The Guns of November

Will Iran's missile test force the region to war?

By Michael Hirsh | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Jul 9, 2008 | Updated: 4:22  p.m. ET Jul 9, 2008

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: observer101 @ 07/18/2008 5:55:53 PM

    Its totally unbelievable how ignorant some sound...Technically Iran has no right to shut down the Straits of Iran/ Iraq because technically they dont own it..If Iran were to proclaim it shut down that in itself is a cause for war..There is no nautical map in this world (except Iran) that recognizes that part of water as Irans..They have there boundries, which by the way changes as there regime sees fit...If this scenerio were to play out< Israel "attacks" Iran. Iran proclaims the strait shut down and blockades it...U.N. sends there disapproval to Iran..Iran blows them off..A humanitarian issue arises and oil rises out of control for all nations..France (or some other neutral country)goes to confirm...The world is outraged that Iran would shut down the mid east waterway...U.N. and some other nations (except China and Russia as usual) vote military force if Iran doesnt remove blockade...Iran shows force against Israel or in the straits..U.S. military positions there carrier groups in a show of force...Iran taunts and grows to close to battle groups and the first volley of strikes involving the U.S. starts here...Hence the beginning of world war 3...And by the way...Someone stated on here earlier that the other countries would stop selling oil to the U.S...Yeah right...Money buys it all..If there is money to be had they will sell to who ever has it..U.S, China, whoever will pay...SO there is no worries in the oil dept, except that we will have to reserve and conserve more..Nothing wrong with that.

  • Posted By: Thinker08 @ 07/18/2008 1:38:56 AM

    War,War, War........more war, Go for it, I can heard the end of U.S.A empire during this century, why? The history book tells us the Rome empire was end like this.

  • Posted By: Thinker08 @ 07/18/2008 1:30:13 AM

    War,War War,War........... All I can heard is the war. Go for it, I can see the end of USA empire during this century, why? go back to the history book you will see how Rome empire finished.

  • Posted By: Starstuff @ 07/17/2008 2:29:42 PM

    I t might take two weeks or less to destroy most of Irans military power. They still rely on imported weapons for the most part. I cannot think of anything more stupid than getting into a shooting match with these religious morons. While we and Israel or the UK could dominate the battle, a war in the persian gulf would have catastrophic and possibly irreversible consequences. A massive interruption of the lions share of oil will tip the world economy upside down. The islamic countries and other south American low life's would cut off oil as well.

  • Posted By: Trooper101st @ 07/17/2008 8:39:24 AM

    It would take the combined air forces of the US, Israel, UK, to hit most of the targets. It would take 2 weeks of round the clock strikes, and the ability to supress any attack by Iran. If change were to come from within, it would be a blessing. The mullahs, and thier demented followers have a death grip on this country, and there is no time to wait for it to happen. The Gulf states fear Iran, and will covertly give thier blessings--and thier oil. Keeping the Straits open is on the "to do" list. Knocking out thier nuke facilities is job 1. Low yield nuclear bunker-busters may need to be used, as these facilities are very deep in the ground. Before this scenario plays out, I hope the US meets with Iran w/out conditions. We need to talk to them. It may turn out that the Iranians are intransigent, and a couple weeks of ruin from the air will be the ONLY option. They just don't want the Israeli state to be. Islam is a curse, and all non-moslems need to be killed--eradicated. Like Mao said "Religion is the opium of the people"...and the Iranian gov and thier proxies are prime examples. If ur gonna do it, let them have it both barrels. No half measures. Its all or nothing.

  • Posted By: tc125231 @ 07/16/2008 6:21:20 PM

    So, Israel, which has 100 nuclear wepons or more, probably due to assistance from the US in the dim past, does not find it acceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon?

    However, the Bush administration, which also does not find it acceptable, sent a clear message with Iraq and North Korea. --We don't invade countries with nuclear weapons, but may very well invade anyone else, at our whim.

    So, you are surpised that Iram wants a nuclear weapon?

    Well, --DUHHH.

    If Israel attacks Iran, the price of oil will break $300 a barrel, and we will find out how few friends we really have in the Middle East.

    Hope you think it's worth it, when your paying $10+ for gas, and we're in another Depression.

  • Posted By: loveoftruth @ 07/16/2008 8:30:24 AM

    As far as I can see it, this is another propaganda article by a pro-Israeli journalist. How come U.S. citizens are so easily be misled by people of Jewish origin - who might obviously have a skewed opinion in favour of Israel? Note that my problem is not one's descent, but the fact that he might blatantly favour one of the parties he is writing about. That's not correct journalism for me. I would similarly dislike an article *clearly* against Tibet by somebody of Chinese origin.

  • Posted By: loveoftruth @ 07/16/2008 8:25:24 AM

    Another propaganda article by a pro-Israeli journalist. How come U.S. citizens are so easily be misled by Jewish people?

  • Posted By: sparky716 @ 07/12/2008 7:00:42 PM

    all i said was we waited to long....we should have stopped it when we could have...now its to late... the USSR was a much greater threat than Iran and Josef Stalin was as crazy as any one in Iran today...Then we could tell the world what to do and there was nothing they could do about it...all i said was we should have stopped nations from getting nukes when we could...it did not bother you when we let China ge one? theres a few crazys there to...why is iran worrying you...you need to worry about China...if we can't win in Iraq what in the world makes you think we can win in Iran..its been 5 years (May 1st 2003) since we were told we had won in Iraq (mission Accomplished) All i'm saying is we have waited to long to tell another nation what to do or we will attack them...are you saying we should kill all disgrunted employee's and the mentally disturbed men?

    • Posted By: observer101 @ 07/13/2008 7:25:14 PM

      This is 2008!...We are not really that concerned with Russia, who has the common sense to know that if they strike we will strike...Irans ideaology is different in the fact that fanatical factions dont really think of there survival or anyone elses for that matter...As long as they die fighting (matyrism)they are going to heaven, even if it means killing all of there own ppl off. We never really had a problem with Russia as far as fanatics blowing themselves up, highjacking planes, let alone use them to fly into civilian populations...And dont be ridiculous...Im not saying to kill all disgruntled employees, or mentally disturbed ppl. What I was saying is that if you see that either one of those type of ppl toting a gun or dangerous weapon and you know what the end result is going to be, that you dont wait to long negotiating and goofing around...A rational person whos seen that movie before knows to take out the threat before countless others get hurt...Example..Columbine, Virginia Tech, the Amish community..Lesson SUPPOSED to have been learned: Take out the threat before the threat and damage gets to big!

  • Posted By: sparky716 @ 07/12/2008 4:25:37 PM

    If we had only not allowed any nation to build test and have nukes they we could told the rest of the world what to do when to do it and if they did not we could nuke them...we were the only nation on earth at the end of WW2 to have a A bomb...damn we lost our chance to make everyone do as we wished them to do....where were the right wing nuts when we needed them....

  • Posted By: sparky716 @ 07/12/2008 3:33:05 PM

    From reading these comments after we nuked Japan whe should have nuked Russia before they got there bomb then nuked England and France before they got there nukes we could have nuked China India and Pakistan before they got theres and then nuked Isreal but for some reason we did not...makes me wonder why all these chicken hawks would like to nuke or have Isreal nuke them...where you all when all the other country's got theres...if we had only nuked every one when they were building there nukes we would not be where we are now....why is it ok for England France Isreal to have nukes but not Iran or any one else who wants to build one....the time to say no was when we let Russia build one...if only we had nuked them when we were the ONLY country in the world to have a nuke.....

    • Posted By: tc125231 @ 07/16/2008 6:24:29 PM

      Amazing, that someone was even able to teach a person of your limited comprehension how to read and write. They should get some kind of teaching award.

    • Posted By: observer101 @ 07/12/2008 5:08:32 PM

      Sparky: Its probably because Iran having nukes is like a disgruntled employee or a mentally disturbed man with a gun..Its just not wise...But if you dont see it then its not worth explaining it to you over and over again. Id suppose Id rather be a chicken hawk, then an ostrich with his head in the sand and his ass in the air, pretending nothing would ever happen.

  • Posted By: observer101 @ 07/11/2008 9:47:06 PM

    Fast forward to today and insert Irans nuclear compliance to the world and we have another of the same scenerio...Why is it if a dem. president makes a decision to attack Iraq"unprovoked" its looked upon as no big deal, but since the "evil" Bush admin finishes the job chicken sh^t Clinton tried to do then its evil and we supposedly failed?...I dont recall any positive coming from Somalia or Serbia...Just Clinton pulling our troops out so he would look good, for another election that didnt pan out for him. Clinton and Rumsfield are perfect examples of what happens when politicians, the whiney baby public and the media try to run a war they have no business of running, war is for generals and the military...Let them do their job since thats what they are trained to do and we can leave sooner...And I know Rumsfield was part of the Bush staff, so no need to correct me on that.

  • Posted By: observer101 @ 07/11/2008 9:31:43 PM

    Hey Jurr why not fall for it? Clinton expected us to: 12/16/98 During the Lewenski scandal...CLINTON: "Good evening.
    Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
    Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
    Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
    I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.
    Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.
    The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.
    The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.
    The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."
    I guess back then it was o.k. to bomb Iraq because Clinton said it was o.k. to attack them then...You can look up the entire speech yourself.

    • Posted By: trimm25 @ 07/18/2008 2:26:34 PM

      and how many americans died when clinton done this? theres a difference between a praportional response and all out war. something most republicans seem to have a hard time comprehending. then again most of there rich buddies don't have kids that have to fight them wars.

  • Posted By: adamo89 @ 07/11/2008 3:07:37 PM

    Mr. Hirsh,

    I don't know who is responsible for the headlines on your website, but the characterization of this event as a "Nuclear Missile" test is needlessly provocative. Readers could see that headline and think that Iran tested missiles with actual nuclear warheads installed. We have very poor sources on Iran's military capabilities so broad characterizations such as this are grossly inappropriate.

    Your journalistic duty is to the facts, not hysteria-provoking exaggerations. Please consider this when you write your next headline.

    • Posted By: jgomez_miranda @ 07/12/2008 1:34:15 PM

      The problem is precisely that we have very poor sources on Iran/s military due to the reclusive and secretive kind of state they have. We are going to a situation similar to Iraq. Now it is easy to see that Sadam did not have WMD but at the moment he did everything he could to make us think otherwise. It is like the teenager pointing a toy gun to the police. It is easy to condem the police officer that shoot such a teenager, but his other only option is to wait for the teenager to shoot and if he receives a bullet in the chest then he knows the gun is real. With nuclear weapons is an even worse choice. We are asking Israel to wait for a definite proof that Iran is trying to get a nuclear weapon, but the proof would be a nuclear mushroom over its most important cities. I do not think Washington has enough control over Israel to make them accept such decision.

    • Posted By: observer101 @ 07/11/2008 9:54:23 PM

      It says "Will Irans missle test force the region into war?"...No word of nukes in the above headline...Maybe everyone imagines the word nuclear because they know deep down inside that its a real possibility thats what these tests are leading to..

  • Posted By: adamo89 @ 07/11/2008 3:06:36 PM

    Mr. Hirsh,

    I don't know who is responsible for the headlines on your website, but the characterization of this event as a "Nuclear Missile" test is needlessly provocative. Readers could see that headline and think that Iran tested missiles with actual nuclear warheads installed. We have very poor sources on Iran's military capabilities so broad characterizations such as this are grossly inappropriate.

    Your journalistic duty is to the facts, not hysteria-provoking exaggerations. Please consider this when you write your next headline.

  • Posted By: Jurr @ 07/11/2008 1:43:40 PM

    Let's invade Iran so we can interrupt oil supplies and drive the already insane prices even higher and the Oil Co's can make even more Mega-Billions before we give them no bid contracts on someone else's oil.

    All the crap being said about Iran was said about Iraq and used as an excuse for invasion. I can't believe anyone is falling for Bush/Cheney dupe AGAIN. Look where their crap got us the first time! Bush was too busy looking for WMD's **Wink Wink** instead of focusing on real issues here and now facing Americans. At least all of the Oil Companies are making record profits while Americans get laid off and their homes forclosed.

    • Posted By: observer101 @ 07/11/2008 10:01:34 PM

      WINK WINK your Lord and Savior Clinton figured there was WMDs also, not to mention enjoyed signing NAFTA...Which set us up for the job loses to oversea markets..Wink Wink China sure got alot of jobs to out of the deal...Say speaking of China who was that chinese person the Clintons rented out the Lincoln bedroom to?

  • Posted By: C. MacLean @ 07/11/2008 1:37:42 PM

    Don't be fooled by Iran's rhetoric or their posturing. They don't have a nuclear weapon and they don't want one - they just want everyone to THINK they do.

    What better way to goad the Israeli's into attacking them, so they can be the ultimate victims?

    We can't give in to the manipulative hysteria - Iran is setting us and Isreal up to be the bad guys. This is the ideal situation for them - make believe they MIGHT have a weapon, spook Isreal and/or the US into attacking, and watch the jihadists dance in the streets.

    Can't you see the headlines? The infidels are the aggressors! Jihad is the only answer! Join our most holy cause!

    Iran is not going to start this war - they are going to manipulate us into starting this war, and we are falling for their tactics, hook, line and sinker.

    DON'T BE FOOLED!!!!!!

  • Posted By: Nins @ 07/11/2008 11:29:40 AM

    Know why McCain wants to distance himself from former Senator Phil Gramm? It is not just because of Gramm's recent obnoxious remarks calling Americans "a nation of whiners" and that unemployed Americans are in "a mental recession." In fact, those remarks were so obnoxious that I wonder if they were engineered just to provide McCain an excuse for publicly distancing himself from Gramm. This issue is a lot deeper than it looks on the surface.

    When Gramm was a Senator he was chair of the Committee on Banking, and in that capacity he was able to push through the legislation now known as the "Enron Loophole." This loophole allowed US investment banks to bypass the Federal regulations governing futures trading, and is the reason why the investment banks were able to falsely inflate the prices of oil, wheat, corn and other commodities through massive futures trading, causing your costs of gas, heating oil and food to go through the roof.

    Gramm was a member of McCain's campaign team, but now Gramms' name is turning to mud. In addition to the Enron loophole, Gramm pushed through the Gramm-Leach-Biley Act in 1999, which got rid of the laws that seperate banking, insurance and brokerage activities in America. Essentially, this Act did away with all of the good laws written after the Great Depression to protect us from another Wall Street/Banking Industry collapse. That's right, Gramm stripped the system of it's safe guards nine years ago, and guess what? The value of the dollar has nose-dived, three major economic institutions have failed, Wall Street is highly unstable, and we are in the midst of a worsening recession.

    Now you could say that this is not Gramm's fault, that he didn't know what the outcome of his actions would be. However, it turns out that the same investment banks that benefited from the Enron loophole and from the Gramm Act gave more than a million dollars to Gramm's campaign. Uh oh. A Congressional hearing is going to be convened to investigate this. And McCain wants to have noting to do with Gramm, wants us to forget that Gramm has been a key player on McCain's campaign team. Gramm was McCain's campaign CO-CHAIR and LEADING ECONOMIC ADVISER. Previously, McCain had said that he planned to appoint Gramm as SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. It looks like McCain is scratching that idea, now that the public is finding out about Gramm. Didn't McCain's team bother to find out about Gramm before publicly considering him as Secretary of the Treasury?

    With Gramm in the driver's seat as McCain's leading economic adviser, now you know why economists and analysts are saying that McCain's economic policy plans are untenable.

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 07/10/2008 10:51:17 PM

    This administration abandoned diplomacy for blusteromacy. It had a really accomplished diplomat in Colin Powell, but he was ignored and more or less eased out of office. Rumsfield insulted Europe because they didn't go along with our bluster. They were right and he was wrong. Our president stomps around and says that all options are on the table, implying that we might bomb anybody who disagrees with us. He said that recently, directing it at Ahmadinejad. Now, Ahmadinejad blusters back by showing that he can shoot rockets. He is brandishing "Weapons of Limited Destruction". Call them WLD's. We are not well led in this affair.

  • Posted By: observer101 @ 07/10/2008 9:47:49 PM

    Negotiating with terrorists never has gotten positive results in the past, with ANY nation....Iran is historically known and brags its a terrorist state...Some say let them be and they will fade into history.....Some say attack as I believe we should...Some say if we attack, then Irans secret military in hiding in the U.S. will inflict serious casualties upon us...Eitherway way sitting and waiting for Iran to come to its senses one day will never happen. Should Israel bomb Iran we will be drawn into a major conflict..And Israel has no intention of sitting and waiting to see if Iran will cooperate with the worlds views on their nuclear ambitions...It will almost certainly happen either Iran will acheive it goal or Israel does...Neitherway looks promising for the U.S....Obama will not sway a radical nation of its goal nor will McCain, Russia or Europe. No one has yet to convince them to go a different route...Not sanctions nor show of force, not letters and demands from the U.N. matter...Should the inevitable happen, we do need a President that will stand up and do what is needed to both respond to and defend this great nation. I for one will stand up to Iran or any nation that threatens us now or in the future. No matter who is in office.

  • Posted By: Nins @ 07/10/2008 7:05:56 PM

    Know why McCain wants to distance himself from former Senator Phil Gramm? It is not just because of Gramm's recent obnoxious remarks calling Americans "a nation of whiners" and that unemployed Americans are in "a mental recession." In fact, those remarks were so obnoxious that I wonder if they were engineered just to provide McCain an excuse for publicly distancing himself from Gramm. This issue is a lot deeper than it looks on the surface.

    When Gramm was a Senator he was chair of the Committee on Banking, and in that capacity he was able to push through the legislation now known as the "Enron Loophole." This loophole allowed US investment banks to bypass the Federal regulations governing futures trading, and is the reason why the investment banks were able to falsely inflate the prices of oil, wheat, corn and other commodities through massive futures trading, causing your costs of gas, heating oil and food to go through the roof.

    Gramm was a member of McCain's campaign team, but now Gramms' name is turning to mud. In addition to the Enron loophole, Gramm pushed through the Gramm-Leach-Biley Act in 1999, which got rid of the laws that seperate banking, insurance and brokerage activities in America. Essentially, this Act did away with all of the good laws written after the Great Depression to protect us from another Wall Street/Banking Industry collapse. That's right, Gramm stripped the system of it's safe guards nine years ago, and guess what? The value of the dollar has nose-dived, Wall Street is highly unstable, and we are in the midst of a recession.

    Now you could say that this is not Gramm's fault, that he didn't know what the outcome of his actions would be. However, it turns out that the same investment banks that benefited from the Enron loophole and from the Gramm Act gave more than a million dollars to Gramm's campaign. Uh oh. A Congressional hearing is going to be convened to investigate this. And McCain wants to have noting to do with Gramm, wants us to forget that Gramm has been a key player on McCain's campaign team. Gramm was McCain's campaign CO-CHAIR and LEADING ECONOMIC ADVISER.

    With Gramm in the driver's seat as his leading economic adviser, now you know why economists and analysts are saying that McCain's economic policy plans are untenable.

    • Posted By: observer101 @ 07/10/2008 7:53:59 PM

      Thats great Nins...as usual your insight to the topic at hand is cut and paste as usual...WHat the heck does your comment on McCains party have to do here?...We all know you are voting Obama...So do it when the November elections come...Im sure if he pres then there will be peace on earth and Iran will come to there senses.

  • Posted By: sparky716 @ 07/10/2008 7:03:49 PM

    I think in 2008 EVERY nation in our world knows that no one wins a nuclear war...we ALL will die so no nation wants to distroy them selfs....The only limited nuclear war was with Japan and that was because we were the only country in the world with a nuke...every leader of every nation knows this....the only way the world will survive is with talks this ant the 40's

    • Posted By: observer101 @ 07/10/2008 7:49:59 PM

      Who said anything about using nuclear force against Iran..Conventional weaponary will suffice...The fact that Iran is an obvious threat is apparently beyond you....Talks with a nation that really wants nothing to do with any nation is just a waste of time...They are just stalling and buying time to achieve there goals....And I reference the 40's as a point that negotiations dont not always work, we were negotiating with Japan while the Japanese Navy was in the process of preparing to attack only days later ... The difference between then and now is that the Japanese Navy attacked soldiers, Iran doesnt and wont...They will attack any civilian and use there Koran as the excuse that innocents had to die...And they would parade around there little cities and praise the killers for taking out innocents as they have done numerous times...If a nation has every intentions of attacking they will. And Iran is a perfect example of playing innocent in front of the world to only attack when guards are down..Israel isnt perfect, but they have the right idea of dealing with the threats head on, and not relying on other nations to decide for them what they should or shouldnt do.

      • Posted By: tc125231 @ 07/16/2008 6:26:52 PM

        Suffice to do what? Piss them off? It certainly won't take out their nuclear program, a fact admitted by many advocates of attacking Iran.

      • Posted By: the-commish @ 07/10/2008 8:17:34 PM

        "Who said anything about using nuclear force against Iran...Conventional weaponary will suffice..."

        Wrong! Conventional weaponary will not destroy all of Iran's nuclear sites, and a ground invasion is out of the question. Iran is 4 times the size of Iraq, and even though their regular armed forces are not very capable, their paramilitary forces (terrorists if you will) have the capability of inflicting all kinds of damage, both in the Middle Esat, and beyond.

        • Posted By: observer101 @ 07/10/2008 8:31:16 PM

          Come on!..You know in reality that not every square inch of Iran is inhabited...If for instance, conventionals were dropped strategically at California then L.A., Sacramento, San Diego Naval bases, and strategic points would only be hit...Same in Iran..Tehran, military installations, communications, bridges, NUCLEAR facilities and the likes..Take out major cities and the place goes chaotic...Hell just the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, were hit and we didnt know what the hell was going on until many hours after the fact.

          • Posted By: the-commish @ 07/11/2008 1:56:26 AM

            Unfortunately, Iran's nuclear facilities are all strike-hardened, and will be very difficult to take out. Their cities would be far easier to take out, but even George Bush wquld not do that.

            As far as a ground invasion is concerned, I stick by my original assessment... it is not going to happen because even Pentagon planners would likely not come up with a rosy enough scenario to permit them to think that such an invasion would succeed. With our military stretched woefully thin now, it's just out of the question.

            • Posted By: summer4077 @ 07/11/2008 9:23:22 AM

              I agree. There's no way the US would ever get away with unprovoked bombing of civilian cities, and I believe many Americans would be horrified by the inhumanity of doing so. I'm saddened to see some Americans turning into barbarians with no regard for human life. How did we feel during 9/11, and after when we saw cheering in the streets of the Middle East? Have we really reduced ourselves to that level?

              • Posted By: LIKEITIS @ 07/22/2008 11:07:30 AM

                How did we feel during 9/11?

                LIKE BOMBING CIVILIAN CITIES!.................P.S. WHO WOULD STOP US FROM BOMBING THEM?.....ANSWER............NO ONE COULD. .....................CHINA WON'T UPSET IRAN BECAUSE THEY NEED IRANS OIL..........................BUT THERE IS MUCH LESS CHANCE THEY WOULD ATTACK THE U.S. SINCE THIER ENTIRE ECONOMY (MAJOR DEBTS INCLUDED) REVOLVE AROUND THE U.S..

                RUSSIA IS ABOUT TO ECONOMICALLY SKYROCKET (NATURAL GAS) (AND SPECIFICALY PUTIN HAS A PERSONAL MAJOR STAKE IN THE NAT. GAS) AND ANY TYPE OF WAR WOULD THREATEN THEIR BEST ECONOMIC CHANCES IN A CENTURY..............NO ONE OF ANY POWER LEFT...............IN OTHER WORDS, WE ARE ABLE TO DO WHAT WE WILL DO!

  • Posted By: ObamaMama @ 07/10/2008 6:27:56 PM

    There is an excellent way to defuse the Iranian missile episode. Something Ahmadinijad would find worthy of consideration to stem this tide. After all, Senator Obama has wisely considered the value of direct negotiations. Something Iran is very much in need of in exchange for... The idea will be forwarded to President Obama posthaste once his election is confirmed. The Most Holy Spirit of God has inspired and continues to inspire. We need leaders of peaceful negotiations and leaders within respective touchy regions of the world to do their very best to set examples of compromise and concern for their constituents, regional and global. We also CAUTION THE MEDIA on creating another potential war in the press !!!

    • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 07/10/2008 10:04:55 PM

      ONE PROBLEM WE HAVE DIFFERENT GODS AND THEY THINK THAT THIERS IS BETTER !!! AND THIERS SAYS IF WE DON'T CONVERT WE SHOULD BE KILLED !!

      • Posted By: LIKEITIS @ 07/22/2008 11:10:29 AM

        BUT IN REALITY..............SINCE THERE IS NO god..........OURS IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS THIERS...............MADE UP AND ONLY A FIGMENT OF BOTH OF OUR GUILTY CONSIENCES AND OUR FEARS OF DEATH!

    • Posted By: observer101 @ 07/10/2008 8:41:09 PM

      Ok since you want to play the God card..Lets play out this scenario...Perhaps the talker of "Peace and Change" is really the Anti-Christ and if he gets elected then his evil plan will come to fruition and there will be several years of peace..And then all Hell will break loose and.....Well you get the point...Its like that movie Left Behind...Only real.

      • Posted By: LIKEITIS @ 07/22/2008 11:11:32 AM

        ................WRITE THE SCREEN PLAY!..............MIGHT MAKE A GOOD MOVIE.

  • Posted By: sparky716 @ 07/10/2008 5:35:47 PM

    well i guess our mistake was allowing the Russians English and French from getting there nukes...I guess since we were the only country with a A bom we should have nuked Russia England and France when they started there nuke programs...and if YOU think Pakistan has any sense your not playing with a full deck...they are just as radical as Iran any day....Who do you think are supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan.......its not 1940 its 2008 and every nation knows a nuke war would end the world...grow up and move into 2008

    • Posted By: the-commish @ 07/10/2008 6:41:58 PM

      Actually, your comment is a little off. Prevez Musharrif fired the leaders of the ISI (Pakistani Security Service) because they had close ties to the Taliban. That was near the end of 2001. It is true that Pakistan was the main funder and trainer of the Taliban, but that issue has been dealt with long ago!

      • Posted By: sparky716 @ 07/10/2008 7:08:48 PM

        what world do you live in?

        • Posted By: the-commish @ 07/10/2008 8:52:14 PM

          "what world do you live in?"

          I did not say or imply that no one in Pakistan supports the Tabilan and al Queda.

          I said that the Pakistani Government is trying to root out the terrorists as best they can. The terrorist support is in the lawless tribal area of Northwest Pakistan, where the national government is neither recognized nor accepted. This area is rural and mountainous, and it is extremely difficult to support troops.
          Remember Tora Bora just across the Afghan border?

        • Posted By: observer101 @ 07/10/2008 8:46:37 PM

          Evidentally not your world..SO you believe that Pakistan is more of a threat than Iran?...Holy smokes...The military did a number on you..Possibly some type of testing you are unaware of....Really no disrespect to a member of our (former?)military, but sparky you are out there.

    • Posted By: observer101 @ 07/10/2008 5:45:03 PM

      Your right it is 2008!...Hence the reason you should open your eyes and stop being blind to the fact that the U.S. is in dangerous times...Saying all that stuff about us nuking Europe and Russia is ignorant...Go on and wear your horse blinders...With Pakistan we have some sort of a dialogue with them, as well as India, and Russia...Iran on the otherhand has no intentions of really dealing with us diplomatically...Ahmedinajhad has every intentions of becoming the great martyr who started WW3...Like it or not we are heading there...

      • Posted By: sparky716 @ 07/10/2008 6:39:01 PM

        no I think you are ignorant...just because Iran doesnt do what we want them to your talking WW3...are you old enough to remember when Sadam Hussein was our "friend" and we gave him the gas to gas the people of Iran...i think our country said at the time "he might be a S.O.B. BUT he is our S.O.B...your being ignorant by saying 2008 is the same as 1940...you probably were not even alive then but I was...btw what sort of dialogue do we have with Pakistan? please tell me...I think thats where we think Osama Bin Laden is...so yes we have a good dialogue with them...wake up and join 2008

        • Posted By: observer101 @ 07/10/2008 8:56:58 PM

          Sure I remember that...Remember when Japan was our buddies, and Russia, hell even Germany was..That point is moot...All nations were "friends" at one time or another..By what you are implying you are o.k. with Irans ambitions for nukes..You dont remember OUR embassy being overran in Tehran and hostages taken for unjust reasons, our marine barracks being bombed?..That is an act of war!...Whats it going to take to get you to understand? Iran has no intention of being ours or any other nations little buddy...That by any means isnt a reason to bomb them, but when the religious, and political parties over there call for the destruction of Israel, and the U.S., thats not setting off alarm bells?...

  • Posted By: thehappyamerican @ 07/10/2008 5:22:59 PM

    The Iranians are well aware of a US Presidencial election shaping up and this is their way to try to influence it and pluck a bit at the doves' feathers. Make 'em see Hawks under their beds!
    The Iranian leader knows the American doves are reflexevly Hawkophobic! This missile test and attendant news coverage is to prompt the Hawkophobes to drag out their biggest chicken to appease and cluck for peace!
    You might say the Iranian leader is manipulating the US news industry, too!

  • Posted By: sparky716 @ 07/10/2008 5:13:13 PM

    to wilsan...we are prepared for war..we are the strongest nation in the world BUT that don't mean you need to be a bully..just be ready....what did we do when China got there nuke.....what did we do when India got there nuke what did we do when Pakistan got there nuke....why should we do any thing different with Iran could it be oil could it be close to election time, you tell me..just think how many lifes might be saved if we had stoped China, India and Pakistan from getting there nuke....your comments don't hold water you can't live in the past....

    • Posted By: observer101 @ 07/10/2008 5:25:11 PM

      You are right sparky, we cant live in the past..We should have learned from the Japanese bombing in 1941 that we are vulnerable, and not to assume we will be left alone, as long as we keep to ourselves...A nation with such radical ideologies such as Irans political fanatics should be watched like a hawk. They would, at the drop of a hat take advantage of us or Israel, Iraq or any other state if given the chance. The ONLY reason they havent taken advantage of Israel yet is because they arent sure what our response would be...As for China, Pakistan, and India, they have the sense enough to have nukes and handle them...Iran HAS always stated they support terrorism, any rational mind can put together that Iran+nukes+radicals=disaster!

  • Posted By: observer101 @ 07/10/2008 5:10:21 PM

    So at what point Summer4077, Does a nation have the right to fight?...All those 'invasions" you speak of werent invasions at all, D-Day was an invasion...And fighting against communism at the time was a something that had to be done.. . If it wasnt you'd probably not be sitting here freely typing how you feel about it...As far as Serbia and Somalia, that would be Clintons watch and that was FAR from classifiying as in invasion...Didnt we stick our noses there because of ethnic cleansing?...Sort of what Iran wants to do huh?Rogue nations as North Korea had become and Iran definatly is, is another matter different from communism, but dangerous nontheless. So again at which point in time (nowadays) should we be able to respond to any nation that threatens any nations very existence?...After the fact according to your standards....After the damage has been done, and endless, mindless, efforts to attempt to get the worlds permission to defend ourselves has been exhausted, then maybe we can defend ourselves? God knows China, France and Russia will be there to lend a hand in allowing us to retaliate(as long as we only throw marshmallows, and they benefit financially after we finish the marshmallow throwing). Our job and responsibilty as a super power is to defend against rogue nations that threaten our interests...And evolve as the times dictate...Hence "preemptive strikes"...A neccessary option nowadays...

  • Posted By: Andrew1974 @ 07/10/2008 4:10:04 PM

    As part of the general populs it is difficult to make a rational argument on this issue without access to sensitive information this is unfortunately entrusted to governments who frequently let the World down in so many ways . Therefore any argument for or against action is largely emotive.

  • Posted By: sparky716 @ 07/10/2008 3:51:44 PM

    Hello wilsan...in the past the Roman's killed every man women child live stock even salted the fields of there enemies...the past is the past or do you think we should treat our enemies like the Roman's?...So speak for your self...
    US NAVY VET. 1963-67

    • Posted By: wilsan @ 07/10/2008 4:14:36 PM

      sparky716...

      The Romans did not always do that, incidentally... another topic.

      I suggest the best lesson to take to heart is Hitler's invasion (taking back) of the Rhineland in 1936... He later wrote, "If France had then marched into the Rhineland, we would have had to withdraw with our tails between our legs."

      Just think. How many lives could have been saved if France had only stood up to Hitler? Sparky, go back and reread my comment: "if you really want to avoid war, be prepared for it". Summer, you suppose anyone that does not agree with your opinion is shallow, and not willing to sacrifice - my point to you is, that is not true and using that dodge to advance your argument indicates a weakness in your argument.

  • Posted By: Jurr @ 07/10/2008 2:24:55 PM

    Way to use NUCLEAR in the headline. It was a MISSILE test, not a Nuclear test. Yes the missiles could/probably be used with nuclear devices that the Iranians don't even have yet.

    War? Sure, but it will be on Bush, Cheney, & McCain's heads if it does. All those of those retards constantly mention War & Iran in the same sentence. WOW SOUNDS JUST LIKE WHAT THEY DID TO IRAQ PRE_INVASION. McCain even made up a diddy so he could be a part of the group:
    "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran". Where is your article on that gem?

    Americans would be outraged IF one of the two finalist for the Russia Presidency went around singing "Nuke, Nuke, Nuke, Nuke Washington"

    What is Iran supposed to do? I don't like them, but there are Americans that I don't like but I find a way to get along. I don't antagonize them and goad them into a fight. We can kick the crap out of Iran any given day but does that we should? Have we become nothing but arrogant bullies? We have more cause to kick the crap out of Mexico, Colombia, & other Latin America countries that are destroying America by flooding us with illegal drugs and illegal immigrants but instead wehad a free trade agreement giveaway for them.

    • Posted By: Jurr @ 07/10/2008 2:28:00 PM

      Correction: The Nuclear was on the LINK to this article, not actually the article itself, sorry.

  • Posted By: sparky716 @ 07/10/2008 2:18:49 PM

    I would not look for anything to happen till the last week of Oct. Then watch for bush to start to saber rattling to help McBush in the election...but the America will not buy Hate and Fear this time...fool us once but not twice

  • Posted By: wilsan @ 07/10/2008 12:36:18 PM

    Mr. Hirsch is the same clueless 'journalist' that once said that early withdrawal from Vietnam would have had no consequences. This 'journalist' evidently seems to think that the Khmer Rouge, Viet Cong, and North Vietnamese Communists would magically disappear.

    Now, this 'journalist', after years of mocking Bush policy to contain Iran and prevent nuclear weapons development by Iran, has discovered "we'll probably have a war" because Iran is developing nuclear weapons. And evidently, from past writings, he expects the Israelis to quietly accept being nuclear bombed... This is the Newsweek position, that Israel is the problem.

    So, yes. We will probably have a war. The Liberals have primarily brought it about by foiling the World's attempts to stop Iran from producing a bomb. Where's smooth-talking Obama when you need him?

    • Posted By: Iconoblaster @ 07/10/2008 4:55:58 PM

      You have no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons (not that it sounds as though evidence or facts are anything you worry about much). Ironic that you are already blaming the CRITICS of the belligerent policies that lead to war for the war that the BELLIGERENCE will foment. As for Viet Nam, our presence there for a decade DID only make things worse. The Khmer would probably never have come to power in Cambodia had it not been for the fllout there of the American misadventure in Viet Nam.

      • Posted By: wilsan @ 07/10/2008 9:28:57 PM

        Most major countries think that Iran is developing nuclear weapons (not that it sounds as though the opinion of other major countries are anything you worry about much). You are confusing BELLIGERENCE with the right to self-defense... and if self-defense 'foments' a war then a war is goig to happen no matter what - best to win it, don't you think?

        I will hand it to you: You recognize Khmer Rouge with Cambodia. The rest of your observation is wrong, but at least you have a major party correctly identified. Viet Nam? it was won. The Liberal Democratic Congress of 1975 snatched defeat from the jaws of victory when they abandoned the South in the face of an all out armored invasion from the North. Just like the Democrats want to do now in Iraq...

    • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 07/10/2008 3:11:46 PM

      Out To Lunch. Obamas response to the tests,and McCains comments,rendered only confusion. ''we must not seek confrontation'',while at the same time,observing that ''tougher sanctions'' must be brought to bear which in nothing more than a confrontational device in and of itself.Obama is all over the place on this,making plain in October 2007 that he would ''not allow a takeover of the Gulf''by the Iranians,then immediately retreating back into diplomacy to assuage his leftwinged support-bloc,before advocating ''tougher sanctions'' after demanding more ''diplomacy''. Here is where Foreign Policy Obama and Domestic Policy Obama collide. Obviously,the fruits of the debate go to Iran by default,as Obamas leftist base detests Israel and indeed,as we saw with the international ''Peace''march in London in 2005,are ardent supporters of Iranian HEZBOLLAH,thus it is of no surpise that a missle-launching,UN resolution-violating,invasive -inspection-denying,terrorist-exporting Iran would be seen as underdog by the American left,a left that Obama must keep inside the reservation.Hence his tacking and yawing on Iran and what to do with it.
      Pass to McCain,[and State Dept.Spokesman McCormick,who was forced to endure the stupidity of partisan reporters at the press conferance yesterday regarding these missle tests],and the solution lay within the abilities of his old service branch,the US Navy,which intercepted and shot down 29 straight missles while they were detaching blank warheads above in the stratosphere.Exploit missle defense capabilities to the fullest[critics,including Obama,who is not exactly a rocket scientist,dismiss these rapidly evolving technologies as those that either ''do not work or are ''unproven'',hearkening back to the dated ''Star Wars''period leaving real rocket scientists and naval and air missleers scratching their heads as another MIRV blows up 100 miles above the earths surface.Sailors,as in the days of WWII,paint small missle-shaped sillouettes on the sides of their fire-control platforms]. Get the technology into the hands of the Israelis and naval craft operating in the Gulf immediately. Let the Iranians know that their SHAHABS will be shot down in flight should these be launched,and then negotiate,as Obama would have it,this time,from a position of strength,absolutely no differant than that conducted between Kennedy and Khrusuchev in 1962. As it now stands,if the US is acting as ''bad guy''here according to administration critics,then why are even the French pulling out of Iran? Why are Europeans more scared of what Iran actually did rather than what the US might do?

  • Posted By: garysgary @ 07/10/2008 12:32:53 PM

    We're going to war because Israel wants it...know it, beleive it. Is there ANYTHING we won't do for Israel?
    Can anyone tell me what we, as Americans, will get from winning in Iraq? If, in fact, we are winning as McCain says...what are we winning? What will we get? I'm asking was the Iraq war in OUR interest and what will we get when we win? Are we obligated to fight all of Israel's enemies, any where, any time and for all time? Who gave us this resposibility and who accepted it? Does our obligation to protect Israel ever end? Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons...many of them pointed at Iran. Isn't reasonable that Iran would want to acquire nuclear weapons also? Why not have Israel destroy their weapons and then Iran would not need them. It seems to me that as long as Israel has nuclear weapons, everybody is going to want nuclear weapons. Why is it that the US can't seem to get along with most big oil producing countries? Russia? Venzuela? Iraq? Iran? We can't get along with any of those countries...Why? We sure get along with Israel well...is it because they don't have oil? Can anyone answer these questions? Should we just listen to Bush/McCain/Leiberman or is there a better way?

    • Posted By: summer4077 @ 07/10/2008 1:56:44 PM

      Well said. Unfortunately, there are a lot of posters on this board that want war war war. There are very real and nasty consequences to war. Most of the modern wars have yet to solve anything, anyway. Are things really better in Vietnam? Bosnia? Somalia? Afghanistan? Iraq? The answer for all of those is a resounding no.
      I, like you, also find it hypocritical that Israel is allowed all the weapons they want, but no one else in the region is. If any other country dares to research the same technology that we've had for 60+ years (and actually used TWICE), as does Israel, then Israel starts provoking them with threats, knowing the whole while that it's big bad American watchdog is behind it. What should we expect from Iran? To sit there and take the threats from Israel? To let America invade? I'm not saying Iran is great, because there are definite issues, but the solution is not an arms race. That hasn't worked in past conflicts, and it won't now. These war mongers would love to have the whole world blown to smithereens.

  • Posted By: SPORTLOCK09 @ 07/10/2008 12:22:48 PM

    Cant we just have Obama give the Iranians a speech and the nuclear threat goes away? To my understanding, his speeches are what qualifies him for the presidency. Maybe he can make them feel all warm and fuzzy like the Obamabots.

    • Posted By: sparky716 @ 07/10/2008 3:23:50 PM

      or we could let bush lie us into another war...China has nukes India has nukes Pakistan has nukes...when do you think we should start a war with them?

  • Posted By: tico @ 07/10/2008 12:15:08 PM

    The problem ar the powers that want to bomb Iran. Look at Iran's history, they are not an agressor nation. However, look at those nations bend on attacking Iran, there history are filled with aggression to other nations. Take Israel, they recently bombed Syria. If Iran had done likewise, they would have been labed a terrorist nation. Lets take a step backwards, so not to create anothe Iraq size mistake, see http://www.jethroproject.com/tjpWestbehavior.htm

  • Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 07/10/2008 11:42:49 AM

    KKhan-

    ahhh yea, its called propaganda. welcome to united states foreign policy on "rogue" or "dangerous" nations. OF COURSE IRAN IS GOING TO TEST MISSLES IF THE U.S. AND OTHER COUNTRIES SURROUNDING IT ARE THEATENING IT!!! its called defense, we would do the same if mexico and canada were threatening america with war and invasion. and if anyone is dumb enough to think that a country cant obtain nuclear war heads, if not from their own production but from oohh say...NORTH KOREA, than you are truly a dullard idiot. black market war people. if you have money, you get what you want, end of story. if iran cant produce they're own bomb, than whats to stop them from buying one from another country in secret?

    • Posted By: summer4077 @ 07/10/2008 12:07:11 PM

      Actually, we have done the same thing recently with our whole missile defense system... Americans unfortunately live by the "do as I say not as I do" policies.

  • Posted By: kkhan @ 07/10/2008 11:26:59 AM

    This is preposterous. When Israel & the U.S military stage military maneuvers, it referred to as routine exercise. On the contrary, when Iran's armed forces engages in similar showoffs, it deemd provocative.

    • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 07/10/2008 11:54:09 AM

      if we have exercises thats what we call them but when they test wepons and go to the media and make statments like they did then thats different get your head out of your ass or buy a ticket there (iran )

      • Posted By: kkhan @ 07/11/2008 12:38:45 PM

        I don't get involved in name calling my friend. Who ever you are, be informed that all nations test their weapons, don't be fooled. What did your american power heads ( Bush & McCain ) say to the whole world about Iran - all options are on the table, including military strikes. What did the Iranian born Isareli minister
        say - Iran should be attacked. What do call this, when you get an answer let me know. Here is some info for you - I know a hell of a lot more about WAREFARE than you ever would - but I believe that voilence breeds violence & learnt over the years to avoid it as much as I can.

        • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 07/12/2008 7:06:11 AM

          korea , veit nam, grenada,bosnia, iraq ( the first one ) these are my honors what about you ! p.s. i wanted to go this time too but they said i was too old ( i even tried to get the liberals to back me on age discrimination but they said it too ! ) so i retired but my boys all 3 of them are just like dad and 1 daughter too ! bet she can beat you in arm wrestling !! ha ha ha pansy !!
          1st gsgt USMC retired

      • Posted By: Iconoblaster @ 07/10/2008 5:00:12 PM

        "Their" statements were, basically: don't attack us, or we will hit back. You are in no position, Willnotvote, to complain about where other people, purportedly, have their heads buried.

        • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 07/10/2008 6:16:44 PM

          did we call them a stinking corpes? or did we say that we would like to wipe them off the face of the earth ?? they did about us and irael !

          • Posted By: TheVigil @ 07/10/2008 11:53:07 PM

            Those comments were almost all mistranslated by the Western media. Why? Because, like most other Middle Eastern languages, we have just about nobody who speaks or understands Persian (Farsi, in its more proper form).

            Ahmadinejad's actual statements, *in* Farsi, were far less provocative. But in a spirit of paranoia, everyone rushes to judgement...

      • Posted By: summer4077 @ 07/10/2008 12:08:33 PM

        Uh, what do you think we're doing by threatening Iran with bombs if they don't stop? Seems like we're making the same statements... Israel is provoking all of this and dragging us into it.

  • Posted By: observer101 @ 07/10/2008 11:22:59 AM

    Please those of you on this post that are playing the IAEA card have got to be kidding...The IAEA has no clue really what is going on in Iran or Syria for that matter..They are only allowed to see what the are supposed to see and nothing more. They arent some all knowing power, that once they send in there report then its Gods word..In just about every incident they help PROMOTE an attack to what ever nation they where in with there shoddy assumptions. Take Syria for instance, it took outside forces (not the IAEA) to detect the fact there was even a north korean style nuke plant there! According to them, North Korea shouldnt have been able to detonate an atomic weapon until way into the future... How could they (N.K.) have so sneakly put the fact they were developing nuke weapons past the IAEA?..Yup Id put my future into the hands of the IAEAs reports of Iran not being able to produce nukes anytime soon...NOT!

  • Posted By: ikez78 @ 07/10/2008 10:36:12 AM

    The antiAmerican posters who come read NEWSWEEK never cease to amaze me. Iran tests missiles, develops nukes and sponsors all kinds of terrorism and, as always, it's AMERICA'S FAULT. But don't question the left's patriotism, right?

    • Posted By: summer4077 @ 07/10/2008 12:09:44 PM

      They don't have nukes (and if they did, duh, so do we and we're the only ones to actually USE them!) and what's your proof that they sponsor terrorism? Solid proof, please, no smoke and mirrors Bush tactics.

  • Posted By: hellbreaksloose @ 07/10/2008 10:01:10 AM

    what the hell is going on, madness dudes, time for a new Woodstock . A little acid will cure the Muslims

    • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 07/10/2008 11:55:43 AM

      wood stock will produce more liberals please no more wood stock !!

  • Posted By: carminejd @ 07/10/2008 8:23:24 AM

    Oh please; don't be a putz. There is no accidental run up to anything. US, Israel, Europe and most of the Arab nations are systematically pushing pushing pushing Iran to stumble so, together, we can more easily orchestrate the collapse of their authoritarian theocracy. Iran's latest little missile nonsense and the brash propaganda that came with it looks like the Ahmadinajad stumble is coming soon. At some point he and the mullahs will give the West, and the Arabs, the appropriate rationale to attack them in any number of ways from military to the paralyzingly extreme economic sanctions only possible once we are all officially at war with Iran. Iran knows this, and they are having problems coming up with any alternatives other than political buffoonery. So, if not this week then certainly in 18 months at the latest will be the end for them. Iran will certainly collapse within 18 months, at the longest, whether we actually bomb them or just keep them in a whirling internal storm of economic and political frenzy, of fear and threat, and of boastful and unsettling propaganda. Push push push, Push push Iran! Keep the pressure on. Then, if we keep our cool as we turn up their retaliatory hatred and seething anxiety , Iran will melt of its own internal heat and suffering.

    • Posted By: observer101 @ 07/10/2008 11:53:11 AM

      LOL @ political buffoonery

  • Posted By: summer4077 @ 07/10/2008 7:47:01 AM

    Wow, there are so many war mongers on this discussion board. It reminds me of a quote from General Sherman, after the Civil War. "I confess, without shame, that I am sick and tired of fighting???its glory is all moonshine; even success the most brilliant is over dead and mangled bodies, with the anguish and lamentations of distant families, appealing to me for sons, husbands, and fathers ... it is only those who have never heard a shot, never heard the shriek and groans of the wounded and lacerated ... that cry aloud for more blood, more vengeance, more desolation."
    We do not need more senseless violence. We need diplomatic intervention, which any wise person will acknowledge. Only fools crave more violence and blood. American lives will be lost over a conflict that Israel has escalated but can't fight. It's like the mouthy little kid on the playground, causing trouble because he know his big brother will back him up. This is a serious matter and needs to be addressed without bombing the crap out of every country that doesn't do exactly what we say. We all know how well THAT worked...Iraq is a smashing success, right?

    • Posted By: Historylessons @ 07/10/2008 1:48:07 PM

      Thank God that General Sherman decimated the South - for it was his merciless campaign that finally ended the civil war and freed the African America slaves. He was 'sic and tired of war' as all solders who have had to fight them. As far as diplomatic intervention, I would suggest you read the history that let up to the beginning of WWII. Diplomacy does not work against Tin Horn Dictatorial Nations.

      • Posted By: wilsan @ 07/10/2008 3:23:00 PM

        Speak for yourself, summer4077.

        Only fools have not learned the lessons of the past. You obviously would have Israel bombed. You obviously think it would end there. You would obviously would sacrifice others to save youself, and have not learned the lessons of history that "you are next".

        summer4077, Pay Attention to Historylessons ! If you "really" want to avoid war, prepare for it - be the best at it.

        USMC Vet, 1968-71, Vietnam

    • Posted By: observer101 @ 07/10/2008 11:41:48 AM

      Iraq is becoming a success, whether you like it or not...No war is a two day event and everyone goes home and eats dinner after they are done fighting..There is always skirmishes that happen after the main event. Take WW2 for instance, Germany lost but there were still pockets of fighters for a few years after that refused defeat...Same with Japan...General Sherman had it right in alot of respect, but that doesnt by any means, mean that war isnt a necessary evil that shouldnt be fought...Especially when its an imminent threat which Iran has been for years from the attack and take over of our U.S. embassy in Iran (consider it U.S. soil),bombing U.S. barracks, to there numerous terroristic attacks against U.S. interests(that they claim responsibility for by the way) and threats that is considered by many nations as an act of war. Backing down as we always have only brings us to where we are now..Dealing with a brazen rogue nation that fears nothing, and does as it pleases to any nation knowing there will be no attacks, only strongly worded letters from the U.N. and sanctions that are always worked around.

      • Posted By: summer4077 @ 07/10/2008 12:12:19 PM

        Have you read about new rocket-propelled bombs...kind of like IEDs but worse. We are not winning it. True, no war is a 2 day event but we won TWO freakin' world wars in less time! Are you serious?? I also don't see where we've ever backed down, at least not since Cuba. Invaded Korea, invaded Vietnam, invaded Somalia, invaded Serbia, invaded Croatia, invaded Afghanistan, invaded Iraq...I know I'm forgetting some but I'm only 26 and my brain tends to block out extreme war-mongering.

        • Posted By: sjbrock80 @ 07/10/2008 3:13:14 PM

          What you call war-mongering is known to most people as protecting allies and stopping rogue nations from killing millions of people.

          If your friends get the crap beat out of them, do you walk up to who did it and try to have a peaceful discussion of why it's bad while your friend is bleeding on the ground?

          • Posted By: Iconoblaster @ 07/10/2008 5:12:10 PM

            Iran hasn't "beat the crap" out of anyone...though they fought off the aggression of Iraq (tacitly encouraged by the United States) a few years back. Who is bleeding on the ground, sj? Israel and the United States almost constantly threaten Iran, and Iran is supposed to respond to this how? By capitulating, and giving in to threats? And pay heed here: Iran hasn't threatened anyone (despite the spin put on all Iranian press statements by Neocon and Zionist interests)...Iranian officials HAVE said what they think of Israel (that it is an illegitimate state) and what they believe will eventually happen to it (they think it will not survive for long). Those aren't THREATS. Threats are when you intentionally lead someone to believe you are likely to attack them...as when Bush says an attack on Iran is one option he is considering, if Iran doesn't do as he demands, or when Israel conducts a complex "training exercise" seen, and intended to be seen, as a dress rehearsal for an attack on Iran.

  • Posted By: gommy goomy @ 07/10/2008 7:44:29 AM

    This isn't rocket science.-(no pun intended)-The Jews will NEVER let the little psycho get his Robert Hall wearing little hands on a NUKE. Perhaps if they would read the comment by an obvious idiot named froy1100, they could relax, because he "very much doubts that they are using old Kims' technology" to make nukes. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'M convinced. What an IDIOT. I guess the Syrians weren't gonna use 'Old Kims' technology' in the Nuke sight that old Kim built for THEM? I repeat, the Jews are not gonna sit bye. And neither would I. They WILL attack, and they don't care about the little psychos' threats to bomb oil fields or close the Straits, or any of that. So get ready. (Not you froy. You stay like you are. Because you're so smart) Idiot. It WILL HAPPEN. And the world better start preparing for it. Except for froy. Idiot.

    • Posted By: froy1100 @ 07/10/2008 11:58:09 AM

      Man, take a valium. And stay clear from anything loaded.
      For your reference, Iran's nuclear technology is of Pakistani origin (courtesy of A.Q. Khan), and uranium-based, as opposed to NK's plutonium one. Both processes are totally different, so there's little chance of connection.

    • Posted By: summer4077 @ 07/10/2008 7:50:02 AM