Warning: main(/home/b4v/public_html/wp-content/themes/blixed/above.php) [function.main]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/b4v/public_html/wp-content/themes/blixed/single.php on line 5
Warning: main() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/b4v/public_html/wp-content/themes/blixed/above.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/b4v/public_html/wp-content/themes/blixed/single.php on line 5
Iranian Missile Site?
April 13th, 2008 at 09:27am Mark Noonan
Disturbing news:
The secret site where Iran is suspected of developing long-range ballistic missiles capable of reaching targets in Europe has been uncovered by new satellite photographs.
The imagery has pinpointed the facility from where the Iranians launched their Kavoshgar 1 “research rocket” on February 4, claiming that it was in connection with their space programme.
Analysis of the photographs taken by the Digital Globe QuickBird satellite four days after the launch has revealed a number of intriguing features that indicate to experts that it is the same site where Iran is focusing its efforts on developing a ballistic missile with a range of about 6,000km (4,000 miles).
A previously unknown missile location, the site, about 230km southeast of Tehran, and the link with Iran’s long-range programme, was revealed by Jane’s Intelligence Review after a study of the imagery by a former Iraq weapons inspector. A close examination of the photographs has indicated that the Iranians are following the same path as North Korea, pursuing a space programme that enables Tehran to acquire expertise in long-range missile technology.
Geoffrey Forden, a research associate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said that there was a recently constructed building on the site, about 40 metres in length, which was similar in form and size to the Taepodong long-range missile assembly facility in North Korea.
Avital Johanan, the editor of Jane’s Proliferation, said that the analysis of the Iranian site indicated that Tehran may be about five years away from developing a 6,000km ballistic missile. This would tie in with American intelligence estimates and underlines why President Bush wants the Polish and Czech components of the US missile defence system to be up and running by 2013.
Now, it’d be nice if 10,000 liberals out there would read this and suddenly realise what a bunch of dunces they’ve been…and how President Bush has been right all along…both about Iran’s membership in the “Axis of Evil”, and about the need for SDI. We won’t get that, of course, but we can still dream about it…
Meanwhile, what do we do about this?
One’s first inclination is to give the Iranians a demonstration in accurate missile targeting and blow the place sky high. But then one thinks this might be too harsh, so one goes and makes a sandwich and comes back to the blog ready to put out some non-blow-sky-high alternative…but, even with calming sandwich in hand, blowing the place to smithereens still commends itself.
Will we do such a thing? Doubtful - but if there is a time to do it, now would be it. The world would condemn us - and then breath a hearty sigh of relief. International politics would be roiled, but in 9 months there will be a new US President who can say that EEEEVIL Bush did that, and can’t we all get along? Meanwhile, wink wink/nudge nudge, we’ll do it again if we have to. This is the real world, good people - and the Iranian government is currently commanded by men who have demonstrated their willingness to do evil deeds. Men so capable should not be allowed to obtain that much destructive force - this is not a matter of what Iran might have done to us, or what we might have done to this; this is entirely based on the objective factors that long-range missiles can be very destructive and the Iranian government has proven itself inclined to be wicked. We can’t reach out and destroy all the evil in the world, but such evil as we can attack, we should do so.
Entry Filed under: War on Terror
117 Comments Add your own
1. extramedium | April 13th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Well, since we already know what it feels like to be a nation of dunces after allowing this President to go to war with Iraq on the basis of trumped-up “weapons of mass destruction” evidence, we’ll probably just sit back and wait for this report to be corroborated by some other reliable sources.
Fool me once…
2. neocon | April 13th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Extra,
I am sure the French, the Brits, the Germans, the Saudis, the Aussies, the Canadiens, etc, will all be impressed by your assertion that they too “trumped” up the Iraqi WMD intelligence. They all had the same intel.
But of course, none of them are as smart as you. Hard to believe you waste your time on a blog when your obvious intelligence and insight could be put to much better use.
3. NeoClown | April 13th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Mark,
Are you saying that President Bush has decided not to bomb Iran because he is concerned about what Liberals think? Are you saying President Bush is concerned about polls, but not concerned about our National Security?
As a Liberal, I think the greatest good can be achieved with the least amount of harm if President Bush would destroy the launch sites and the enrichment facilities now. nfortunately, President Bush will not act. President Bush botched the job in Iraq and has lost his taste for war.
The legacy of George W. Bush will be his idleness.
President Bush stood idly by as Iran seized large portions of Iraq.
President Bush did nothing as Iran become a nuclear threat.
Some day soon the world will pay dearly for President Bush’s inaction.
4. neocon | April 13th, 2008 at 10:11 am
“The legacy of George W. Bush will be his idleness.” - Clown
ROTFLMAO.
5. Some Assembly Required | April 13th, 2008 at 10:38 am
neocon,
I find your post #2 very amusing indeed. All these countries had the same intel, so why did the UN not sanction the war? Why did Canada, a neighbor and probably closest ally to the US decide not to go? Why did France oppose it so adamantly (aside from the obvious of them trading with Iraq)? How about the German’s? I mean really, when have they EVER been opposed to war?
If this intel was so resounding and conclusive the UN would have had no choice along with Canada, France and Germany but to join the US. They didn’t, and it turns out there were no WMD’s… maybe they knew something the US people didn’t… So forgive me and lets say the other 81% of the US population if we are a little cynical over any intelligence of any WMD or ballistic missile claims coming from the administration.
6. neocon | April 13th, 2008 at 10:43 am
SAR,
Have you forgotten the blatant corruption that is the UN? And the oil-for-food scandal wherein the French, Germans and Russians were making billions off of the starving Iraqis.
Yes, I think you did. But why let historical facts get in the way of a dishonest liberals pursuit of power, right?
7. Canadian Observer | April 13th, 2008 at 11:11 am
After the Iraqi fiasco, would the American people really allow its President to commit another one?
Good grief, don’t you think Americans have smartened up to the fact that they were hoodwinked once in going to war on bogus charges and will not be fooled again.
How will the decider guy get the go ahead for another war anyway? Does he, in the greatest democracy in the world, have the power to override the will of the people? Y’all don’t live in
a dictatorship yet, do you?
8. neocon | April 13th, 2008 at 11:18 am
CO,
What’s it like to be a contrarian bystander with no courage, integrity or vision?
9. js | April 13th, 2008 at 11:19 am
The best bet would be to escalate out naval presence and give Israel enough cruise missles to level every suspected nuclear/missle plant to smitherines.
If the Iranians want a war, they just have to procede on the current course, because it is inevitable.
10. Iran » Blog Archive&hellip | April 13th, 2008 at 11:28 am
[…] Mark Noonan wrote an interesting post today on Iranian Missile Site?Here’s a quick excerptNow, it’d be nice if 10000 liberals out there would read this and suddenly realise what a bunch of dunces they’ve been…and how President Bush has been right all along…both about Iran’s membership in the “Axis of Evil”, and about the … […]
11. Canadian Observer | April 13th, 2008 at 11:46 am
CO,
What’s it like to be a contrarian bystander with no courage, integrity or vision?
8. neocon | April 13th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Canada had the integrity and vision not to be drawn into the U.S. unmitigated disaster in Iraq and you can witness for yourself the courage of the Canadian forces in Afghanistan.
12. sam | April 13th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Please attack Iran, Please put an end to the short stint of your empire.
I can’t wait for the US to do something dumb and try to attack Iran when they have done nothing to the United States. I think its funny that all the Neocons on this site like Mark and Matt want to attack Iran when they have nothing to risk.
Go ahead, start all out war in the Middle East, start the kind of war that will turn the world against your Imperialistic country.
13. GOP4ME | April 13th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
CO,
That is too rich. The Canadian opposition parties are falling all over themselves to force PM Harper to leave Afghanistan post haste. CO, I would bet dollars to doughnuts that you support Jack Layton.
What, pray tell, is Mr. Layton’s position with respect to Afghanistan?
Finally, I respect and honor Canada’s courageous (albeit minor) contribution to the Afghanistan mission. But for you to highlight it as proof of doing the right thing when the very politician you undoubtedly support is SCREAMING for withdrawal is disingenuous at best.
Finally, I wonder if the Kurds in Iraq share your opinion that this brave war has been an “unmitigated disaster”.
CO, you couldn’t grab a clue if it fell and hit you on the head. Get lost you goof.
14. js | April 13th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
The reality is, Canadian integrity is born on the backs of dead American Soldiers.
The last generation was far better men than what this Canadian generation is.
15. SteaM | April 13th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Sam makes a very point.
Mark, I assume, is wishing the United States would attack targets inside Iran.
Of course Mark does not have the ability to make this wish come true. He eats a sandwich and fantasizes about doing it. Hey, there’s nothing illegal about that.
But since I am sitting here (wishing I had a sandwich) wondering about what the consequences of such an attack would be. Knowing most likely what some of those would be I have to conclude that it would be a huge mistake, much worse than Iraq.
The draft would have to be reinstated to support the amount of troops we would need in the region and possibly in Iran itself. We would go broke in the meantime. The draft would cause huge chaotic riots in the States. Our economy would tumble and it would affect the world economy, the value of the dollar, and the cost of oil. It would embolden countries to form together united against us. They might find it in their best interest to join the fight against us.
Mark, do you still think that would be such a good idea? Or are you content to just chill with your sandwich and wish for things that would ruin the United States?
16. sam | April 13th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
GOP4ME, stop with this BS about the people of Iraq are thanking us…..COME ON…..
Who died and made the GOP or the US for that matter God of the world. Who are you to force people into democracy, to force them into your way of life. The answer is, YOU ARE NOBODY to enforce your will on the world.
So that is why the world has no mercy or compassion for your dead soldiers, for your so called grief. go ahead, stay in Iraq until you can’t take it anymore, then leave and let the countries in the Middle East sort this problem out. thanks for playing.
17. Canadian Observer | April 13th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
13. GOP4ME | April 13th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Yes, it’s true, we do have legitimate Opposition parties in Canada. Our PM has accountability.
18. GOP4ME | April 13th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
CO,
Ah, so you agree to being a disingenuous hypocrite. Thank you very much.
Sam,
You don’t think the Kurds, for one, are thankful for their new found freedoms? What hellish planet do you live on? Come on, put the partisanship aside for one iota of a second and see some reality for once.
19. sam | April 13th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
so you justifiy attacking Iraq because you want to free the Kurds?? are you kidding??? I thought you attacked iraq because they had WMD???
So now you shift the focus on a minority in Iraq that has been running the north almost independently anyway. WOW the GOP has reached a new low, a new point of deception.
And don’t bundle me up with the other party, i am neither a republican or a democrat. Unlike what americans think, there are more than two parties in the world.
20. js | April 13th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
16. sam
what are you, prejudice to reality? do you think that iran has tens of thousands of people jailed for wanting to be free because thier government is a true representation of democracy?
get real, your goose isnt laying golden eggs, your views are restricted by the blinders of ignorance and bias
21. Christian Wright | April 13th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Is this information coming from the same source that said that Iraq could launch a missile attack on the UK within 45 minutes?
22. Canadian Observer | April 13th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
GOP4ME
Have you severed all Canadian ties and have you burned your Canadian citizenship papers yet?
23. sam | April 13th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Js,
Ignorance and Bias, those words come to mind when I think of the reasons the US attacked Iraq.
You seem to forget that the Iranian revolution was started by the people, it was against the corrupt regime of the Shah.
Don’t sit there and criticize Iran for putting people in jail when the United States has the highest percentage of incarceration in the WORLD! hahahaha, wow, talk about hypocracy.
Please JS, keep your BS for your own people, because the rest of the world doesn’t believe a word you say anymore, and rightfully so.
24. Eric T | April 13th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Kim jung ill’s Taepodong rocket was not very impressive. It was a failure, they made it sound so bad, you visualized it flopping around on the ground and then slamming into an old barn or something.
If Iran was to buy something like the Chinese used on that old satelitte a few month back, Then I think alot of folks would be concerned.
25. js | April 13th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
its pretty easy to lie when you dont have to document the facts, isnt it sam?
2/3 of the Iranians are no more than slaves to the “revolution”….and tens of tousands have been jailed for opposing them….and tens of thousands more like is slit trenches for doing the same…buried and forgotten, for now….you dont spark and righteous ideals or causes by lying, it does not work that way…the only BS is your deluded representation of some utopian society in iran, and what was iraq under saddam…and just because you say it, does not make it so….prophoganda and the lies circle the world twice before the truth gets out…and thats all you have, propoganda and lies…
26. sam | April 13th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
hahahahaha..wow…utopian society?? when did i ever mention that about iran or any other country.
once again, who died and made you God, who died and gave you the right to enforce your will on other people. You are in Iraq without proper reason, you are occupying a country without a proper cause. That is why the world has no compassion for your dead.
And how would you know that 2/3 of Iranians are no more than slaves?? where do you get that from. its like me saying that 2/3 of the people were slaves to the american revolution if you can call it that.
Have you ever read a book about Iran, an article about Iran that was not from some right wing news site. Seriously, JS, stop with all the BS. people like you spread lies that kill other people’s children. send yourself, or your kids to war but refrain from making up stories that send other’s kids to war. hahahaha..silly american, foreign policy is for informed people, not for MTV watching dumb americans.
27. Timothy Horrigan | April 13th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
I may be undercutting my own side’s case, but the “disturbing news” did come from a credible source:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3724048.ece
It’s an April 11, 2008 article by Michael Evans from the Times of London. (Actually the Times of London prefers to be known as “the Times”…. but we Yanks do need to distinguish it from the NY Times and the Washington Times.) It seems to be based largely on info from an even more credible publication: Jane’s Intelligence Review.
Even though it is a credible article, I still oppose the war with Iran. It’s not cost effective… and Iran still poses a minimal threat even if the info in the article is true. If we want to go after a country who has nukes and who actually poses a threat to its neighbors… how about China? How about boycotting the Olympics? (Which ain’t gonna happen… since we can’t afford to mess with China. For one thing, we’re in hock to them to pay for our wars in the Middle east.)
28. middlefinger | April 13th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
The best thing I like about this blog is reading what I think the Christ would do if in human form today.
I am confident he too would condone “blowing Iran to smithereens”.
I can picture Jesus himself, sitting at his computer, a big fat dagwood sandwich in hand, typing furiously in agreement with you Mark.
Maybe as a nation of Christians, we could pray a little harder and ask him to be a one man-God commando special forces attack squad.
By all thats holy, with only good Christian intentions, Christ would lay the smack down on those evil Iranians.
Mark, I like the way you think.
29. FmrMarine | April 13th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
EX
>>>>Well, since we already know what it feels like to be a nation of dunces after allowing this President to go to war with Iraq on the basis of trumped-up “weapons of mass destruction”<<<<
Well, since we already know what it feels like to be a nation of dunces after allowing these DEMOCRATS- to go to war with Iraq on the basis of trumped-up “weapons of mass destruction”
There fixed!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNgaVtVaiJE
30. JD | April 13th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNgaVtVaiJE
That clip clearly demonstrates that Democrats and Republicans are the same. They represent the same positions and ideologies of the military-industrial-congressional complex. They do not represent or support values of the American people. The slight differences in messages of the candidates are there by design. They want to make US believe that we actually have a choice. We don’t.
31. Diana Powe | April 13th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Mark writes of his “calming sandwich” (my personal nominee for Non Sequitur of the Month) but fails to mention the bitter Manichean brew he drinks from the cup (tastefully set off with the Presidential Seal) supplied by George W. Bush. In Mark World, liberal “dunces” should now smack their foreheads and cry, “Why, President Bush is right! National sovereignty and elections shouldn’t mean anything to Americans. If other countries do things we don’t approve of then it’s our God-given right to attack them and thereby conclusively demonstrate our moral superiority. Let those unmanly, non-calming-sandwich-eating, appeasers have their little token show of condemning us. However, we know that secretly they’ll ‘breathe a sigh of relief’ because we were virile and Churchillian enough to do what had to be done.”
Mark and his delightful little Sunday War Fantasy. I wonder what Pope Benedict would have to say? I’m not sure if he eats calming sandwiches, so it’s hard to know.
32. neocon | April 13th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
“If other countries do things we don’t approve of then it’s our God-given right to attack them and thereby conclusively demonstrate our moral superiority. ” - Diana
Ladies, gentleman, and liberals. The proceeding statement is known as a straw man. A conjured assumption with no basis in reality. A tactic employed on numerous occassions by the aforementioned dishonest poster and many of her liberal sycophants.
I guess when their political positions lack any substance and are strictly politically motivated, straw men come in handy.
33. Canadian Observer | April 13th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
32. neocon | April 13th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
U.S. actions speak louder than your words, neocon.
There is no straw man in Diana’s statement. Truth always prevails in the end; no matter how hard it may be to hear.
34. js | April 13th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
famous liqudity, in the end, one liberal confirms another liberals spewed fantasy, lending it a hope of legitimacy, which in reality only exposes another tactic liberals employ in thier oft repeated ignorance of fact and truth
35. Use Technology to STOP IR&hellip | April 13th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
[…] Iranian Missile Site? […]
36. neocon | April 13th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
CO,
Then explain the our lack of action in Cuba, Venezuela, Sudan, China, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Russia, etc., etc.
That would seem to belie that statement. Wouldn’t it?
37. Mark Noonan | April 13th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Diane,
So, you’re cool with the mullahs having long range missiles because they happen to be in control of a nation?
Boiled down, that is what you’re saying - raise a flag, and anything you do is ok.
38. Mark Noonan | April 13th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
SteaM,
Where on earth do you get the idea that I am fantasising about attacking targets in Iran? I’m suggesting a course of action which, I believe, is in accordance with the best interests of the United States AND Iran - the people who run Iran have shown their penchant for evil…do you want them to have long range missiles to one day mate to nuclear warheads?
Doesn’t this concern you in the least? Do you think that Obama will talk them out of their mlitary ambitions?
Geesh!
39. Canadian Observer | April 13th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
36. neocon | April 13th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Pick & choose, neocon; you pick & choose your targets to suit your interests.
There is no consistency at all in the so-called humanitarian actions of liberation carried out by the U.S. Strictly self-interest all the way.
40. neocon | April 13th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
CO,
Compare the current state of Japan today vs pre-WWII. Compare the state of Germany today vs pre-WWII. Were those efforts strictly in the best interests of America? How about Kuwait in 1991 vs today? Only in our self interests?
How about our continued efforts in South Korea? Only in our best interests?
What a bufoon you are.
41. Blue Sky | April 13th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
You can almost her the W. H chatter. Condi to Cheney, “We told them we have to stay until we find WMD and when no WMD were found we told them we have to stay until we found Saddam. We found Saddam and then told them we had to stay to protect the oil supply to pay for our stay. The price of gas has tripled and the Iraqi’s aren’t sharing their oil money. We told them we have to stay in Iraq until the situation improves and then we told them we must stay because the situation improved. We told them we must stay until Al Qaeda is neutralized, and we told them we must stay until the insurgents are neutralized. They are starting to ask questions like is the loss of 4026 lives worth it and why aren’t the Iraqis paying for their own security with their surplus oil revenues? What do we tell them now and don’t say SO?”
Cheney to Condi, “Americans hate Iranians for that hostage thing don’t they?” Condi to Cheney, “Of course, get me someone at Fox news”
42. js | April 13th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
and more famous mice spreading mouse droppings about, gossip and rumors dont make for profitable futures, neither do lies and deception, but just by the amount of all that we get from the liberals its about all they have to hold on too because none of it is based in truth
all wish and no wizards…
43. SteaM | April 13th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
No Mark, as a liberal I just hate America and want it to be blown up by Iranians. I want them to develop amazing missles that can come all the way over here and blow up our entire country all at once.
Yeah. That would make my day.
The lazy, casual, relaxed sunday I just enjoyed… I would rather not have. You’d think I would love my country since I have the freedom to do the following on a sunday: shopping, being active outside, and having a fru-fru drink of juice, milk, and vodka and some cheap American beers on ice… and yes, I even had a sandwich at one point since you had such a good idea.
Pfft… Why would I NOT want Iran to bomb us?
(sarcasm)
Does that answer your question?
Here’s my question: Where is the bomb that Iran is going to launch at us?
44. Canadian Observer | April 13th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
40. neocon | April 13th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Don’t you think it was in your best interest, neocon, to give aid to the vanquished, thus allowing you to maintain a U.S. presence; or perhaps you think it would have been more appropriate for the richest country on earth to just walk away from the devastation and offer no help whatsoever?
45. Mark Noonan | April 13th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
SteaM,
That is not what I asked you - I asked if you want Iran to have long range missiles which can one day be mated to nuclear warheads…and I asked you if think Obama (or anyone, for that matter) will be successful in talking them out of their military ambitions? Answer those questions - and then explain your answers.
46. js | April 13th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
its really hard to imagine we have no enemies….saddam hussen’s regime fired on our military almost every day, yet, democrat liberals think we were not justified in dragging down that tyrant….the mullahs and ayatollah in iran work hard to create the epitome of islamic endeavor, to re-establish the kaliphate, its slow going, but they have an entire nation at thier disposal now, and the technology to make nukes from NK, naaa, they couldnt be considered our enemies, even with all thier secrecy, and the resistance against UN inspections, they could not be developing missles to carry nukes, because we know they dont want to have nukes, they told us so, they said all them thousands of centrifuges are for power plants, they just want free electricity….and thats why they are communicating with the North Koreans so often, and even the russians dont believe them, but according to the democrat liberals, we should, matter of fact, we ought to just shut down our entire mission in Iraq and let Iran handle it, they would ya know, Sadr and his boys, they got the guns, the would guarantee that nobody in Iraq objects….
assuming that the sarcasm button is still on, we should hijack this site and take out the english option, we need to start speaking persian, its the language of the future….
47. neocon | April 13th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
CO,
How do you suppose America, in it’s short 232 year history, has become the richest country?
And secondly, isn’t that what you would like to see America do now? Walk away. I think you’re the one that thinks that’s appropriate. That’s what you advocate America do in the middle east, so why shouldn’t that apply to Japan, Germany and South Korea?
And why is it in Americas best interest to continue to protect S. Korea? It costs a lot of money and I don’t see the S. Koreans stepping up to pay us back.
48. js | April 13th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
The real danger to America is when Americans become apathetic toward tyrany and gain tolerance for socialism and communism.
That is when liberty dies, and so will America.
49. bongoman | April 13th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
But the tolerance for the fascist tendencies of the Bush Administration don’t count do they?
50. SteaM | April 13th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Mark,
In terms of Iran’s military ambitions what do you think Obama would do?
51. Diana Powe | April 13th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Whether any American president “will be successful in talking them out of their military ambitions” is irrelevant except in the Manichean realm where that same American president is empowered to classify other countries as Evil and therefore subject to being attacked by our armed forces anytime that same president chooses. Are the Iranians anxious to be able to have a missile with a nuclear warhead that they can launch at a target in Europe and become the recipients of a massive nuclear counterstrike? If you subscribe to some evidence-free notion that they’re suicidally evil then perhaps that’s what you believe. Are the Iranians wanting to develop a ballistic missile as a bargaining chip for negotiating other things? If you imagine their leaders as complex human beings rather than comic book villains, then that may be their purpose. However, whatever the current intent of their rocket program, the fact of having such a program violates no international agreements.
It’s completely illustrative of the moral bankruptcy of the notion of attacking other nations because they “might” (as in Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction which were inconveniently non-existent) obtain capabilities that we don’t approve of their having is that it is purely one-way. We are the Good Guys in the White Hats Who Can Kick Everyone’s Ass and it would NEVER be okay for anyone to apply such reasoning to us because we would never do anything wrong. That’s the fundamental basis of the thinking that you share with the current president and is why, courtesy of the crimes committed at Abu Ghraib prison, CIA “black sites”, renditions for torture, the prison camps at Guantanimo established to avoid United States law, the CIA torturing prisoners at the direction of the White House, etc., that so many other people and governments in the world see the United States as engaging in rank hypocrisy.
52. Diana Powe | April 13th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Mark,
Since I don’t see any postings from Diane Tomlinson, I’ll assume you were posing a question to me. I would love to be able to eliminate all sorts of things from the world which I cannot do. The brutal reality for you is that Iran, for all the things that we can condemn it for, is, in fact, a sovereign nation. They have elections and a functioning government as do all the countries other than the United States that might be within range of the putative Iranian ballistic missile. Some of those countries also have substantial arsenals of nuclear weapons to act as a deterrent to a putative Iranian nuclear weapon.
53. Diana Powe | April 13th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
For some reason, the software insists on placing my first paragraph in moderation so my Comment # 53 is incomplete.
54. js | April 13th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
an islamic caliphate never defeated the roman empire, as byzantine was never defeated, it capitulated to islamic rule
hence, the roman empire, through the existence of modern day turkey, still exists, actually still undefeated, as there were never any military defeat of constantinopel, so, prophecy has told us that the roman empire would play a role in the end of days, and as such, through the reestablishment of the islamic kaliphate, which is what these islamic nations are slowing coming too, we will see the beast of the apocolypse represented in revelations, where the antichrist willl rise to power….saddam wanted to be seen as that resurection of saladin, as well as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has also voiced his desire to be seen as the liberator of islam, which once again, would lead to the restoration of the kaliphate
let not the eyes see, nor the ears hear, the whispers of spirit, nor should it be known in fear, for the time to rejoice and glorify God is coming as sure as the day comes after night…
55. js | April 13th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
we often hear of revelations of prophecy despicting rome as the seat of power f the anti christ, but that is not all the truth…constantinopel also sits on 7 hills, as does mekka
as the muslemen await thier savior, we find conditions ripe for the antichrist to lead the largest military ever assembled, from indonesian, throught the once USSR republics which are fully islamic, right to morrocco, giving 1/3 of the populations of the world under muselmen control, to lead an army like has never before been seen, against israel
as it approaches the inheritance of the jew…in an instant, a flash will trumpet the destruction of the entire assembly, and the bodies of the dead will feed vermin for a year, and the fuel and metals from the armies will fuel israel for 5 years, and the kaliphate will be totally consumed, never to rise again
56. LN Fowler | April 13th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Mark Noonan, American Mullah. The round peg of the reality of the world won’t fit into his square peg of zealotry and ideology, regardless of his increasing shrill insistence that he has some divine insight that few people possess. His paranoid xenophobia reminds me of Rumplestilskin: stamping his feet into the center of the earth as he writhes in frustration.
Take a shower squeeky.
57. Mark Noonan | April 13th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Diana,
Bogus elections and a national flag as the solvent for all sins? Stalin would have loved you…
58. Mark Noonan | April 13th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
SteaM,
Stop them - if he could talk them out of it, then I’m going to be thrilled and happy, but they must be stopped…now or later, at a lesser or higher cost, as we choose - but they must be stopped.
And you still haven’t answered the question: are you ok with the mullahs controlling long range missiles which can be mated to nuclear weapons?
59. js | April 13th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
or should the question be are you ok with the mullahs controlling long range missles and thousands and thousands of centrifuges that can create plutonium that can be made into a nuclear warhead??
or is the russian fear that we are building the anti missile system in the EU as a weapon against its nuclear weapons unfounded….i mean, does it tie in anywhere?
these days when one weapon detonated in a major city takes the whole town out, which one is first? Berlin? Paris? Amsterdam? Rome? Tel Aviv?
why let it go that far….the poison from the poison tree is in the blood of nations, they have no fear of death, as death is thier creator
were do we go
where do we go now?
60. Diana Powe | April 13th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Mark,
The elections that you, as an American who claims to be a conservative and who advocates attacking another sovereign country simply on a presidential whim, sniff at and label as “bogus”. Only American points of view that Mark approves of have province in Mark World.
61. Christian Wright | April 13th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
27. Timothy Horrigan | April 13th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
I may be undercutting my own side?s case, but the ?disturbing news? did come from a credible source:
And that source is: Rupert Murdoch, you idiot.
He owns The Times of London.
No truth comes from any paper he owns.
62. bongoman | April 13th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Not like our beloved Dear Leader and his Administration of course.
63. Tractatus | April 14th, 2008 at 12:13 am
Bogus elections and a national flag as the solvent for all sins? Stalin would have loved you…
Wow, what a serious and not-at-all overwrought response. When all else fails (and for Mark, his weak arguments have clearly failed), go for the ol’ Stalin reference.
64. Diana Powe | April 14th, 2008 at 12:30 am
Mark,
I would note the fact that Joseph Stalin was quite familiar with the ideas of torture conducted in the name of the State and persons being arrested and held without access to legal process based on the unchecked whim of the executive.
65. Macker | April 14th, 2008 at 1:02 am
I guess you goddamned liberals WANT a smoking radioactive hole in Tel Aviv….
66. Diana Powe | April 14th, 2008 at 1:12 am
I don’t know, Macker, I suspect that the Israelis who live in Tel Aviv (a city in a sovereign nation which is not the United States of America) might want their government to respond with some of Israel’s nuclear weapons and cause an overwhelmingly greater loss of life in Iran. Who knows, that might be why the leaders of Iran if they had a nuclear weapon and if they had a means to deliver it to Tel Aviv might choose not to do so. Oh, I forget, Iranians are all crazed, suicidal comic book super villains.
67. Freedom1 | April 14th, 2008 at 6:09 am
It won’t be just Iran with nuclear weapons…
“Six Arab States Join Rush To Go Nuclear: Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, UAE and Saudi Arabia Seek Atom Technology” - TimesOnline (November 4, 2006)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article624855.ece
“Fearing Iran, Arab States Seek Nuclear Power” - International Herald Tribune
(April 15, 2007)
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/15/news/nuke.php
68. Some Assembly Required | April 14th, 2008 at 7:37 am
The third world will not stay the third world forever. The US with all it’s power and military might cannot stop progress. The position of being against any other nation obtaining nuclear capabilities is ridiculous IMO. Did any of you neo-cons stop to think that maybe developing these weapons would be more for a bargaining chip. You remember the cold war how there was no REAL war fought on the ground between the US and Russia because of fear of the consequences. Weren’t those damn dirty Russian commies spawn from satan? After all they were behind the iron curtain.
But those Iranians are evil I tell you. They are not civilized. They don’t have gated suburban communities and corrupt politicians hiding behind expensive lawyers who are morally superior in finding loops holes in the law and hiding behind the constitution.
Attacking Iran could very well spark WW-III. The more I think about it and see some of the crazy talk that goes on, the more I think that is what you cons want. Masquerading behind your faith and superior moral intellect. What would Jesus do? Well Shoot, He’d fly and F-22 right into one of those missile sites and blast those evil Arabs back to satan…. Do onto others BEFORE they do onto you! Can I get an ah men?
Sheesh….
69. js | April 14th, 2008 at 8:26 am
I never heard any Israeli politician, electorate or otherwise, ever claim that Iran should be wiped off the map, doesnt have right to exist, or that they are pigs and dogs and decendents of apes…
anyone who thinks iran should be making them kind of statements againts any other nation in the world really has problems in my book, ecspecially like iran, which is flaunting its newfound nuclear ability before the entire planet..and their new rockets and all that….
one nuclear bomb anywhere in isreal would devastate that nation and all of its people, its not that big of a country, and after all the threats that have been made against them, they would be fools not to take serious notice, that they have a right to a preemptive strike in this situation is not an issue, what is, is how hard and how long they have to carry on with it to insure that irans capability is decimated….
70. sam | April 14th, 2008 at 8:54 am
js,
learn how to spell and write. I am not even american and I can write better english than you can.
Second of all, Israel is a country that has to take care of itself. Don’t let AIPAC influence your government into making a dumb decision on behalf of Israel. If they want to protect themselves, let THEM do it. NOT you.
71. js | April 14th, 2008 at 9:01 am
sorry sam, you just need to comprehend what i wrote, and you did that just fine…but dont be a hypocrite, if your going to brag about what you do so well, next time capitalize the first letter of the sentence instead of hypocritically telling me what to do
and, perchance, comprehension as an issue, where exactly did i promote the US acting at the behest of isreal…like YOU seem to imply…yet, the whole idea behind alliances and being allies in truth demands our aid, so does the alliances between the islamic nations, which have repeated the call, for half a century, to destroy the state of israel…to which, for half a century, the united states has proudly represented the fact that we would not let that happen….
so what are you promoting…that we abandon our allies, just like you abandon good sense when you nitpick about spelling?
72. Rich | April 14th, 2008 at 10:26 am
“Oh, I forget, Iranians are all crazed, suicidal comic book super villains.”
Is this comic- book villainish enough Diana?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1620146/posts
“During the Iran-Iraq War, the Ayatollah Khomeini imported 500,000 small
plastic keys from Taiwan. The trinkets were meant to be inspirational. After
Iraq invaded in September 1980, it had quickly become clear that Iran’s
forces were no match for Saddam Hussein’s professional, well-armed military.
To compensate for their disadvantage, Khomeini sent Iranian children, some
as young as twelve years old, to the front lines. There, they marched in
formation across minefields toward the enemy, clearing a path with their
bodies. Before every mission, one of the Taiwanese keys would be hung around
each child’s neck. It was supposed to open the gates to paradise for them.”
I don’t take much trust a society that uses children as minesweepers not to use a nuclear weapon. That’s just me though I guess.
73. Diana Powe | April 14th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Rich,
So explain to us what the personal risk was (comparable to that posed by an Israeli nuclear counter-strike) for Ayatollah Khomeini in engaging in this action? You might also compare and contrast it with the use of drummer boys marching into the face of musket and artillery fire in the American Civil War or the use of boys as “powder monkeys” on board British Royal Navy ships in the days of sail.
74. Rich | April 14th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Umm not even close Diana. You laugh at the idea that the Iranians are dangerous, cannot be trusted and are not worried about losing their own people. When confronted with clear facts demonstrating the opposite, you point to drummer boys and deckhands? Are you serious thats all youve got on this one? Children are the most precious resource we have, and a culture willing to send 12 year olds to clear mines has no business being trusted with a nuclear weapon. Here’s another link highlighting a culture focused on death.
http://www.middle-east-info.org/league/iran/iran.htm
Note the Blood of the Martyr fountain, the stoning of an adulterer, and the execution of gays. You really trust these guys?
75. Diana Powe | April 14th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Rich,
When was the last time you read the Psalms? Say, the end of Psalm 137, for instance:
In any case, I note with interest that you pointedly did not address Ayatollah Khomeini’s personal risk in this instance as compared to an Israeli nuclear counter-strike.
76. Diana Powe | April 14th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
I neither trust or distrust the government of Iran. However, I do believe they are actual human beings who are subject to influence. If Muslims (the caricature of which is the subject of your anxiety) are so immune to the rationality that you obviously think that you embody, then why is the President of the United States trying to turn Iraq into a shining model of democracy and why is the Secretary of State trying to negotiate between the Palestinians and the Israelis? Most of all, why aren’t we bombing that Muslim state, Pakistan, which already has nuclear weapons and has been a violator of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement?
77. Rich | April 14th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
So now you have defended Iran’s recent horrible actions (using children as minesweepers, stoning women, killing gays) by pointing out that there were drummer boys in the civil war and that there is an obscure passage in the bible in reference to stoning.
I didn’t comment on this statement because it was completely devoid of any reality.
“In any case, I note with interest that you pointedly did not address Ayatollah Khomeini’s personal risk in this instance as compared to an Israeli nuclear counter-strike.”
Your point is that a leader willing to send thousands of children to die in a war is not himself willing to die. I don’t believe Hitler wanted to die in WWII, did that make him less dangerous? Your argument is that Iran can be trusted not to nuke Israel because their leadership is afraid of dieing (but not worried to send thousands of children to be martyred). I don’t know what to say about this. If I were Israel, your argument would be pretty weak tea. Are you paid to come on here and defend Iran? Do you feel comfortable sticking up for a government that stones adulterors and hangs gays?
78. Rich | April 14th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
“then why is the President of the United States trying to turn Iraq into a shining model of democracy”
Where in my comments have I said all Muslims are not rationale? I will wait for you to pull some quotes. I simply don’t trust the Iranian leadership given its culture of death, to possess nuclear weapons. I am not alone on this, as the U.N. and pretty much every nation besides China has agreed.
As far as Pakistan, that genie is out of the bottle. It’s much better to stop the criminal outside the gunstore than to try and stop him after he has already broken in. Aside from that, Pakistan is our ally, and there is no need to bomb them. You might want to remind Obama that.
79. sam | April 14th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Rich…..
Pakistan is an Ally of the United States???? you are joking right….the pakistani government is a puppet government, the people of Pakistan HATE the United States.
Second of all, Khomeini did not send anyone to their death, he called on people to volunteer to fight. Iranians of all ages and backgrounds fought against the Iraqi invasion which was supported by the United States and other Arab nations.
The Iranian resistance was purely volunteers fighting for their country, don’t sit there and claim that Khomeini or the government in iran forced people to go fight. NO sir, people fought because their country was invaded.
Also, You have no right to say what country, or what people can have nuclear technology, or cannot have it. Its A RIGHT of ANY PEOPLE AND ANY COUNTRY TO OBTAIN ANY TECHNOLOGIES IT CAN. What is so hard to understand about that. If you don’t want Iran to have those technologies, then attack it and stop it by force, if you can’t do that, then SHUT UP and deal with it.
80. Diana Powe | April 14th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
The “obscure passage in the bible” is from an integral portion of the Old Testament, parts of which are used routinely in Christian churches. It’s also not “in reference to stoning” but about taking children and smashing them to death against rocks. In fact, it’s so disturbing that it is set off from the rest of the text because it’s not normally recited.
Of course, your trying to paint me as defending the government of Iran is completely fact-free. It comes back to the deeply stupid notion that I first cited that talking to governments is equivalent to endorsing them. Talking to the Iranian government will not, of necessity, accomplish anything good. However, it doesn’t automatically follow that it won’t do any good.
The sovereign government of Iran, which may or may not ever acquire both a nuclear weapon and a missile capable of reliably delivering it, is a problem that I trust the governments directly threatened by such a theoretical possibility to handle. Why don’t you trust them to do so?
81. Rich | April 14th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Sam- I see you are for using children as minesweepers. Bravo.
“Iranians of all ages and backgrounds fought against the Iraqi invasion”
I teach twelve year olds Sam, and I don’t believe they have the mental capacity to choose for themselves to charge a minefield. No, they were brainwashed and herded like cattle. Would you allow your child to be used like this? the fact that you defend this is horrible.
“Its A RIGHT of ANY PEOPLE AND ANY COUNTRY TO OBTAIN ANY TECHNOLOGIES IT CAN”
The United Nations and several treaties disagree.
“If you don’t want Iran to have those technologies, then attack it and stop it by force, if you can’t do that, then SHUT UP and deal with it.”
Well, being a teacher and not a military force, it is highly unlikely I will be attacking Iran or any country for that matter. I’m not quite sure what that has to do with me agreeing with the international community that Iran should not have nuclear weapons.
82. Rich | April 14th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Diana- by excusing bad actions on the part of Iran by posting that other people in history have done bad things, you are indeed defending Iran. The fact that you had to go back to the Civil War just shows that you are not defending them very well.
“The “obscure passage in the bible” is from an integral portion of the Old Testament, parts of which are used routinely in Christian churches. It’s also not “in reference to stoning” but about taking children and smashing them to death against rocks. In fact, it’s so disturbing that it is set off from the rest of the text because it’s not normally recited.”
The fact that it is set aside and not used, would of course make it an obscure reference. Do you know any churches that today encourage child killing? I would like to know which churches they are.
P.S. Matt and Mark- It seems Sam- a.k.a. GtGraduate is ready for a fresh round of banning.
83. Freedom1 | April 15th, 2008 at 12:51 am
68. Some Assembly Required | April 14th, 2008 at 7:37 am
So, essentially you are saying that you are against Arab Muslim nations like Iraq for instance of developing and maintaining democracy and freedom, but you are in favor of those same Arab Muslim nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia developing nuclear arsenals?!
84. Diana Powe | April 15th, 2008 at 1:58 am
Rich,
I note that you failed to address why you think the governments that might be directly threatened by a putative Iranian nuclear missile capability can’t be trusted to decide what to do or not do on their own.
85. Some Assembly Required | April 15th, 2008 at 8:05 am
83. Freedom1 | April 15th, 2008 at 12:51 am
Yup, you nailed it spot on here. (Sarcasim)
I’ll say this once. Let them develop ‘WMD’s’. It’s only a matter of time before they do anyway, It’s called progress. Something which cannot be stopped. These nations are not inherently evil, I mean they don’t want to bring about a nuclear war which is what would happen if they used their weapons. Israel has them, your not opposed to this? Oh right, Israel is your buddy and the 52nd state. It’s called being rational, you should try it sometime.
Democracy and freedom cannot be forced on people. They have to want and take it for themselves. So your high and mighty stance here is futile as evidenced by
Iraq. (Which is a democracy as long as the government works with the US Agenda).
86. Rich | April 15th, 2008 at 9:14 am
I didn’t comment on that because it is ridiculous. Your sole argument for Iran being allowed to break international law and be trusted not to use nukes is because their leadership might not want to die in retaliation? The government that sends 12 year olds to minesweep, provides weapons to sadr and Hezbolla, says it wants to wipe Israel off the face of the map, stones women and hangs gays is rationale in your mind? Now I have answered your one weak point, you have failed to touch on these,
(78) in regards to (76)
Where in my comments have I said all Muslims are not rationale? I will wait for you to pull some quotes.
(82)The fact that it is set aside and not used, would of course make it an obscure reference. Do you know any churches that today encourage child killing? I would like to know which churches they are.
And finally, why is it that you feel the need to always come down on the side of al sadr, and Iran. If you are the liberal you claim to be, do their policies not go against everything you believe in? Censorship, subjugation of women, violence towards gays, thwarting the U.N., killing U.S. soldiers etc?
87. sam | April 15th, 2008 at 10:05 am
once again rich, stop making up bs. you weren’t there in iran during the war, you don’t know what the truth is.
If a law is passed in the US saying you can’t have freedom of speech, will you accept it willingly???
NO, and the same goes for the UN and those treaties you talk about……(which don’t exist). Just because the world says no, doesnt make it right. stop being so damn naive. According to the NPT, every country has the right to nuclear technology. Iran has always said they don’t want nuclear weapons. Khamenei has issued a fatwa against WMD’s. They were used against Iran in the war with Iraq (those were given to iraq by the US). and iran does not need them to survive, what it does need, is nuclear reactors for electricity, so it can export more oil instead of use if for domestic consumption. Not to mention, its a cleaner form of energy.
88. Rich | April 15th, 2008 at 10:38 am
“once again rich, stop making up bs. you weren’t there in iran during the war, you don’t know what the truth is.”
Does this mean that you will no longer comment on the Iraq war?
I ask again, do you believe twelve year olds are mature enough to make life and death decisions? Would you send your child to clear a minefield?
Iran is allowed to have nuclear power, it is being sanctioned because it is trying to go to the next step, wich is nuclear armament. Please try and read the news once in a while, this has only been going on the last four years.
89. sam | April 15th, 2008 at 11:04 am
so what if it wants nuclear weapons, that is a right as well. why can Israel, France, Brittain, and the US have nuclear weapons, but not iran….let me guess, because the former are client states of the United States and Iran is not an ally or a client state.
the days of domination are over for the united states, get used to it.
90. Pain | April 15th, 2008 at 11:09 am
“Representative Democracies make horrible empire builders.”–Reefic Coljik, Vox Hai Comnu.
The answer to the questio of “Where are Israel’s nuclear weapons pointed?” is The pentagon, the underground Pentagon north of Catoctin Mountain, MD Aspen, CO and Carwford, TX.– “Source Shin Bet”
91. Diana Powe | April 15th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Rich,
Your writing might be a little more compelling if you knew and used the distinction between the words “rationale” (a noun) which you have you have employed repeatedly when what you mean is “rational” (an adjective).
My point in bringing up Psalm 137 and its reference to infanticide is that the constant, hysterical references to threats to destroy Israel exist in the context of Middle East cultures in which violent hyperbole is routinely employed as a rhetorical device. Hezbollah, for instance, can rant all they want about destroying Israel but talking about it and doing it are quite different and I rather doubt that anyone in the leadership of that group genuinely believes they can do it. However, that doesn’t mean they won’t employ the threat for the audience they’re speaking to.
It is a fair criticism that you haven’t said that all Muslims are irrational. However, your argument that the Muslim government of Iran is irrational is based on their willingness to do evil things to other people including their own. That isn’t evidence of being irrational, that’s evidence of being willing to engage in evil acts. The hysterical comparison that has been made is that the government of Iran is like the Nazi government in Germany. No serious person would ever claim that Adolph Hitler and his henchmen were mentally ill and incapable of rational thought. What they were capable of was rationalizing their evil acts (as were all the “good Germans” who facilitated the Third Reich). If Hitler had adequately foreseen the crushing defeat of May 1945, would he have invaded France?
Once again, you want to claim, absent evidence, that I “feel the need to always come down on the side of al sadr, and Iran”. This is the entire point. It is a completely stupid and counterproductive point of view to believe that talking to governments that engage in evil and repressive policies (like the People’s Republic of China, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Russia, etc.) is the same as endorsing those policies. Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and all efforts should be continued to prevent their obtaining a nuclear weapon or weapons. However, it is not a violation of international agreements to have a missile program.
Finally, I must assume that you are simply unable to muster an explanation for why you think that a putative Iranian nuclear ballistic missile is not an issue that can be dealt with by those countries that might actually be threatened by such a hypothetical device instead of by the United States.
92. Rich | April 15th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Diana- thanks for spotting my typo. I added an extra e, sue me. But seriously, when a person is down to correcting somone else’s grammar, they are usually failing in their arguments.
“Hezbollah, for instance, can rant all they want about destroying Israel”
Apples and oranges. We arent talking about Hezbollah destroying Israel, we are talking about Iran doing it. One nuclear warhead would badly damage the tiny nation.
“My point in bringing up Psalm 137 and its reference to infanticide is that the constant, hysterical references to threats to destroy Israel exist in the context of Middle East cultures in which violent hyperbole is routinely employed as a rhetorical device”
Umm, reread your post, you mentioned the Psalm to try and give Iran cover for stoning cheating wives. You were basiaclly saying its in the Christian Bilble also. You still haven’t mentioned what churches advocate killing children. killing women with rocks is not hyperbole.
“This is the entire point. It is a completely stupid and counterproductive point of view to believe that talking to governments that engage in evil and repressive policies (like the People’s Republic of China, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Russia, etc.) is the same as endorsing those policies.”
Well I think I have been rather clear that you support these groups by constantly cheerleading for them and making excuses for their horrible behavior, not because you think we should engage them.
“Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and all efforts should be continued to prevent their obtaining a nuclear weapon or weapons. However, it is not a violation of international agreements to have a missile program.”
So you trust a nation that is enriching uranium when it’s not supposed to and openly says it will have nukes. Okay.
” a putative Iranian nuclear ballistic missile is not an issue that can be dealt with by those countries that might actually be threatened by such a hypothetical device instead of by the United States.”
Well Diana, do you think there are any Americans in Europe or Israel? Have you forgotten about the 150,000 troops we have in Iraq, which is well within range. Your hands off approach regarding Iran is quite telling.
93. Rich | April 15th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
A few typos Diane, please correct them for me.
94. SteaM | April 15th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
And Isreal would retaliate if Iran hit it with a nuke. Which would mean hezbollah, iran, isreal, the saudis, and maybe the US and britian… who know who else… would all be fighting it out.
Which would not be in Iran’s best interest.
Besides, the president of Iran is the own who supposedly made the comment about wiping isreal off the map. Only problem is he doesn’t have the authority to do that. As far as I know its their supreme leader who makes those decisions.
95. Diana Powe | April 15th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Rich,
I see that now you’ve simply been reduced to making things up since I’ve never suggested that stoning anyone to death (which is not what that section of Psalm 137 is about) is acceptable conduct for anyone.
A successful detonation (because it’s not just enough to assemble a nuclear weapon to know that it will actually work) of a nuclear warhead anywhere in Israel’s over 8,000 square miles of land would be terrible. So, what do you think the Israeli government, which controls the armed forces of a nation that would have just been attacked, would do? Do you think they might launch an overwhelming counterstrike or do you think they would just chalk it up to a bad day at the office? Do you think that every single person in the hundreds of persons involved in actually detonating this hypothetical Iranian nuclear bomb in Israel would be ready to accept the retaliatory nuclear strike?
Of course, what’s most fatuous about your argument is that the Iranians don’t even have this capability. Mark and his Sunday Morning War Fantasy is all based on a series of suppositions and hypotheticals that somehow mean that, once again, the United States gets to bomb someone (the kind of thing that has been criticized by Republicans when carried out at the direction of a Democratic President) just because we decide they’re not doing what we want them to do.
P.S. It’s not a “typo” when you repeatedly confuse two words that don’t even remotely have the same meaning.
96. Rich | April 15th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Diana, it is possible to have the same typo twice, get over it. You know you wrote about the Psalm after I mentioned Iran stoning adulterors. Attempting to excuse an evil act is of course defending it, and you added a cheap shot at Christianity. Then when called on your failed comparison you chose to lie about your post in the first place. Let’s take a look -
I wrote (74) “Note the Blood of the Martyr fountain, the stoning of an adulterer, and the execution of gays. You really trust these guys?”
You responded with (75)
When was the last time you read the Psalms? Say, the end of Psalm 137, for instance:
7 Remember the day of Jerusalem, O LORD,
against the people of Edom, *
who said, “Down with it! down with it!
even to the ground!”
8 O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, *
happy the one who pays you back
for what you have done to us!
9 Happy shall he be who takes your little ones, *
and dashes them against the rock!
This is oviously written to bash Christianity, and back Iran. When pointed out the fact that no churches preach this today, you lied and acted like that is not what you meant.
(91)”My point in bringing up Psalm 137 and its reference to infanticide is that the constant, hysterical references to threats to destroy Israel exist in the context of Middle East cultures in which violent hyperbole is routinely employed as a rhetorical device.”
Please show me where it is in post 75 that you mentioned Israel. The rest of that quote is just one big shiny turd. You are comparing Muslim Iran’s recent threats to Israel to an obscure passage in the Christian Bible? Wow.
Also show me where I wrote that you support stoning people. I wrote that you support the government that is stoning people, and hanging gays. Please show me where I wrote you condoned stoning? i did ask you why you defended a nation that is against every liberal principle you stand for, and you did not respond.
“So, what do you think the Israeli government, which controls the armed forces of a nation that would have just been attacked, would do?”
They would retaliate. As would we if they used the nuke on our troops in the region, which you seem to have forgotten are there. This would not make our people less dead, or Israel less destroyed.
“Do you think that every single person in the hundreds of persons involved in actually detonating this hypothetical Iranian nuclear bomb in Israel would be ready to accept the retaliatory nuclear strike?” Yes, and if not they would be replaced. Do you think they get to vote on this Diana?
“Of course, what’s most fatuous about your argument is that the Iranians don’t even have this capability”
Point out in my arguments where I have said they have this capability now. I am arguing in favor of stopping them from getting it. Better to stop the criminal outside the gunshop instead of after he has robbed it. seriously you have jumped the shark on this thread, you should go elsewhere.
97. Diana Powe | April 15th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Rich,
Of course, you still are unable to acknowledge the fact-free nature of your assertion that talking to repressive regimes is equivalent to condoning their acts of repression. Nowhere have I said anything that, outside of your imagination, constitutes “support” for the government of Iran other than acknowledging the reality that it is an elected government. We can wish the Iranian government to be many things other than what it is, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is the government of that sovereign nation.
So, to borrow your “criminal outside the gunshop” analogy, how do you propose to know a couple of minor, technical things such as that they are a “criminal” and that they are about to rob the gunshop? Assuming that you magically have this absolute and unassailable knowledge, what do you do? Do you shoot them?
The bottom line for all this is that you endorse the deeply immoral doctrine that the United States should simply get to bomb people who haven’t attacked us if we have unilaterally decided that they “need” to be bombed.
98. Freedom1 | April 15th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
SAR, “…I mean they don’t want to bring about a nuclear war which is what would happen if they used their weapons.”
That’s exactly what Iran wants to do. How many times does Ahmadinejad have to say he wants to “wipe Israel off the map” before you get it?! The other Sunni Arab Muslim nations are afraid of Shiite Iran because they know that Iran intends to nuke Israel and then use its nuclear power to rule the Middle East. That’s why they’ve suddenly decided to go nuclear. Remember, Israel has had nukes for a long time. The other Arab nations (with the exception of Pakistan) felt no need to develop nuclear weapons, then. But, now that Iran is close to developing its nuclear arsenal, they are terrified of what Iran intends to do with those nukes.
99. Casper | April 15th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
“How many times does Ahmadinejad have to say he wants to “wipe Israel off the map” before you get it?”
Actually, he didn’t say that.
“In an October 2005 speech to a conference on a “World without Zionism,” Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted by a state-run Iranian news agency as agreeing with a statement by Iran’s late spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, that “Israel must be wiped off the map.” Iran’s foreign minister later said the comment had been incorrectly translated from Farsi and that Ahmadinejad was “talking about the [Israeli] regime,” which Iran does not recognize and wants to see collapse.
According to Farsi-speaking commentators including Juan Cole, a professor of Middle Eastern history at the University of Michigan, Ahmadinejad’s exact quote was, “The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.” Cole has written that Ahmadinejad was not calling for the “Nazi-style extermination of a people,” but was expressing the wish that the Israeli government would disappear just as the shah of Iran’s regime had collapsed in 1979.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/21/AR2008032101833.html
100. Jeremiah | April 15th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Quoting Ahmadinejad…
“Israel is a rotten, dried tree that will be annihilated in one storm.”
He clearly wants Muslim rule, see…
101. sam | April 15th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
i don’t understand why its so hard for you people to realize that Iran will get nuclear technology when it wants to. its beyond a point of no return. Also, Iran has NEVER said it is seeking nuclear weapons. If they want it, its their natural right, who is to say some countries can and cannot have certain military technologies.
Might I remind you that the United States criminal regime is the only one to ever use weapons of mass destruction on civilians during wartime.
102. sam | April 15th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Also, Jeremiah and Rich.
Stop quoting the president of Iran. He is not the leader of the military, he is not the one that commands all the power in Iran. So stop making it seem like he is the be all and end all of Iranian politics and foreign policy. He is mostly a domestic force for interrnal iranian affairs.
I can only laugh because you conservatives are panting and moaning about Iran, but you can’t do anything about it. So just continue yelling and screaming and watch Iran get its nuclear plant in Bushehr up and running this summer. I can’t wait to see Bush eat his words…..hahahahah…
103. Diana Powe | April 15th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
sam,
Iran does not have a “natural right” to obtain nuclear weapons. Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
104. sam | April 15th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
umm…so let me see if i get this straight….If you signed an agreement with someone not to climb a tree, then later decided that you wanted to climb the tree…..don’t you have the right to change your mind and do it anyway.
just because you signed the document, does that preclude you from ever climbing that tree?? NO
Iran did sign the NPT, but it has the right to obtain nuclear weapons, it has the right to change its mind, the right to change course and do whats best for its nation and its people. Please, don’t make international VOLUNTARY agreements something that countries have to abide by forever.
105. sam | April 15th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
In the end, every country has the right to do whatever it deems best for its future and country.
Pakistan was a signatory to the NPT, so was India, yet they both obtained nuclear weapons and now they are still an active member of the world community. Just because you change your mind about an agreement you signed does NOT mean you are an outlaw country, it just means you changed your mind and want to change course.
Its that simple really.
106. Diana Powe | April 15th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
sam,
It’s true that no one can arrest a country for violating an international treaty and they’re just voluntary agreements. However, the same justification could be employed to say that the United States has a “natural right” to bomb Iran’s missile site because Mark Noonan feels threatened by it.
107. Jeremiah | April 15th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
God’s Will be done…
108. Freedom1 | April 15th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
99. Casper | April 15th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
“How many times does Ahmadinejad have to say he wants to “wipe Israel off the map” before you get it?”
“Actually, he didn’t say that.”- Casper
Lol. You’ve been royally duped, Casper.
“Iran’s foreign minister later said the comment had been incorrectly translated from Farsi…”
The same lame excuse was used when Ahmadinejad said at Columbia University, that “Iran had no homosexuals.” Later, the Iranian government claimed that Ahmadinejad’s comment had been “incorrectly translated from Farsi.” You want to fall for that one, too?
Btw, Juan Cole is a hack without merit.
109. Freedom1 | April 16th, 2008 at 4:20 am
Reuters Editor: Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be “wiped off the map”
110. Freedom1 | April 16th, 2008 at 5:53 am
1) Hitchens Demolishes Juan Cole - Slate
2) “UK - Exposing BBC experts: Juan Cole”
111. Freedom1 | April 16th, 2008 at 6:01 am
Ahmadinejad: Israel is a ‘Filthy Bacteria’ - Jerusalem Post (Feb 20, 2008)
“Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihiliation,” Ahmadinejad said. “The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm,” he said. - Jerusalem Post (Apr 14, 2006)
112. Freedom1 | April 16th, 2008 at 6:03 am
Ahmadinejad, “The Zionists are the true manifestation of Satan.” - Haaretz.com (Mar 1, 2007)
Ahmadinejad, “Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out.” - Reuters (Dec 12, 2006)
Ahmadinejad, “The real cure for the conflict is elimination of the Zionist regime…” - AFP (Aug 3, 2006)
113. child support in massachu&hellip | May 19th, 2008 at 6:30 am
child support in massachusetts self employed
To: magihall@btopenworld.com
114. ames tools&hellip | June 16th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
ames tools
115. soma roy&hellip | July 3rd, 2008 at 2:55 pm
soma
soma smoothie
116. mexitil toxicity treatmen&hellip | July 26th, 2008 at 10:01 am
mexitil
mexitil more drug side effects
117. phenergan for pain&hellip | July 30th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
phenergan
phenergan vc syrup
Leave a Comment
Please report any inappropriate or abusive comments to abuse@blogsforvictory.com. Please include the blog entry title and the comment number.
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed