotes is a pain in the ass.

'They supplied the shite fighters in iraq with IED's and weapons to kill thousands of our troops.'

So during our Iraqi Invasion the Iranians slipped in HOMEMADE bombs and other weapon to ..during a war... to our enemies. killing thousands of troops. stationed in a country that boarders them. that they have natural ties too.
Yes that's what they say. I don't doubt it. But is it shocking.
Have we supplied arms to our friends around the world during wars, we do it all the time. yet some how we act like when other do it to us they should be smashed?
IS THAT TRUE?

The iranians slipped in factory produced extremely deadly bombs. Along with rifles, ammunition and fighters. It's easy to do when you border the country and have influence over the majority of the population.

Yes we supply arms to various countries around the world. If someone is supplying arms to an enemy of ours, while we are engaged in hostilities with them, then yes they should be smashed. iran was supplying the taliban, probably still is.

that's a direct question i'd like and honest answer too.
do we get to supply arms to our friends and have NO expectation of direct retaliation but other HAVE TO be held accountable and never forgotten?

Direct retaliation means they start a war. There have been many years of our supplying govt's and organizations. A little thing called the cold war would be a prime example. Arms for influence.

"They ship rockets and weapons to hezbo for attacks on Israel."

I've discussed that EVER TIME this issues has come up. the last time i mentioned that at this point Hezo is on shaky ground and weaken and HAS not attacked Israel in quite some time.
the Israelis have been doing a fine job dealing with that problem.

Why is hezbo not being more active against Israel? They are tied up right now fighting the rebels in syria. As is iran. Which benefits Israel.


'Benghazi was nothing?'
CIA running Guns supplies Unknown s including AQs? Doing dirt unknown dirt in foreign countries and not backing up our own people when it goes south. doing God know what

Won't argue with you there. There's way to much evidence that something was going on there of a clandestine nature. It's what the CIA does and was created to do. You might not like it, but it's a necessary evil.


'alqaeda has bombed numerous embassies throughout the world, since the 90's. They fought and killed our troops in iraq. ....They basically have taken over lybia and are heavily involved in syria. But hey, they're not a big threat,'
And we've support alqeda before 911 and SINCE 911 and help them get to power in Libya. are prone to give them MORE support in Syria and in other countries where we LIKE their terrorism.

Support of AQ has only been going on since the current president came into office. As for before 911, that's not the case. That old excuse of we supported them in afghan is just bullshit. AQ did not exist at that time.


I say AQ is a threat. but not a threat i'm going to lose sleep over or a threat we have to attack every country in the world to stop, by killing thousands of bystanders to make some in the U.S. feel more secure while fomenting MORE hatred and more terror.

They have effectively taken over libya, and are working on syria, somolia, yemen and others. They are backed by the muslim brotherhood which is financed by saudi's. They have many cells and are always trying to find ways to attack us here. I think you can sleep safely for a while until they can consolidate their gains in other countries.

The fomenting of hatred and terror is not being done by the US. It's being done by the leaders of AQ, iran, n. korea, china and, yes russia.


and Iran has been a thorn in our side but JUST a thorn. not a MONSTER.
that's my point.
we do not need to act like they are some MONSTER that will gobble us in the night if we don't SMASH their heads in BEFORE they DO something.

You have a thorn is your side, and if you don't deal with it, it becomes infected and spreads throughout your body. They ARE monsters and just waiting for an opportunity. The only thing that keeps them in check is the logistics of actually attacking here, and our strong military. And the military is being rapidly eroded.

[gabosaurus]

Huh? Once again, post without reading! LOL Nowhere in this thread is there discussion about anyone hitting Iran with a nuclear weapon. BUT, even if it ever came to that, you're still wrong.

:rolleyes:

If Israel strikes Iran, they do it alone and bear all the consequences. Let the terrorist states duke it out alone.

[jimnyc]

:rolleyes:

If Israel strikes Iran, they do it alone and bear all the consequences. Let the terrorist states duke it out alone.

Which is what everyone has stated thus far, so I hope the rolling eyes is at yourself, again, for failure to read. EVERYONE knows that Israel could EASILY take out Iran if they wished to do so. And they wouldn't be in danger if they used calculated nuke strikes as you implied. Nonetheless, the discussion was around Israel perhaps taking out nuclear installations in Iran, and no one but you stated anything about hitting them with nuclear weapons. Seriously, take 45 seconds to read a thread before replying.

[revelarts]

You have a thorn is your side, and if you don't deal with it, it becomes infected and spreads throughout your body. They ARE monsters and just waiting for an opportunity. The only thing that keeps them in check is the logistics of actually attacking here, and our strong military. And the military is being rapidly eroded.

I appreciate you rely gaffer, and i guess well just disagree on this issue.
:beer:

[jimnyc]

I appreciate you rely gaffer, and i guess well just disagree on this issue.
:beer:

It's nice to see people not trolling, debating the facts even when in opposite beliefs, and then remaining friendly even though they disagree and leave the debate as friends. Good for you. :)

[revelarts]

It's nice to see people not trolling, debating the facts even when in opposite beliefs, and then remaining friendly even though they disagree and leave the debate as friends. Good for you. :)
and you know, sames goes for you on this thing Jim.:beer:

It'd be nice if i could spell "reply" and "your" too, but i think people get the idea.

[aboutime]

Sometimes I wonder if these kooks know their geography. If any country strikes Iran with a nuclear weapon, the fallout would quickly spread to other countries. Including Israel.



gabby. Sounds like you either never studied geography, or have never seen a weather map showing the prevailing winds, and the Jet Stream as it circumnavigates around the Earth.

Speaking of kooks. Take care of your own lawn before insisting someone else cut their grass.

[revelarts]

Former head of the CIA bin laden unit says if Israel wants to strike Iran Go ahead but we're not going to be the Calvary and back them up.
we should keep our noses out of it.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/_K9Lj-eJyxc?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[jimnyc]

Former head of the CIA bin laden unit says if Israel wants to strike Iran Go ahead but we're not going to be the Calvary and back them up.
we should keep our noses out of it.

I agree, I think we should too, and I also think Israel is more than capable of handling themselves.

[Gaffer]

Former head of the CIA bin laden unit says if Israel wants to strike Iran Go ahead but we're not going to be the Calvary and back them up.
we should keep our noses out of it.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/_K9Lj-eJyxc?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

Israel can handle themselves. But don't expect iran to just retaliate against Israel.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Israel can handle themselves. But don't expect iran to just retaliate against Israel.

HERE IS A VERY REAL POSSIBILITY! When Israel strikes Iran 's nuke sites Iran will activate its sleeper cells here in USA to do SIMULTANEOUS major bomb attacks on large American cities across the nation and Obama will get to establish Marshal law. During Marshal law Obama reigns as supreme dictator a position(HE LONGS FOR) he isn't likely to ever relinquish IMHO. DURING THAT TIME HE CAN CONFISCATE ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS'S WEAPONS. He will just issue an order to turn all guns into the authorities in 30 days after that all still not complying will be subject to arrest and /or summarily execution as enemies of the State. If anybody think it just too farfetched, then they haven't a damn clue about who and what Obama is. And that folks is why the government controlled Public Education System has been so dumbed down for well over three decades now and why liberal teachers are now and have been for a long time turned out like gumdrops at a candy factory. . Don't ya just love it when a long range plan starts bearing its fruits!???? The longer the range the less people ever see it until its too late.. --Tyr

[Gaffer]

Certain people here don't believe those sleeper cells exist. They are in for a rude awakening. I suspect they are allowed to exist for exactly the reasons you stated Tyr.

[revelarts]

Why would Iran attack the U.S. if we made extremely clear we were not going to back them up.
i'd be like Hitler attacking Russia.
it makes ZERO strategic sense.
but i know you all think Iran is just blood thirsty religious nuts that for some reason haven't attacked anyone outright.. YET!!! DUN DUNT DUUNNNNN!

As far a sleep cell go I believe there are all kinds of "sleeper cells" in the US.
and i believe we have a few in Iran as well. some haven't been to sleepy though. (not to mention our support of terrist groups in Iran which guy guy NEVER seem to have problem with.
is that wrong that we support anti Iranian terrrorist that have ALREADY killed iranins. if that were done here would that be a problem?
the hypocrisy is mind numbing.

'THEY MIGHT attack we've got to kill'm. they are crazy muslim killing machines! Oh the terrorsit we support have killed some Iranians in Iran, heh heh good good go get-um THEY (the Iranians) are CRAZY"
Do you guys even get what bugs me even a lil bit?
what kind of prezel like mental justifications lets you rest easy with this type of thing?

Below
Former Army officeir says we need to back the heck off of Iran let them transition like China if they can, they are on a track of modernization and don't really want to mess that up by BS wars.
And if Israel attacks Iran then the rest of the world (no one here but me) will see it as as an unprovoked attack and will most likely GIVE them NUKES. He thinks countries will come out of the woodwork to support Iran with arms if they are attacked.

but you guys know better.
'Somebody Attack Iran now or it's Hell on earth later.
the tes leaves are never wrong and shootin' 1st is morally right... if I do the shootin'.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/LeqYiROS5N4?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[jimnyc]

Do you guys even get what bugs me even a lil bit?
what kind of prezel like mental justifications lets you rest easy with this type of thing?

Rev, with all due respect, I see you doing a lot of dancing to downplay any perceived wrongdoing from Iran. At the same time you like to point fingers at our own government and other agencies. What bugs me is that you think everything you read from various papers and youtube videos are telling the whole story, but disregard things that are posted by others. Again, you talk about justification and sorta mock others - but what about all the stuff that is posted showing Iran to be a sponsor of terrorism? Things showing that they are lying and are building nuclear weapons? Are you OK with them lying to international inspectors and such?

[Gaffer]

Why would Iran attack the U.S. if we made extremely clear we were not going to back them up.
i'd be like Hitler attacking Russia.
it makes ZERO strategic sense.
but i know you all think Iran is just blood thirsty religious nuts that for some reason haven't attacked anyone outright.. YET!!! DUN DUNT DUUNNNNN!

While iran is full of religious nuts the problem is that it's governed by religious nuts, and that's what makes it so dangerous. I'm not sure who you're talking about in that first sentence.

As far a sleep cell go I believe there are all kinds of "sleeper cells" in the US.
and i believe we have a few in Iran as well. some haven't been to sleepy though. (not to mention our support of terrist groups in Iran which guy guy NEVER seem to have problem with.
is that wrong that we support anti Iranian terrrorist that have ALREADY killed iranins. if that were done here would that be a problem?
the hypocrisy is mind numbing.

Funny how there's never a mention of terrorist in iran, supposedly supported by the US. I'm sure there are but to bring them to light only endangers the members of the cell. The iranians don't just strike the members of the cell. They go after the families. Those they don't kill out right go into one of their notorious prisons they have, which house men women and children.

'THEY MIGHT attack we've got to kill'm. they are crazy muslim killing machines! Oh the terrorsit we support have killed some Iranians in Iran, heh heh good good go get-um THEY (the Iranians) are CRAZY"
Do you guys even get what bugs me even a lil bit?
what kind of prezel like mental justifications lets you rest easy with this type of thing?

They, the iranian govt, are crazy. I don't know what bugs you, but you are always pointing the finger at anyone but the real enemy.

Below
Former Army officeir says we need to back the heck off of Iran let them transition like China if they can, they are on a track of modernization and don't really want to mess that up by BS wars.
And if Israel attacks Iran then the rest of the world (no one here but me) will see it as as an unprovoked attack and will most likely GIVE them NUKES. He thinks countries will come out of the woodwork to support Iran with arms if they are attacked.

but you guys know better.
'Somebody Attack Iran now or it's Hell on earth later.
the tes leaves are never wrong and shootin' 1st is morally right... if I do the shootin'.


You actually believe China is turning into a nice guy state? The ones that are building up their military like never before. The ones extending their influence through Asia? The chief supporters of North Korea? Comparing iran with china is silly.

As for an unprovoked attack by Israel. If it's necessary for Israel to survive, then it will be done. And the world will not support iran, they will pass resolutions condemning Israel and Bibi will get a nasty letter from the secretary general. And the world will forestall a nuclear war for a while longer. Countries like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwaite and others will quietly slip Israel a few million $ while screaming at the top of their lungs what a barbaric state it is.

[revelarts]

Rev, with all due respect, I see you doing a lot of dancing to downplay any perceived wrongdoing from Iran. At the same time you like to point fingers at our own government and other agencies. What bugs me is that you think everything you read from various papers and youtube videos are telling the whole story, but disregard things that are posted by others. Again, you talk about justification and sorta mock others - but what about all the stuff that is posted showing Iran to be a sponsor of terrorism? Things showing that they are lying and are building nuclear weapons? Are you OK with them lying to international inspectors and such?

how many times to have to say it.

Iranians are not choir boys.
they are bad guys, they are our enemy,
they have supported hezbollah.
they have supported Iraqi insurgents.
They MAY have supported other terror.
they Probable (i have little doubt) they have sleeper cells and agents in the U.S..
AND that they may indeed be working on a few Nuke weapons in the long term. If i were them I would too.
But to date the the IAEA has had an off and on again time trying to show these MINOR advances. W Bush and all the other Depts said they couldn't prove it. While using the same and harsher investigations used for other countries.
Today 7 years later they still have no NUKES. for 30 years we've accused them of getting a nuke within 3-5 years. So the accusations have been PROVED mostly BS. (will you acknowledge that?) have they creeped ever so slightly closer yes.
can they make even one bomb. NO.

do i like them lying, NO. Do they needed to bombed for it? NO.
that's my point.
I don't deny any of the things Iran has provably done. What i'm saying is they haven't done anything worthy of an attack from anyone.

And If all of the above is worthy of attack then we've done as much and WORSE over the past 60 years. I love America too but i don't white wash our dirt.

You guys never acknowledge what we've done.
i point out that we support terrorist too.
Silence
I point out that we've supported insurgents in foreign war when it serve us.
Silence or 'it's not the same'.
I point out that we have sleeper cells that have possibly killed Iranians or bombed facilities.
Israels given credit for that.
We have 1000s of nukes.
'well of course we do. but Iran has said scary thing so they can't have any.'


Sorry to mock but I don't know how to make my points otherwise, seems people want to ignore the raw facts, ignore laws, ignore any morals. And want to judge Iran by a standard we don't adhere to ourselves.
And BOMB them for it.
Then pose as if it's COMPLETELY justified. When by any objective standard it is not.

[Gaffer]

I haven't seen any raw facts from you Rev, just utube videos and conspiracy theorists. I get what I can from actual news reporting sites, and I take most of that with a grain of salt. How do you know we have sleeper cells in iran? What is your source? The guy on utube?

If we had lots of cells operating in iran the green revolution there would not have failed. You claim to love this country then always point out all the negative things you can find. Most of which are not even true. You want to point a finger you should point it at the current administration and it's ineptness instead of at the country in general.

We have an administration that is destroying this country from within. They have turned us into a laughing stock to the rest of the world, yet all you do is point at negative reports from people who are either out to make the country look even worse or are looking to make a buck with books or video's. try digging deeper into who these folks work for or are affiliated with, who finances them. If you know more about them, other than he's a former CIA, FBI or whatever, you might not be so quick to jump on their bandwagon.

[revelarts]

I haven't seen any raw facts from you Rev, just utube videos and conspiracy theorists. I get what I can from actual news reporting sites, and I take most of that with a grain of salt. How do you know we have sleeper cells in iran? What is your source? The guy on utube?

If we had lots of cells operating in iran the green revolution there would not have failed. You claim to love this country then always point out all the negative things you can find. Most of which are not even true. You want to point a finger you should point it at the current administration and it's ineptness instead of at the country in general.

We have an administration that is destroying this country from within. They have turned us into a laughing stock to the rest of the world, yet all you do is point at negative reports from people who are either out to make the country look even worse or are looking to make a buck with books or video's. try digging deeper into who these folks work for or are affiliated with, who finances them. If you know more about them, other than he's a former CIA, FBI or whatever, you might not be so quick to jump on their bandwagon.

Former CIA Hayden was the Head of the CIA,
the report is from the LA times.
what agenda does Hayden have Gaffer?
Is the LA times real news? or is Only FOX and the Blaze real news?
again here we have a case where if we don't LIKE the News we DENY it's real or question it's motives.
I've just Acknowledge nearly EVER point you and Jim have made but again you DENY the RAW FACTS of the reports i post.
double standards are the norm for some folks in debate and in reasons for waging war i guess.


US special forces 'inside Iran' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4180087.stm)
from the BBC, that youtube conspiracy site

And we've been enemies with Iran since it's revolution, we trained many of the troops and lived in Iran Before it's revolution, for some reason i don't think it's strech to think that we have trained friends ready to go if we give the word. maybe that just conspiracy thinking on my part.
Funny you never posted any proof about iranian sleeper cells in the U.S. though, but that's from "the news" I'm suppose to just believe you.

the U.S. supports terrorist
Reports of U.S. supporting terrorist groups from Conspiracy youtubes vids from ABC news, PBS Frontline, the London telegraph, The New Yorker, ex-FBI agent Coleen Rowley who tried to warn of 9/11 terrorist time magazine person of the year 2002, the Guaridain etc.


(http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?33130-US-support-quot-good-quot-terrorist&highlight=good+terrorist)
Chechens Support "conspiracy"
"...see this 2004 article in the UK Guardian, entitled, “The Chechens’ American friends: The Washington neocons’ commitment to the war on terror evaporates in Chechnya, whose cause they have made their own (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/08/usa.russia).”

Author John Laughland wrote: “the leading group which pleads the Chechen cause is the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya (ACPC). The list of the self-styled ‘distinguished Americans’ who are its members is a roll call of the most prominent neoconservatives who so enthusiastically support the ‘war on terror.’"
from the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38200-2005Mar15.html
"The 44-year-old fugitive Chechen rebel leader had made more than a few hurried departures on his way to becoming one of Russia's most wanted men, and he had been almost constantly on the move since fellow insurgents smuggled him out of war-torn Grozny in 1999. But on the day intermediaries arranged for us to first meet last fall, Akhmadov seemed anxious not to leave the temporary sanctuary offered by this borrowed two-bedroom apartment....

Akhmadov's story might be just another shadowy tale from the global war on terror, if not for one important twist. The apartment he was holed up in was not in some remote former Soviet republic or extremist Islamic haven. It was smack in the middle of Washington, next to the National Zoo. He was here legally, as a newly minted political refugee -- and if he was hiding, it was more or less in plain sight. American taxpayers, in fact, were about to start paying his salary at a congressionally funded think tank.
How is this possible? Well, it doesn't hurt that Akhmadov enjoys the patronage of a group of very senior Washington luminaries. His backers include two former secretaries of state, Madeleine Albright and Alexander Haig; a former defense secretary, Frank Carlucci; a former national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski; and some of the biggest names in elected politics, from Ted Kennedy on one side of the Senate aisle to John McCain on the other.... "



I've got more but FOX didn't reported and only former FBI, CIA and state dept people with agendas that don't agree with you said it so it must not be true.


what else am i making up Gaffer?

[revelarts]

an overview with "news" links to the history of U.S. meddling with Iran
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?iran_general_topic_areas=us_force_aga inst_iran_covertOperations&timeline=us_plans_to_use_military_force_against_ir an

[Gaffer]

an overview with "news" links to the history of U.S. meddling with Iran
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?iran_general_topic_areas=us_force_aga inst_iran_covertOperations&timeline=us_plans_to_use_military_force_against_ir an

Interesting read. wonder why it ends in 2008. Nothing covered beyond that. It's all about evil republicans. Eisenhower, Reagan, both Bush's. Nothing concerning carter or clinton. I guess neither of them "meddled" huh.

If your going to give a time line it would be nice if it includes the whole time line and not cherry picked parts.

[revelarts]

Interesting read. wonder why it ends in 2008. Nothing covered beyond that. It's all about evil republicans. Eisenhower, Reagan, both Bush's. Nothing concerning carter or clinton. I guess neither of them "meddled" huh.

If your going to give a time line it would be nice if it includes the whole time line and not cherry picked parts.

LOL,
is the timeline the only thing i posted?

you want Clinton here's a bit.

On April 5, 1996, the Los Angeles Times reported that "President Clinton secretly gave a green light to covert Iranian arms shipments into Bosnia in 1994 despite a United Nations arms embargo that the United States was pledged to uphold and the administration's own policy of isolating Tehran globally as a supporter of terrorism."

The Iranian Connection
Perhaps most threatening to the SFOR mission - and more importantly, to the safety of the American personnel serving in Bosnia - is the unwillingness of the Clinton Administration to come clean with the Congress and with the American people about its complicity in the delivery of weapons from Iran to the Muslim government in Sarajevo. That policy, personally approved by Bill Clinton in April 1994 at the urging of CIA Director-designate (and then-NSC chief) Anthony Lake and the U.S. ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith, has, according to the Los Angeles Times (citing classified intelligence community sources), "played a central role in the dramatic increase in Iranian influence in Bosnia." Further, according to the Times, in September 1995 National Security Agency analysts contradicted Clinton Administration claims of declining Iranian influence, insisting instead that "Iranian Revolutionary Guard personnel remain active throughout Bosnia." Likewise, "CIA analysts noted that the Iranian presence was expanding last fall," with some ostensible cultural and humanitarian activities "known to be fronts" for the Revolutionary Guard and Iran's intelligence service, known as VEVAK, the Islamic revolutionary successor to the Shah's SAVAK. [[LAT, 12/31/96] At a time when there is evidence of increased willingness by pro-Iranian Islamic militants to target American assets abroad - as illustrated by the June 1996 car-bombing at the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, that killed 19 American airmen, in which the Iranian government or pro-Iranian terrorist organizations are suspected ["U.S. Focuses Bomb Probe on Iran, Saudi Dissident," Chicago Tribune, 11/4/96] - it is irresponsible in the extreme for the Clinton Administration to gloss over the extent to which its policies have put American personnel in an increasingly vulnerable position while performing an increasingly questionable mission. ...

but that's made up probably because it's from a conspiracy site.

So should i be expecting an apology Gaffer?
what facts did i make up? what did i post that was "untrue"? what was "conspiracy".
a few slurs there G.
If i'd say that about your comments, I'd try to prove it.
people say what i post is not true because they never heard it before or they don't like the source "you tube" or "left wing" or "Books" gasp! or "FBI or CIA or Gov't sources". that's not a good argument.

If anyone can prove my info wrong or "untrue " do it. and i'll admit it it was wrong. but i don't appreciate folks saying i'm a making stuff up just because they don't like it. I try not to get personal and deal with facts and law and ask others to be consistent with the standards they say they believe in.
I do try to knock the crap out of positions i think are bad, but i try not to knock people.

[Gaffer]

LOL,
is the timeline the only thing i posted?

you want Clinton here's a bit.

On April 5, 1996, the Los Angeles Times reported that "President Clinton secretly gave a green light to covert Iranian arms shipments into Bosnia in 1994 despite a United Nations arms embargo that the United States was pledged to uphold and the administration's own policy of isolating Tehran globally as a supporter of terrorism."

but that's made up probably because it's from a conspiracy site.

So should i be expecting an apology Gaffer?
what facts did i make up? what did i post that was "untrue"? what was "conspiracy".
a few slurs there G.
If i'd say that about your comments, I'd try to prove it.
people say what i post is not true because they never heard it before or they don't like the source "you tube" or "left wing" or "Books" gasp! or "FBI or CIA or Gov't sources". that's not a good argument.

If anyone can prove my info wrong or "untrue " do it. and i'll admit it it was wrong. but i don't appreciate folks saying i'm a making stuff up just because they don't like it. I try not to get personal and deal with facts and law and ask others to be consistent with the standards they say they believe in.
I do try to knock the crap out of positions i think are bad, but i try not to knock people.

First of all I wasn't using "your" as in you. I was using it in a general term.

I didn't say it was a conspiracy site. I said it was interesting. I did notice it only covered republicans and repub time frames. I don't think the author likes republicans. The two people most responsible for the present problems with iran and the middle east in general are carter and clinton.

I haven't knocked you in our posts together. I do mock you on occasion as do you. You occasionally post a good site with real information that I find informative. But too often you post anti-Bush sites or left wing propaganda sites, and those are not reliable sources to me. Neither is the MSM. Those are just givt propaganda organization. I call the the new soviet news agency TASS.