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: Political Pluralism @ 09/30/2009 6:12:32 PM

    Amidst the fiery debate over the new strategy to take place in Afghanistan, Sen. John McCain has proposed a new amendment attached to the defense spending bill. The Requirements that Senator McCain are seeking out is for Gen. McChrystal, and Head of Central Command Gen. Petraeus to testify in front of Congress. This didn't take place without any backlash, Carl Levin; who is on the Senate Armed Services Committee with McCain. Levin feels that there isn't any need at this time for Gen. McChrystal to provide testimony, because President Obama hasn't established a direct plan for Afghanistan at the moment. Despite the damning statements Gen. McChrystal made regarding to President Obama, that he had only spoke to the president once since becoming the lead Afghanistan General. Mr. Obama is set to reestablish a strategy with top officials including Gen. McChrystal. My questions to you all consists of this. Do you think that the war in Afghanistan is capable of winning? If so, will it just be a police state with roughly 50,000 troops present at all times? (politicalpluralism.com)

  • Posted By: Political Pluralism @ 09/30/2009 2:03:36 PM

    Tomorrow the meeting is set to begin in Geneva, Switzerland, the United Nations security council including Germany, Britain, France, United States, Russia, China, and Iran. This is the Obama's Administrations opportunity to persuade Iran to halt its nuclear operations. Iran is still claiming the nuclear productions are solely for civilian purposes. It is obvious there is a hidden agenda behind Iran's uranium enrichment. If it is for civilian energy purposes, then why is it hidden in Qom in the mountains, and heavily guarded? I'm open to your suggests so feel free to comment with your opinion. The United States diplomatic approach is going to work 1 out of 100 times, Iran has shown on many occasions is doesn't have to adhere to any treaty or agreements that are made. Iran had made a public statement a few days again saying that they were not interested in nuclear talks at the meeting. The U.S. is optimistic that the issues at hand can be resolved, but optimism can only breed hope. I don't want hope, I want clear answers as to what the actions are that are going to be taken if Iran doesn't cooperate peacefully. I'm leaving you all with this one last question. If Iran continues to enrich uranium, would you support the United States and allied countries invading to cease the operations of Iran's nuclear program?
    FORUM at (politicalpluralism.com)

  • Posted By: MichaelX @ 09/29/2009 4:45:55 PM

    Well of course, stupid! What else do you think is going to happen? This is a demented little man who thinks himself as the "prince of the east" that Nostradamus wrote of. All middle-eastern sub-species have been slaightering each other for millenia! Pull out our troops, and let them go at it! Getting rid of half of the lame religeo-fanatics would be a plus.

  • Posted By: surfermatt3 @ 02/06/2009 1:46:28 PM

    I have said it before but the news paper editors had ignored my comments. One day one of our enemies will have the capability in sending a missile armed with nuclear ammunition to bomb the space satellite, which is the heart & soul of every cellular phones aorund the world plus the other digital tehnology that had defended on this satellite out there just floating in outer space! Then I can see with smile on my face how suddenly those who depend too much on cellular phones everyday of their lives and those who cannot sleep without their cellular phones on their side, will suddenly wonder..."what happened?" when all these phones suddenly went dead after someone bomb the space satellite out in space! In this kind of war, nobody will die but it will have an everlasting effect in the whole world!

  • 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Iconoblaster @ 07/09/2008 6:18:54 PM

    I don't know whether the Persians are working toward nuclear weapons capability or not, but THEY aren't the ones threatening violence anyway, not now and not at any point in recent history. They are BEING threatened. Seems like the one near-certain way to induce them they need nuclear weapons for their own national survival would be to keep ON threatening them. The US invaded Iraq, after all, but we negotiated with North Korea. The lesson of that should be pretty clear to everyone, so on one hand all this blustering seems calculated to achieve exactly the opposite of what the blusterers pretend to be after. Maybe thats the point: it IS just pretense, because hostility with Iran serves the interests of warhawk parties in both the US and in Israel: no dangerous enemy to frighten their own electorates with, and Likudniks and Republicans are probably all out of their jobs.

    • Posted By: HolyRoller @ 07/09/2008 6:50:32 PM

      Don't call them Persians. Persians were a great people. Leaders in the Arts, Science, Literature, Astronomy, Architecture, and all things made great by mankind. They were the children of Abraham. They sent the Wise Men to locate the Messiah. They were leaders of the entire world. They are EXTINCT. Mohammed and his demon Allah showed up, and "POOF". Dark Ages and enslavement. Persia is long, long, gone. All that is left, is a devil worshipping cult.

      NOBAMA!!!

      • Posted By: the-commish @ 07/10/2008 12:09:06 AM

        The Iranians ARE ethnically and geographically Persians.

        They are 89% Shia Muslim, 7% Sunni Muslim (mostly Kurdish) and 4% "other". They are not Arab.

        • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 07/12/2008 7:08:47 AM

          be truthful the 4% is camel right ?

      • Posted By: joeshmoe @ 07/09/2008 7:04:36 PM

        Wow. So who would you call a persian? This is the most ignorant comment I've seen yet on any web site.

        • Posted By: HolyRoller @ 07/09/2008 7:09:28 PM

          There are no Persians left. Ignorant??? You must know very little of history. The children of Ismael were a great people. The introduction of Islam, devoured their culture and knowledge. They now live very much like a rabid pack of dogs.

          NOBAMA!!!

          • Posted By: TheVigil @ 07/11/2008 12:07:28 AM

            And here I thought the Crusades ended back in the 13th century.

    • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 07/09/2008 7:20:16 PM

      Nonsense. Beginning with Ahmedinjezads threat to ''wipe Israel off the map'',there have been a host of threats designed to sabre-rattle the region by Iran. In 2006,it was its Revolutionary Guards commander Gen.Reza Ashtani,then filling in for Gen.Muhammed Ali Jafari who stated that if the ''US attacks Iran,then we will attack Israel,which would be ''eliminated from the scene of the universe''. On Sept.17,2007,ASSAR IRAN reported that ''The country has 600 missles pointed at US and Israel targets''. On June 28 of this year,Gen.Jafari threated to blockade the Persian Gulf which even Obama has stated he would not allow as president.[as did Hillary Clinton]. ''fatal blows,will be delivered''.
      This is a nation of loose cannons that is being stupidly allowed to go its way and provocate open war in the region by a pack of western leftwingers and Bush haters[the more simpleminded among us as their hatreds run in only one direction and are bereft of larger-scope thought], who do not know the range of this nations intentions. As we earlier explored,a missle defense system placed in downtown Tel Aviv,and encircling Iran including European locations which the Poles and Czechs have signed on to,along with a carrier task force in the Gulf,conducting diplomatic overtures and discussions at the same moment,will do more to preserve sanity than groveling to these while they build their bomb. Then too,there is no Israeli counterpart to HEZBOLLAH,who murders peoples of several nations at whim.[yet is lionized as ''heroes''by these very same,blighted,leftwingers,who never saw a gun-toting dictator that they didnt like].

      • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 07/09/2008 10:02:53 PM

        Terrific post, Lee Holmes. Iconoblaster's ignorance is breathtaking and dangerous.

        • Posted By: Iconoblaster @ 07/10/2008 5:45:48 PM

          Amazing hypocrisy jimbo. Do you imagine that calling for war is NOT dangerous? As for you charge of ignorance, you fail to point out a single factual error in my post, so your allegation remains unfounded...or is it, instead, evidence that YOU are ignorant of the usual standards of debate: you make an assertion, and offer evidence. Critics who dispute your assertion are obliged to offer evidence of their own to refute it, if they can. So, if you are serious, drop the ad hom nonsense, and refute what I said. If you can.

          • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 07/10/2008 10:49:21 PM

            Dude, your whole original post is just rambling nonsense, based on false premises that you evidently take hook, line, and sinker from the far left.

            Besides, Lee Holmes has already totally taken you apart. I can't begin to top what he did to you!

            I'm amazed that you still show your face here after that...

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

              We "lefties" rarely work off a shame-based paradigm and generally respect ourselves a bit too much to go hide in corners just because someone's trying to say we ought to feel bad. And it's Lee Holmes who's omitting about half the facts in this case, not Iconoblaster.

              I really, really wish at least some of you right-wing warhawks actually spoke Farsi...

      • Posted By: Iconoblaster @ 07/10/2008 5:22:03 PM

        Iran did not THREATEN to wipe Israel off the map...at least, according to the fluent Farsi speaker I asked to review the translation....Ahmadinejad predicted that Israel would meet such an end, but stopped far short of saying that Iran would take any action to accomplish it. Saying that someone is likely to meet a bad end is a far cry from threatening to cause that. As for Iranian statements that they would respond in kind if THEY are attacked, it takes a pretty good twist to make that out as a "threat".... someone says he will defend himself if attacked, and that is considered a threat? Where is your dictionary?

        • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 07/10/2008 6:45:15 PM

          YOU SIR ARE A LIBERAL WITH NO LOVE FOR THE COUNTRY THAT IN WHICH YOU RESIDE THERE FOR IF YOU FEEL THAT IRAN IS SO NICE PLEASE PROVIDE ME WITH A ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER AND I WILL BE HAPPY TO BUY YOU A TICKET TO ANY ONE OF THESE PLACES IRAN SYRIA IRAQ AFGANISTAN LEBANON OR NORTH KOREA AND I WILL ALSO GIVE YOU 5,000 US DOLLARS ( JUST BECAUSE I CARE ENOUGH TO TRY AND HELP YOU OUT ) BUT I HAVE ONLY ONE CONDITION THE TRIP IS ONE WAY AND YOU MUST STAY FOR AT LEAST 6MTHS AND I GET TO TAKE YOU TO THE AIRPORT AND SEE YOU GET ON THE PLANE AND SEE IT TAKE OFF ! THEN BY ALL MEANS DO YOUR VERY BEST TO TELL THEM THAT YOU MEAN NO HARM AND THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO TRY AND WORK ALL THESE PROBLEMS OUT IF YOU ARE SUCCESSFUL THEN YOU WILL BE A HERO FOR ALL THE WORLD TO SEE P.S. A WORD OF ADVISE FOR THE MUSLIM COUNTRIES CONVERT TO ISLAM OR YOU WILL HAVE NO CHANCE AT ALL BECAUSE THE MUSLIM EXTREMIST OVER THERE GO BY THE KORAN AND IT SAYS IF YOU DON'T CONVERT YOU SHOULD BE SLAIN !

      • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 07/10/2008 12:13:09 PM

        MR. LEE HOLMES I SALUTE YOU YOU ARE ONE OF THE BEST IF NOT THE VERY BEST POSTERS ON ANY BLOG I HAVE READ YOU SHOULD BE WORKING FOR A MEDIA OUTLET AND GETTING PAID BIG BUCKS BECAUSE YOU ARE RIGHT ON THE MONEY EVER TIME !!!

  • 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.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse