The Guns of November

Newsweek Web Exclusive

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: mrr0ng @ 07/09/2008 5:30:43 PM

    I totally agree. This will drive gas prices even higher. I am so glad that I can bike to work and the grocery store. This will lengthen the recession here in America, and probably cost thousands of lives in the middle east. Yay! Lots of fun!

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

      WATCH OUT FOR OBAMA'S BIKE TAXES LOL !!!

      • Posted By: summer4077 @ 07/10/2008 2:02:15 PM

        It's alright. It'll probably never affect you b/c Republicans are notoriously gluttonous, getting fat off of hard-working people.

        • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 07/10/2008 6:49:18 PM

          I HAVE NO BIKE BUT MY DRIVER SAYS WE CAN AFFORD IT !

  • Posted By: SPORTLOCK09 @ 07/09/2008 5:34:42 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: expatincebu @ 07/09/2008 5:43:38 PM

      Since Iran is not a nuclear threat except in the fetid imaginations of the Israelis and dick cheney, it should not be necessary. Oboma instead should give a speech on how lack of education causes people like you to mistake propaganda for facts.

      • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 07/10/2008 12:22:03 PM

        CAN YOU SAY WITHOUT A DOUBT THAT THEY(IRAN) HAVE NOT GOT NUKES FROM PAKISTAN OR NORTH KOREA?

        • Posted By: summer4077 @ 07/10/2008 2:01:34 PM

          Many intelligence reports--US military intelligence reports, I might add--have definitively denied that Iran has any nuclear weapons. They don't even have the technology yet, they're still trying to perfect it. They ARE trying to build them, that is true. But they are not there yet. I can not believe people like you would make the same mistake AGAIN. After the false claims of WMDs in Iraq, have you not learned your lesson???

          • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 07/10/2008 6:48:13 PM

            THATS THAT THEY HAVEN'T MADE ANY NUKES YET IT DON'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THEY AQUIREING THEM !

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

      Yeah, just like Iraq had WMDs. Do you seriously believe everything fed to you by the Bush administration? Even after all their lies and deceit? If you read the article, it says that Iran is exaggerating their capabilities, and Israel has been chest-thumping for years. I, for one, am sick of always going to bat for Israelis who just want to boss everyone in the Middle East around. Palestine, now Iran...where do we stop and smack Israel upside the head and tell them to shut their damn mouths because we're sick of fighting their fights?

      • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 07/10/2008 11:58:51 AM

        then move and go to bat for iran if you don't love it leave it !! hey they should make song like that !!!

        • Posted By: summer4077 @ 07/10/2008 12:13:11 PM

          Hmm why don't you go fight Iran? You're so for starting wars without at least trying diplomatic means. But you probably wouldn't put your head on the line. Talk talk talk, nothing to back it up.

          • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 07/10/2008 6:23:12 PM

            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 !!

          • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 07/10/2008 6:14:23 PM

            i have no problem fighting for my country i've done it before and will happily do it again just so you can keep dogging the greatest country in the world !! free speech is your right ! thank your troops for keeping it your right !

          • Posted By: sjbrock80 @ 07/10/2008 3:10:43 PM

            Must be convenient to have an administration to blame all of lifes problems on. Move to the middle east and join them if you are so sorry for them.

    • 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: Lee Holmes @ 07/09/2008 11:04:03 PM

    Number of international terrorist organizations
    US 0
    Israel 0
    Iran 2
    Iraq 3 [of whom one is Shia in origin].

    Number of terrorist organizations that can explode only one weapon killing millions: 1

    • Posted By: froy1100 @ 07/10/2008 7:36:49 AM

      You should include the Mossad and the IDF there

      • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 07/10/2008 1:03:17 PM

        Nonsense. Neither is designated by any international law or body in any way,shape,or form as a ''terrorist organization''.

        • Posted By: Iconoblaster @ 07/10/2008 5:31:24 PM

          Ugly is as ugly does. Both the IDF and the Mosad (and any number of other Israeli or Zionist militias of the past: Lehi, the so-called Stern Gang) have committed violence, threats and intimidation for the purpose of achieving political ends. This is the definition of "terrorism". The United States has also engaged in terrorism: the most salient example being the "Shock and Awe" campaign, which was, again, even by its own terms, undeniably a terrorist action.

  • 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: 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: 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: 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.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse