This info must come from the same people who gave us the WMD info for Iraq.
The timing is very convienient also with Netenyya??? calling on the the US for a joint strike againt Iran while he continues to build settlements.This stinks more than the lead up to the IRAQ FIASCO . But,you people buy any BS the govt sells.

So Iran's leaders say it's not true.

I guess that's true, because they have no reason to lie. They also said the Jewish Holocaust in Germany wasn't true, so that settles that question too. After all, 'religious' leaders would never lie - right?

lol

This whole thing was designed to take attention away from the Holder/White House investigation. Holder and the WH was 24 hours away from subpoenas and needed to boost Holder's reputation with the public. Political Spin at it finest. Pick on a country that no one likes to shift attention away from a scandal right here at home.

All of us want to believe our leaders .. but its hard considering their history of veracity ....... (flips coin)

"By attributing an absurd and meaningless accusation to a few Iranians, they tried ... to show that Iran is a supporter of terrorism. ... This conspiracy didn't work and won't work," he said.

Yep, Iran is just another "peace loving" terrorist State and anything Iran does and is "called out" is "just another attempt" to say Iran is a terrorist run country.

U.S. officials say Iran mostly backs Islamist groups, including the Lebanese Shiite militants of Hezbollah (which Iran helped found in the 1980s) and Palestinian terrorist groups like Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command.

http://www.cfr.org/iran/state-sponsors-iran/p9362#p2

The saber rattling continues.

The ole left wing liberal "there were no weapons of mass destruction" routine. Tell the Northern Iraqi Kurds that were mustard and nerve gasses, that there were none in Iraq. And let us not forget all the yellow cake that was shipped by Iraq to Canada in shipping containers before the war broke out. Yellow cake is the precursor for making U-235 which can be used in nuclear weapons. But wait that's a tea bag myth only and it didn't really happen. Some of the liberals on here are like Dorthy in the Wizard of OZ...tap you ruby slippers together and say "there were no WMDs...there were no WMDs." magically there were none and the real evil of Bush comes out...its magic!

hey look I'm first. I guess I beat all those tea baggers IRRT.

this is better than the comics. But, no caricatures.

Would probably be a good idea to launch a few drones to Iran to counter some silly idea they have about being a nuclear threat to the US and the Middle East. Maybe that would also take care of some Nut Job religious leader who bastardizes his Muslim Faith.

Unilaterally announcing accusations without showing documentation and creating a media wave against Iran is in no way compatible with legal logic, and can only be a purely media and political show

If the US wants to avoid a major conflict with these people, we need to thread carefully. As asinine as this statement above may sound, it does have a foundation of truth. We don't need more enemies in the Middle East. We already have most of them hating us.

I hope President Obama comes across as the good diplomat that he always has been, and give peace a chance with these folks.

Rick the Pilot - you're too damn funny.

I tend to agree with moonbeamracer. I'll flip a coin on this one.

It's a sad state of affairs when we do not know who to believe anymore.

@mosin

The ole left wing liberal "there were no weapons of mass destruction" routine. Tell the Northern Iraqi Kurds that were mustard and nerve gasses, that there were none in Iraq. And let us not forget all the yellow cake that was shipped by Iraq to Canada in shipping containers before the war broke out. Yellow cake is the precursor for making U-235 which can be used in nuclear weapons. But wait that's a tea bag myth only and it didn't really happen. Some of the liberals on here are like Dorthy in the Wizard of OZ...tap you ruby slippers together and say "there were no WMDs...there were no WMDs." magically there were none and the real evil of Bush comes out...its magic!

Get out of your fantasy world. The WMD incident was from the first gulf war and not surprisingly, we pretty much supplied Iraq with those WMD. Ask bush 1 and donald rumsfeld.

That yellow cake was sent to Canada AFTER the 2003 invasion and was known about and accounted for by the UN inspectors.

By the way. You seem awfully gullible. I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

Paul West-541891 You have it exactly right. The timing is altogether too convient. No matter if the plot was real or if it is entirely made up by the feds the timing of the announcement was designed to as you said deflect attention to Fast and Furious/Gun Runner.

Nanette: You could never believe anyone. Customers steal, Empleyees lie about doing or wanting a job, presidents about bailing out companies.

It's not sad, just watch judge Judy.

Everyone (almost) for himself. Be happy. If you think it's sad, you can not beleive anyone, you wasted your money on that computer. Oh, I'm a girl.

@ Bruce

The U.K. has looked at the evidence and called it credible. What are you going to say when just about every other nation (besides China and Russia who will probably take Irans side) also calls the evidence credible? Is it then a Global Community Conspiracy? Give me a break. Like 9/11, it's too big to be kept a secret.

I can't remember a time when whoever spoke for Iran was the singular biggest liar in the world. Iran makes Goldman Sachs look honest.

Citizen X-

So the previous evidence of WMD gassing (250,000 dead) and radioactive materials means there was NONE later? Is that why Sadddam stalled the UN for 12 years - because he had nothing to hide? That makes a lot of sense, I guess (to a dhimmi).

Is that why he killed his son-in-law, the head of the weapons program, who defected to the U.S., told us that Saddam WAS pursuing WMD, and then went back when told all was forgiven, to meet his death? I guess that makes sense too (to a dhimmi).

Let me guess. the Rosenbergs were innocent too --ask any dhimmi, they'll tell you.

You people won't believe anything until you are loaded onto the cattle cars by the imams. Or the dhimmi.

Why should we take sides in this. A muslim is a muslim. Let all kill each other off, the world will be a better place.

Oh and Ahman@!$%#alot got fug yourself little man and wear a tie out of respect for the other adult leaders. JERK

Paul West,

They don't need a distraction from Darrell Issa's witch hunt. Everybody knows than when Issa is involved, it's a politically motivated stunt. His antics are the distraction.

Issa's "investigation" stems from reporting by Sharyl Atkinson. Holder told Congress that he "...isn't sure of the exact date, but probably didn't have knowledge of it until the last few weeks..." (prior to his testimony in May). He indicated that he didn't have prior knowledge of the botched "Fast and Furious" operation until several weeks before as the story begin to break. Atkinson discovered memos from DOJ on which Holder was copied. According to Atkinson, these were brief, one paragraph summaries and did not indicate any controversial problems with the program.

Did Holder know about it earlier? Maybe, assuming he read the memos and was up to speed on the program. Did he know the detail prior to there being these issues revealed by an ATF employee? It is unlikely. Fast and Furious was run out of one local ATF office in Pheonix. This operation was part of the bigger "Project Gunrunner" which started in 2005, long prior to Holder's appointment. Obviously, Holder knew about the bigger parent program. He may have had some obscure, "unconcsious" level knowledge that an operation by that name existed, but I doubt it goes beyond that.

Project Gunrunner had been criticized by the DOJ Inspector General, whose job it is to investigate and oversee DOJ workings and policy. Essentially an internal auditing function. The IG's analysis of Project Gunrunner was that it was essentially ineffective, as the only cases that arose out of it were small time criminals and drug addicts making straw purchases. It did nothing to go after the bigger fish running the operation. You could prosecute a bunch of individuals, but there were plenty more drug addicts who could easily be coerced into replacing them for the straw purchases. The recommendation was to try to shift focus toward prosecuting the bigger players. Pretty clearly, Fast and Furious was one ATF office's attempt to do just that. Was it ill conceived and poorly managed? That seems a logical conclusion.

The real issue here is what does Issa's "investigation" attempt to accomplish? Do you really think they will find deliberate collusion between the Attorney General and the Mexican drug cartels? Maybe you can say there was inadequate oversight, but I'm not so sure that the Attorney General himself should even be directly involved in laying out one individual operation. General policy guidelines, sure, but even then it gets messy because ATF is really a part of Homeland Security. They don't actually directly report to the DOJ. The DOJ is much more general and more in line with the criminal prosecution side of enforcement. They can give some guidelines to the enforcement agencies such as to suggest they focus more on the big fish. After learning of the disastrous consequences of Fast and Furious, a deputy AG issued a directive about not allowing guns to cross the border in an uncontrolled manner, as had happend here. The DOJ has been doing it's own investigation since some of the details of Fast and Furious have come out.

The day that Holder was at the House Judiciary oversight committee, he was there about 4 hours. Besides Issa and Chaffee, I don't believe anyone else even talked about this issue. There are many things on the DOJ's plate. Most of the rest of Congress and probably most of the rest of the public, see other things as being more important. Someone's good intentions turned out bad here. The DOJ is investigated and trying to prevent similar occurrences. I'm not sure we need any more than that. If the DOJ gets detailed involved in every enforcement operation that goes on across the country, we'll just be creating a bigger mightmare.

Issa is just participating in a political attack. I have watched this guy for far too long not to know that he is a partisan hack. But he is very good at it. When Republicans took the House he promised to tie this administration in knots. That is what he is attempting to do by creating a "scandal" out of what at worst was a mistake.

I feel for the families of the Border guards who reportedly have been killed by these weapons involved, but we have more important things for Congress to be working on. You are at least partially right about distraction occurring, but you are missing what actually is the distraction, namely Issa's attacks.

But Khamenei, who has the final say on all state matters in Iran, said that the U.S. accused Iran of terror in order to divert attention..... from the Occupy Wall Street protest movement.

HA HA HA a couple of jokes!!

Both Khanenei for that 3rd grade assessment of less than .001% of the US population,

... and the 3rd graders themselves being babysitted by the police and given food/$$ while pouting off to their new 'parents' - - the US Government.

Ritdog-908299

Citizen X-

So the previous evidence of WMD gassing (250,000 dead) and radioactive materials means there was NONE later? Is that why Sadddam stalled the UN for 12 years - because he had nothing to hide? That makes a lot of sense, I guess (to a dhimmi).

Is that why he killed his son-in-law, the head of the weapons program, who defected to the U.S., told us that Saddam WAS pursuing WMD, and then went back when told all was forgiven, to meet his death? I guess that makes sense too (to a dhimmi).

Your information, which probably came from our government, is incorrect.

The following is from "Did Tenet Hide Key 9/11 Info?" - consortiumnews.com/2011/08/16/did-tenet-hide-key-911-info/

I'm reminded of Harlow's reaction to Newsweek's publication on Feb. 24, 2003, of the intelligence information provided by Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, Hussein Kamel when he defected to Jordan in 1995. Kamel brought with him a treasure trove of documents and unique knowledge of Iraq's putative "weapons of mass destruction."

Most significantly, he told his U.S. debriefers there were no WMD in Iraq. He knew, since he was in charge of the chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs for almost a decade, and he ordered what weapons existed destroyed before the U.N. inspectors could discover them after the war in 1991.

In his words: "I ordered the destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons — biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed."

Those pushing the Iraq War juggernaut in early 2003 almost had a conniption when Newsweek acquired a transcript of Kamel's debriefing and published this potentially explosive story barely three weeks before the invasion.

That is why no WMD were found in Iraq, either by the UN or by us.

As for Saddam stalling UN inspections for 12 years, he did so because he wanted his Middle East neighbors to believe that he was capable of retaliating if attacked. Israeli intelligence, however, knew that sanction-crippled Saddam was no threat; however, Israel's American lobby convinced Americans that Saddam was a very grave threat because it wanted the establishment of US bases in Iraq for an American attack on Iran.

The son-in-law was probably killed, not only for defecting, but also for revealing that Saddam was defenseless.

Weapons for Jobs tell me I'm wrong.

That is what he is attempting to do by creating a "scandal" out of what at worst was a mistake.

You call ordering gun dealers to break the law a mistake? You call letting guns "walk" that you know you have no way of tracking guns that have been used in multiple crimes including the deaths of at least two US agents a simple mistake? No way that was a simple mistake. At best it is total incompetence on the part of the DOJ which should be punished all the way to the top and at worst it is absolute malfeasance in office which should receive the maximum punishment possible.

Why was it removed in the first place?

Thanks for the truth Truthseeker

@ritdog

Iraq had no WMD before the 2003 war as confirmed by the UN inspectors but I guess there is a sucker born every minute.

CitizenX- You are wrong. There were weapons, biological weapons were found along with components. Maybe no nuclear weapons, which is the only weapons people wanted to hear were found. But Saddam was not allowed to have biological weapons and other missiles were found. He was not allowed to have weapons that could leave Iraqi airspace. He had those. I know for a fact that Saddam had the instruments to cause great harm. Everyone is stuck on nuclear weapons but biological weapons are just as bad. Don't listen to the media. They have their own agenda.

back @ CitizenX - and just what is the explanation for all that yellowcake being sent to Iraq from Canada?

Tinting paint? Makeup?

think fast........

Sorry ritdog

The yellowcake was under UN seal. I was being stored under US control since 1993.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/yellowcake.asp

Sheesh. There is no mystery about the Yellowcake. The stuff was under US control.

The sent it to Canada to get it out of Iraq because we had no control over the country.

@Kristian

So the UN, IEAE and the US Military are all under the control of the media. After invading Iraq we find NOTHING that was not already inventoried by the UN, the IEAE and the US military and you cling the the delusion that we found WMD.

Go ahead and cling to those delusions if it makes you feel better about murdering at least a few hundred Iraqis.

Kristian113

CitizenX- You are wrong. There were weapons, biological weapons were found along with components.

If Saddam still had dangerous biological weapons, why didn't he use them on the invading US troops? The #1 killer of our troops were roadside bombs, with not a one being killed by biological weapons. And, if WMD were found, have you heard or read of any claim by President Bush to that effect? (Actually, Bush blamed the failure to find WMD on "faulty intelligence.")

Also why, if Saddam's weapons were so dangerous, were our troops made to secure Iraq's oil fields FIRST, leaving his weapons depots completely unguarded? (Hint: the other reason for the war, besides Israel, was O.I.L--Operation Iraq Lliberation--not WMD; WMD=smokescreen.) Those unguarded weapons depots were quickly cleaned out by the Iraqi resistance, with the weapons obtained used against our troops. It is indeed true that the resistance did find a use for old, rusted gas cannisters--after removing the decayed contents, they filled them with the explosives our leaders had no interest in securing, and used them for roadside bombs.

Truthseeker and Citizen-Saddam hid many weapons and sold many to Syria. I have personally seen satellite photos of vehicles leaving Iraq. These vehicles are specially made for missiles. Saddam constantly played cat and mouse with the IEAE. He was not truthful and let inspectors inspect certain areal.

I have no delusions at all. I have been in the military for many years and in Iraq there were many weapons that we came upon and destroyed that were not allowed to be in Saddams arsenal. So maybe do your research before you throw out accusations of someones personal mindset. I understand that you Citizen wanted to personally see a ICBM up close with a nuclear warhead.

Bush made decisions based on what he was being told by our intelligence community and other countries like Saudi Arabia. They knew Saddam was up to something. They saw that Iraq water run off had serious leaching of chemicals that are only used in certain biochemical labs. Saddam said we destroyed a baby milk factory when in fact it was a station for tanks and missiles that he was not allowed to have. Do some research before you make an opinion and quit listening to the news and other media hippies that only have political agendas first. It has been proven over and over that NO news agency fulling gave correct accounts of what was found. Bush was a easier target instead of taking blame for false reporting. Sounds familiar. Peace to all and be careful and you are welcome for my service even though I am shocked that some people are not bright enough to understand that this is a different world and we need to protect ourselves. This is not a love sit it and honestly there will never be world peace because people want to protect the bad guy and not the ones who know what they do is right. Remember the victims rights not the person who commits atrocities. Or have you both forgot that Saddam gassed his own people continuously. He was a good guy right?

1NewDay......Holder has a very selective memory dating all the way back to the Clinton Administration. At least the last two times he was interrogated by the Congress, he actually admitted his involvement or lack there of, concerning the incidents he was involved. This time he is denying knowledge of an issue when he was clearly in the loop. Not many Washington DC Officials have been called out for "telling the truth", however, history confirms that when an official "lies about or covers up" the truth is when they get nailed. He would have better off just being honest. Telling the TRUTH didn't get him fired before, and wouldn't have him on the bubble now.

Kristian113

I respect your service to our country, and I believe that you are sincere. However, you are incorrect in saying that Saddam had WMD at the time of our invasion. The following quote from Bush is from his news conference of August 21, 2006:

"Now look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq, at the time, was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. IT TURNS OUT THAT HE DIDN'T, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction." - washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/21/AR2006082100469.html

I challenge you to find any statement by Bush that WMD were found in Iraq by our troops.

Regarding the satellite photos you have seen, photos can be faked. Read all about the fake photo evidence about Iraq that Colin Powell gave the UN at "The Lie of the Century" -

As for your statement that Bush based his decision to go to war on what he was told by the intelligence community, that too is incorrect. The majority of the intelligence community was telling Bush that Saddam was NOT an imminent threat. Saddam's defector son-in-law, who had been head of Iraq's weapons program, also revealed that years earlier he had ordered all WMD destroyed. In addition, UN inspectors, after initially being denied access, could find NO WMD even though they were given access to everything in Iraq, including Saddam's palaces.

Since none of that is what war-bent Cheney and Bush wanted to hear, they set up their own intelligence unit to give them intelligence more to their liking, the Office of Special Plans, headed by Douglas Feith, a man once fired on suspicion of spying for Israel. Frequent visitors to that office were Israeli generals. (The Israeli lobby was pushing hard for an American war on Iraq, just as it is now pushing for one on Iran.) The Office of Special Plans provided much of the "faulty intelligence" that Bush blamed for his needlessly getting over 4,000 American troops and over 100,000 Iraqis killed.

It's good to be patriotic, but not blindly so. Apparently you aren't aware that soon after Bush took office, Cheney held a secret meeting with oil company executives in which they divided up the Iraq oil fields among themselves--there was going to be a war regardless of what the intelligence said. The smokescreen justification for war agreed upon by the Bush administration officials was Saddam's alleged possession of WMD. It worked.

You also happen to be incorrect in saying that CitizenX and I have gotten our information from mainstream media. If you can recall, mainstream media, for the most part, swallowed, hook, line and sinker just about everything the White House put out. It was hardly anti-Bush as you indicate, but was vigorously beating the drums for war. Newsweek, an exception, did print the contents of the Saddam son-in-law debriefing, something which might have prevented war if the administration had been so inclined; but most of the other media ignored it.

Truthseeker and Citizen-Saddam hid many weapons and sold many to Syria. I have personally seen satellite photos of vehicles leaving Iraq. These vehicles are specially made for missiles. Saddam constantly played cat and mouse with the IEAE. He was not truthful and let inspectors inspect certain area

Please don't insult my intelligence. The EASIEST thing to do to put the question to rest is to publish those photos. There is nothing really secret about satellite photos that they couldn't publish to make that case. You saw the photos? You have that kind of clearance, huh? Are you sure you really want to go there?

Maybe they are like those mobile biological labs we saw the "pictures" of? The ones that were drawn in pencil that the useful idiot Powell foisted on the UN.

By the way. I don't blame Saddam for playing cat and mouse but you probably don't want to debate Imperialism.

I have no delusions at all. I have been in the military for many years and in Iraq there were many weapons that we came upon and destroyed that were not allowed to be in Saddams arsenal. So maybe do your research before you throw out accusations of someones personal mindset. I understand that you Citizen wanted to personally see a ICBM up close with a nuclear warhead.

Then you probably know that there were many weapons Saddam was not allowed to have. Hell, there were many components of weapons Saddam was not allowed to have. What is your point? Saddam couldn't even fly his air force over most of the country. I guess you'll be telling me about Saddam's drone that crashed in your back yard. I'm sure you have pictures.

No you don't understand about me. I knew before hand and have been proven right that Saddam didn't have WMD or a nuclear program. The UN, the US military and the IEAE assured me of that. Meanwhile I have your "anecdotal" evidence. Cheap shot by the way with the comment about how I, "wanted to personally see a ICBM up close with a nuclear warhead." Really? That's your closing argument?

No, don't assume I thank you for your service in Iraq, if in fact you were there. As a matter of fact I feel sorry for you but will support you as a human being. I will not support you as a person that would invade a country that was not a threat to the US, kill some say more than a million innocent people and pretend like you deserve some kind of kudos.

george bush, the idiot king is a War Criminal. The US started an illegal war and it is you my friend that needs to get your head out of your ....

Sorry I completely stand by my statements. Since I was there, I know what really went on. You listen and watch news from people who have no idea what goes on. Pretend you do and blame a person who wanted to protect you. I hope you truly appreciate your freedoms. Many lives (just not Iraq) were given so you could be lulled like sheep.

Oddly enough, Iran does have a point. It really doesn't make much sense to assassinate the Saudi ambassador, especially over something as relatively trivial as its involvement in Bahrain. I don't see Iran would have much to gain from that.

Sure, Iran is more than capable of murdering foreign diplomats and its behavior is often irrational, but this particular murder plot seems unproductive.

Chuck - we could "smooze" til the cows come home, but you will never be lovable. You right wingers hate Iran with good cause - the right wing is exactly like those in control of Iran. Ironic isn't it.

I tend to agree with you AG.

But more importantly, I think, is WHY are we in the middle of this at all?

This is between Saudi and Iran. Sure, it was supposedly detected here. OK. So, we look at tightening our borders/customs/immigration/etc. to see what we could do to prevent it in the future, if anything. We should also give someone a pat on the back and a plaque for their wall, for catching this before it happened. Beyond that, we shouldn't be involved.

Saudi Arabia can (and should) handle their own BS. Someone below mentions this is a convenient 'exercise' to chum up with Israel who's calling for a strike on Iran. That's an interesting thought.

Because Saudi Arabia is an ally and we are always in the middle of our allies crap. A lot more focus on our own backyard makes more sense....

Saudi Arabia is no ally of the United States if anything they are right in the same boat as Iran!a country who oppresses its own people because they keep them dumb and uninformed!! sort of sounds like what Fox News does to it's viewers!!

Something doesn't pass the smell test here ..... Regardless of whether this plot is true or not, it really doesn't matter. If it was the United States Ambassador to Iran, I say go after them. If true, this is Saudi Arabia's problem to deal with, let them goto the UN and pass more "strongly-worded" declarations, or deal with it in whatever manner they wish. Obama AND Holder are in trouble politically, so this makes a good distraction for what ails them. Wag the Dog anyone ????

USMC28- What they do and the fact that they are allies are not the same thing. Israel and Britain are good examples of that.

The reason it is our concern is the attack was supposed to take place in the US. If no action of any kind is taken then you can logicaly argue any foreign national or symphathizer can plot anything in the US and nothing should be done about it. That is not to say I support military action especially boots on the ground kind (and even if I did support boots on the ground action we do not have the available troops to do it).

AG

If there hadn't been a successful assasination in the U.S. by Iran before, I'd agree with you.

I have no idea what is true or not, but I do think these repeated assassinations by our drones will long-term make our intentions look questionable. I am saying we look like the killers. We are after all targeting our enemies as Iran was perhaps doing with this event. After a while all these intentions begin to move into a gray area. Obama has sure stepped up endorsing drone assassinations.

Chuck M

OK Liberals, it's time to smoooze em into loving us.

Gee Chuck who really cares if Iran along with their friends from Russia and China join in to come blow up America? They can't kill us all now can they?

OOOOOHHHHH Khameni, we are soooo scared! Give it your best shot because one shot is all you will get.

Why does every news story end up being Liberals versus Conservatives or viceversa. No one will ever have to defeat our country we are too busy fighting each other over political nonsense.

I would hope that we would consider the source when commenting on the comments of this regressive and repressive religious figure.

I'm hoping that one day very soon the Iranian people will rise up and banish clowns like the new Ayatollah A$$aholla (along with their organ grinder's monkey, Ahmawindbreaker) to the sidelines where they belong. We have hate spewing religious nuts in the U.S.A. too, but ours are riding the pine when it comes to their ability to impose their faith on our daily lives !!

Joe: I know. It's practically at the level of "I know you are, but what am I?" No one wins if everyone else is the enemy.

There are circles of power in the mideast where there is prestige and power to be obtained from a successful operation against "The Great Satan" (not to be confused with little satans I guess).

Neither is a country like Iran fully under the control of it's leaders either, much like any population (even the USA) there are diverse political interests that sometimes work against the "official" government.

But neither can the government be let fully off the hook, else everyone would just form "plausable deniablity" groups. Well, more so than they already do, heh.

@J

and with the latest foray into Africa...you left nutters are just like Mao , Stalin , Castro , Chavez , Hilter , Jong-Il , Amin , Hussein , Karzai , etc... ironis isn't it?

I remember when your lefty puppets JFK and LBJ thought they were going to intimidate North Vietnam with their imperialist actions...the library might have some info on that for you

Glenn,

I hope that was a failed attempt at humor. If you are serious you are really messed up. Prejudice is a form of ignorance.

If there is a war between Saudi and Iran, you can expect 10.00 a gallon gas by the end of the first month.

Psychotic religious fanatical madmen Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei does not have to have a reason to assassinate, it comes to him in dreams … as he is hooked up in the cosmos all day and night by virtue of his title.

Two governments, one country:

(A.) Religious fanatical cloak and dagger Iranian government rules its people under the table while attacking other countries at will with a covert army everyday.

(B.) Proxy Iranian government, no power used as a mouth piece to feed worthless drivel to news organizations, that only the truly stupid might believe.

So if you want to sit around playing “Why would he?” with his “Majesty the one and only straight out of insanity town the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei” …

have at it, but arguing his position will put you in the same boat as his president the “Not so believable but always hilarious Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad”.

I think Iran really needs a third fully activated government so that it can side with one or the other split personalities and settle this once and for all.

Let's emphasize electric cars so we don't have to be allies with any middle eastern nations. And they can be at each others throat. Something they will continue as long as only testosterone rules their countries. Can't fix "stuck on stupid". And those that leave civil rights violations behind and move forward will be welcome into the 21st century.

Strange comments by the Cons. They want a bigger, stronger military and more defense spending. If this President had an "R" after his name, they would love him. With the attention that he's paid to Muslim extremism, what's not for you guys to love? The last guy just shot off his mouth--i.e., "Wanted, Dead or Alive, "Smoke em Out", "Mission Accomplished", "Axis of Evil", and "Watch out--incoming shoe!"

This imperialism that will be accelerated by any of the righties if they get elected sucks.

Show me a dove that will rebuild the US and not take us back to 1890.

J-3936500

You right wingers hate Iran with good cause - the right wing is exactly like those in control of Iran. Ironic isn't it.

And I guess you believed Pres Obama when he called the Repubs the enemy too. Guess we should pull all our republican military out. Why should the dem soldiers have to fight two enemies. And to think how many of your enemies (republican soldiers) died defending your freedom. Wow, with more enemies like that, the world would be a better place. As you said, ironic isn't it.

Lucy - I would venture a response, but I can see by your comment that you are completely insane or just clueless. Your comment is just nonsensical, but that is very typical of a wingnut. Congrats on being true to your team. When you say something that makes any sense at all, I'll try to address it. In the mean time, the left is in the street and coming straight at you. Sleep well.

Chuck and Glenn, Shut UP!

Lucy, that's why they call them the Republican Guards. <sarc> Just say no to war and death.

OK Liberals, it's time to smoooze em into loving us.

Like when Obama got Bin Laden. BOOM. Like when Obama got al aulaqi. BOOM. The facts do not support your narrative. Perhaps you should go back to claiming that Obama is not an American.

Jackwagon.

Harry Blank,

RE: your post #2.17

Why not try another approach. Hasn't anyone ever told you you cannot make yourself taller by trying to make other people look smaller. Think about that for a few seconds. I hope it registers with you. Have a GREAT week!

HELLO---The Iranians have been threatening us ever since they formed the current government. This is small potatoes. They are just using it to get more leverage on Iran which is ok with me.

Hey SANDTRICH- as soon as you can show me a democrat that won't get us into WWIII by cutting defense spending to levels like before WWi and WWII, when "it wasn't necessary"......

nope...a cash register? , a floor register? , a hotel register? , any comment for the OP @2.2 ? interesting and predictable

Harry Blank,

Yes, I agree, you are very predictable, it is sad and demoralizing. Another thing I agree with about you, half your moniker fits exactly -- BLANK!

hahaha...good one!

It seems to me that obama is not at all gun shy when responding to threats.

Obama lied about bringing the troops home. Obama lied and people died!

OMG

Mosin: Please show me where Obama lied. He said he would bring the troops home from Iraq, which he has done and doing. Nothing left after 12/31/11. He never said anything about bringing troops home from Afghanistan. He said that is where the war should be fought. So please tell me where he lied.

Ask this question again after that date passes and their are still troops in Iraq?

verno - Mosin can't show you. He just makes s#!t up as he goes along. You know that.

Mosin is a paid troll and a member of the Tea Bagger Internet Rapid Response Team.

verno

@ Verno; "Mosin: Please show me where Obama lied."(about failed Obama promise to end the war)

Verno, if you can't figure out where Obama lied there is little sense in explaining it to you.

Obama promised to end the Iraq war. He did not. In fact, we have built an embassy there literally bigger that the Vatican, and our involvement in this immoral war BASED COMPLETELY ON LIES CONTINUES to this day.

Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, then turned around and DOUBLED troop numbers in the useless mess we call Afghanistan. A totally hopeless war now going on longer than World War II and the Civil War Combined. A shameless waste of our brave soldiers and a completely indefensible effort IGNORANTLY BEING FUNDED ON BORROWED MONEY. One of the most ignorant exercises in all of history (and one in complete denial of history).

Now Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama is sending our troops TO AFRICA!!

(So lets drop Obama's failed promises and get back to discussing Iran.)

Close the Fed, your comment says nothing. The Iraq War is coming to an end. Did you have some specific deadline? And the world's largest embassy was requested by Bush. I don't see how that has anything to do with Obama lying.

"That is what I will do day one" (2009) (1:21 of video).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WYTKj8pU5M

President Obama's stated (and written) Policy of "Improved Relations with Iran".

RESEARCH Previous attempts of Fundamentalist Islamic Iran to assassinate Saudis

Research Their previous and current ties to the Mexican Drug Lords, Illegal Aliens, Afghan Poppies, Columbians, etc..

Al Qaeda Bombers Learn from Drug Smugglers

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/28/eveningnews/main5347847.shtml?tag=pop

Please think clearly. President Obama has little or no say in these matters. Israel is the essential 'Ultimate Decider' in all US foreign policy decision making and long term plans...Elections are looming. Obama knows who is boss.

He can disagree but will do so at his peril - will not work in this country again!

yo roberto ....moron ....

we cannot respond ...Bush's tax cuts and unnecessary wars have bankrupted us git yr head outta yer arse ...

Sorry folks, the GOP ain't got a chance in 2012. Romney will never get the nod and if he somehow does the teatards and christian whackjobs will just skip voting anyway. Perry can't even let one scandal blow over before he blasts himself in the foot again, and what is there to say about Herman "If you're poor it's your fault" Cain? So get used to Obama, he's got 4 more years.

marklepew

Mosin is a paid troll and a member of the Tea Bagger Internet Rapid Response Team.

Other pearls of 'wisdom' from marklepew - accusor of single-minded and narrow (even "paid") opinions.....

Rich must be one of those compassionate Republicans than are so concerned for the typical American

…..You don't want to confuse Justified with the facts, he was so enjoying
repeating back his Rush Limbaugh talking points.

Joejibblets wasn't up in arms when Reagan invaded Grenada without congressional approval and then, I'm sure, he gave Reagan a standing ovation when he launched a bombing strike on Daffy Duck..............

...deaf ears, as most TP types and Republicans not only embrace ignorance they celebrate it.

Can the accusations and begin to argue something besides blind/insulting critisism. Are YOU paid???!!!

To all of you blaming Obama for everything, it's funny how you all have just decided to climb out from under your rocks and act like he started every current mess this country is dealing with. How you have all conveniently forgot who initiated most of this mess 8 years before Obama became President.

It's you ill informed idiots that spread b.s. propaganda and continue to fuel the ignorance that send weak minded people the wrong message. At some point we will all be better off if you all go away and leave the clear thinking to those of us that are intelligent enough not to live under rocks like you morons have chose to do all these years.

Robert: President Obama is still trying to clean up the mess your boy, Bush, made in Iraq. We have no assets to threaten another lunitic state if we were forced to. Figuring out international diplomacy and national strategy inbetween cowpie contests and dubies in Crawford is tough. I don't paticulary like President Obama but when it comes to keeping us out of deadly and expensive confrontations he is a champion. He sure has Al Qaeda looking out the back window for drones. I knew where Bush's legacy was going when he teamed up with Dick Chenny. I was a registered republican then. When he announced that we were invading Iraq millions of us, that actually know the difference between Iraq and Iran, screemed NO in unison. There will never be another Texas governor in the White House. This country is smarter than that.

Robert-1319721

Here is just another example why Obooba must go, some country threatening us knowing there will be no response from our so called leader.

=========

.....Well....let's see, Predator drone attacks increased with Obama since Bush left, troop strength in Afghanistan increased, Bin Laden gone, other top ranking militants taken out, seems Robert that you have either been living in a cave somewhere, or are one of those who insist that the sun rises in the West.

...And by the way, this Iran plot did not threaten us (the US), it threatened a Saudi, can you grasp the distinction? Do you need me to send you a picture drawn with crayons?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7hc_CI3f1A&feature=related

Some of you need to learn Farsi, Arabic, etc. watch other than censored US News Censorship and Monitoring of US News ("Monitorning and Censorship of All US Communications") is Legal under President Obama's January 21, 2009 Patriot Acts (plural).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVW23ejtcDQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsLGMTHrZa4

The Missiles fired from the missile launchers (44 to 46 degrees) are S-300s anti aircraft, the missiles launched vertically are IRBMs. Also recently deployed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGZb5eKU-uY

This is old information, as currently Iran is building under license from the Chinese, the Chinese supersonic anti ship cruise missile range of 400km (Noor II). To control the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman (to contol Oil Supertanker shipments to US).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo33L9oww-Q&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It27_CqVOmg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwMMrFaT0DA&feature=related

North Korean shipped their copy of the Chinese improved Copy of the USSR S-18 thru Bejing China.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtOExKq3onE

Iran's missile similar to a US Pershing II with a third stage and no range limiter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh0Axtsw3a0&feature=relmfu

Some of the concepts of the Iranian Missile Systems.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtBf9gsd0Fs&feature=related

S300 (Syria and Iran)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i77IRqI_rKc&feature=related

S400 ABM (part of video previously used to sell the S-400 to Iran).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78kZ6pYYJZU&feature=related

That's odd, Robert, Obama stuck his neck out to kill bin Laden, and killed him. That's more than your sorry ass would ever do!

Robert-1319721,

Instead of all of you Repugnants and Scrotums (Tea Baggers) arguing with the Demoncraps, you should just use references like:

http://www.state.gov/

It will take you a while and many mouse clicks to find all the President Obama and SOS Clinton f**k ups as they are buried under various titles. Like: President Obama warned by the UN not to give $900 Million US Aid that ended up being taken by force by Hamas to use to recruit more neutral Palestianians to join Hamas or starve and face daily beatings. These new Hamas Recruits are then used against the US and US Allies Worldwide to prove their Loyality to Hamas. To make matter worse SOS Clinton afterwards gave them $400 Million USDs.

Another example (how to shoot down the uninformed to crash and burn):

C. Moakler - Robert: President Obama is still trying to clean up the mess your boy, Bush, made in Iraq.

C. Moakler,karatecize,

Who said this and demanded US Law, 1998 H.R.4655 "Overthrow of President Hussein":

Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. The United Nations weapons inspectors have done a truly remarkable job, finding and destroying more of Iraq's arsenal than was destroyed during the entire gulf war. Now, Saddam Hussein wants to stop them from completing their mission. I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world", and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again.

See US Law, 1998, H.R.4655, especially "SEC. 2. FINDINGS."

After the measures of US Law (with Congressional Appropriations), 1998 H.R. 4655 Failed to Overthrow President Hussein. US Congress Declared War with Iraq with US Law, 2002 Iraqi War Resolution (with Congressional Appropriations (US Congress' job of finding the money to pay for the US Laws they create)).

FJB-365198 - That's odd, Robert, Obama stuck his neck out to kill bin Laden, and killed him. That's more than your sorry ass would ever do!

Nope, just like the Rescue of Captain R. Phillips, President Obama distanced himself and the Office of the President from the High Risk Special Reconassiance Mission (no one could confirm OBL was there), that turned into a Direct Action once it was confirmed OBL was there. The US Military and US Intelligence Agencies had to twist President Obama's arms to get him to approve the Special Reconaissance Mission. Just like the Rescue of Captain R.Phillips, President Obama froze up in ordering the termination of OBL. Because this happened before with the Rescue of Captain R.Phillips, Leon Penetta established a link to let him know if President Obama froze up again (see the famous picture, a frame from the two way video communications from Pakistan (C4I MH Helicopter), CIA, JSOC, Afghanistan, Bagram AFB, etc.) hint look carefully at the photo then assign names to each, one of them does not appear to belong there, that is Leon Penetta's link that told Leon Penetta that President Obama froze up again.). So basically Leon Penetta, NOT President Obama ordered the Termination of OBL.

And how about this, do any of you know who amended the US No Assassination Policy to allow us to terminate Osama Bin Laden?

http://hir.harvard.edu/leadership/on-the-offensive

Before any of you make comments (name calling) about the above, DO THE BASIC RESEARCH.

FJB-365198 - That's more than your sorry ass would ever do!

Funny, I did not see President Obama or you, FJB-365198, at Bagram AFB getting on the 160th SOAR MH-6s (4), MH-60s (3), or MH-47s (3).

@Robert-1319721

What exactly is there to say to this? Its the ramblings of a nut job... and it does not dignify a response. Then again I guess your just so use to Bush and the Republicans being in there.... they constantly pretended the entire rest of the world was a serious threat to us and that you should be afraid, very afraid. After all their buddies in the Defense industry can't get massive contracts if we have no one to fight now can they?

@david-475776

Wow someone needs a life, and a brain to go with it. You have been so brainwashed by those who want you scared of your own shadow its not even funny. Get out of your basement from time to time and you would see the world is not as scary as you seem to think it is.

Side Note: Osama Bin Laden was an enemy combatant... we did not "assassinate him", he was KIA.

The only thing obama is worried about now is reelection. He ain't going to nothing but stall and talk. And hillary needs to stop her mouth. All she is trying to do is keep things stirred up.

So so clueless...unbelievable and jarring. You people honestly believe that Obama can't be blamed going into FOUR YEARS of his mess!!

Wrong move after wrong move, new war after new war. Billions wasted on jobs programs that didn't work

...hundreds of millions of taxpayer $$ loaned to businesses that went belly-up AND MORE! Obviously, you're on the public dole.

PATHETIC.....

Obama or Bush who cares? Just say no to war and death for profit.

Yes, lets nuke them over their pathetic empty threats. @!$%#ing ignorant buffoon.

justoneguy

Can you name these new wars after new wars? And can you add he cant get things done because he is not king and they need to be passed by the just say no house?

The public agrees with his moves. They just dont get done because they are all blocked.

And as far as still blaming the old regime. I simply put it to you like this. You live in a nice house. I come in. I piss on you rug. All over your curtains. I break your TV. I then poop on your bed. After you kick me out you get mad at the person who comes in and cleans it because you have to pay for it. You dont blame me who pissed all over your house. But you blame the cleanup guy who has to spend the money.

And you suddenly are against wars that he did not start but the person before him did. And in half the time has gotten more done then the man whos wars these were did over 8 years. Other then expand them.

I had to break it down in terms you might understand as sad as it is

@FJB

Obama stuck his neck out to kill bin Laden, and killed him.

Really? I didn't realize he was the one over there pulling the damn trigger.

He was the one who made the call to go in. And if it had gone wrong he is the onw that people prob like you would have crucified if it failed. He also did something Bush couldn't do because he was not worried about the people attacked us but his own vengeance

Uh, Robert? I'm certain the late Osama Bin Laden would disagree with your assessment...

tw1sted

.... "the cleanup guy" has left a bigger mess than you made - and he's run off with all my money!

I think they should post the evidence for the world to see

Iran thinks it is a tough little bastard. Testing how far they can go

They will have a A bomb one day and the next day they will not be here

Might be the 12/12/12 day

Might be time to send them a pizza or 2

justoneguy,

I'm glad you signed up for my fan club, it seems you enjoy my blogging and although nobody seems to vote up any of your comments there is no reason to be jealous.................and you really have to stop with the humping of my leg like a little TP puppy. You can now continue with your buddies on... the Tea Bagger Internet Rapid Response Team

Robert: Nice comment, start out by attacking the President of the United States when he actually did something right (i.e. caught the bad guys on this one) and continue by lying about what he has actually done. If it were up to the TeaThuglican Party, Osama bin Ladin would stll be running around Pakistan, planning another bombing and Qadaffi would still be in Libya.

To "btj89" ALL of the misinformed idiots on this thread that STILL insist Obama did not lie about ending the war AS HE PROMISED;

Barack Obama Promise to End War

— "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank. " - Barack Obama Campaign Promise - October 27, 2007 Nov 12, 2009

NOTE; IT IS NOW 2011 AND WE ARE STILL IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN

OBAMA LIED AND IT IS TIME TO DUMP HIM!!!! (you can "take that to the bank" Barack !!!!!!)

Presidents lie to get what they want then when they're elected they are briefed about the real situation and realize they can't do what they promised. Presidents promise too much and citizens believe too much.

Your fact based post is meaningless to the liberals.

All of this is true, but the libs don't buy it- it's kumbaya all the way to the death pits.

Aim for the bottom, libs....

Ariely - More Israeli propaganda. You Zionists never quit.

No more wars for Israel. The Iraq war, which was planned and sold by the Zionists, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, was quite enough, as it will cost the US over 3 trillion dollars. Guess what - every single claim, the Zionists made about Iraq, turned out to be untrue.

No more wars for profits.

cherrytom I think you do! But this one will be more tougher than any war we've been in or alluded to being a war.

We're not going to go to war over this. I could imagine a solitary attack against some target in Iran, much like Reagan launched against Libya back in the 80s.

But more than likely we will not even take that far, yet.

Wag the Dog .... maybe next summer as election day gets close thou, huh .... maybe?

Tough War? Are you serious? Israel could knock them out with one hand tied behind their back.

They use outdated weapons technology that requires substandard replacement parts they buy from Russia and China and most of their contemporary weapons have been home made in Iranian factories. How hard could this be? We wouldnt occupy Iran, just shock and awe them in some state of simple recognition

What say we just plop a few nukes on em' and call it a new Walmart parking lot made of glass?

I think we need to spread the "OCCUPY IRAN" word to their own people over there. Surely they're not pleased with everything. Let's destroy them with their own people.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned Sunday that Tehran would respond robustly to any "inappropriate measure" by Western powers linked to an alleged Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to Washington, state television reported.

Obama needs to photocopy his middle finger and e-mail it to the Ayatollah. Then he needs to decide which "inappropriate measure" he wishes to take.

...just shock and awe them in some state of simple recognition.

riley,

The United States just shocked and awed itself into some state of economic disaster, but you want more shock and awe ?

What say we just plop a few nukes on em'...

Jesus, people, are you for real ?

in response to the comments: do i smell another war coming?

yea the last war. the one that blows us back into the stone age, lol

No way, remember? Oblowhole got the peace prize! For what the world still wonders!!!

Oh yeah, he sent the Special Forces to uganda as military advisors. The same way Viet-Nam got started in 55.

C'mon people, keep in mind a couple of facts here:

1. No attack took place, it was a plot.

2. The intended target was a Suadi national, not an American.

Israel attacked the USS LIberty and killed American sailors, did we attack Israel?

The Russians (Soviet Union at the time) shot down a KAL commercial airliner carrying American citizens, including a US Congressman that strayed into its territory near Korea without giving it a chance to idientify itself and correct its course, did we attach Russia? All you gung ho mouthbreathers who want a war, be the first to join up, get in the C-130, with the back ramp dropped, wearing your chute and carrying your M-14, and jump into Tehran....let us know how it goes (PS, take your Evangelical Christian Bible with you, that will scare the hell out of them).

Back when Iran had our hostages in the early 1980's. I had a button of mickeymouse flipping the bird and under mickey's picture it read HEY IRAN. I wore it on my cowboy hat. That button is still relevant today.

CherryTom - The Zionists are trying like hell to bring on another war.

Ralph you are only partially right, there are other players who seek war against Central Asia and Africa. Raw materials and profits to be made, "the spice" must flow. Baron Harkonnen demands "the spice".

Is this another future "shock & awe"?

No it will be more like WTF happened

World War III has been going on since Korea. The bad guy picks on the little guy and the US is in the middle. Simple. Einstein was right in his statement but WWIII could go on for many more years. Isolationism isn't the answer, Nationalism is. Take care of home before trying to help everyone else.

Good luck finding a stick!

Anyone that believes Iran doesn't have the capability to respond to an attack with a nuclear weapon(s) is smoking Drano...

AQ Khan has all but guaranteed it...

Rodney that's disgusting "smoking drano" Even if Iran has WMD so do we..
The better think again about acting tough..Were the Bullies from hell..

Might scare a few of the idiot dicktadders into submission..

Even if Iran has WMD so do we..

If you think that the Iranians are going to sit back an allow their nation to be attacked by Jews (because that's how they will view any attack no matter who does the bombing) then you really are smoking Drano.

They've seen what's happened to Iraq and Afghanistan and are prepared for a fight. They will use a nuclear device if they are backed into a corner. It won't be an ICMB but an asymmetrical attack on either CONUS (Continental US) or Israel.

They know we will destroy their country...the most dangerous enemy in the world is one that is not afraid to die. Don't think they are not prepared to trade 70 million dead Iranians for 70 million dead Americans.

I'm a believer in the rule of 3s, we've gotten away with 2 attacks on mid-east countries...we won't get away with a third.

Iran might conceivably be able to reach Israel with a nuclear-armed missile, if they already had such weapons. They do not.

You need to calm down.

Great post Rodney. But I disagree about the 3rd attack. 9/11 united this country for the first time in many years. It brought back the spirit that we need. Iran may be willing to match death one for one but they would not last. Ground war is not the answer, as Vietnam proved and the Gulf War has reaffirmed, but rather a covert affair that hits them in the areas Iran, and the rest of the world, will hurt. If there is no world pressure then it is very difficult to win a war, but with the world actively engaged, having something to lose or gain, the war would be much more swift and concise.

You're funny, calm down...I see the clowns have arrived.

I'm no expert, but I have been on the ground in the region (24th MAU, Beirut 1983) and I have fought against many factions in that region.

The first rule of warfare is understanding your enemy and I see you have no understanding of the that enemy.

Rodney, you provide absolutely no evidence that Iran has nuclear weapons, let alone the will to use or deliver them against a U.S. target. Your service in Beruit 30+ years ago does not gift you with special knowledge regarding Irans nuclear weapons program. Yet you voice dark predictions of the dire consequences of any Iranian / U.S. conflict.

That, is tin-foil hat territory.

When you can provide some actual evidence to back up your paranoid claims, you'll be worth listening to.

We will not put troops on the ground, Barry.

The war plan calls for for sustained around the clock bombing of approx 2400 aimpoints (of course the exact number is classified).

The goal will be to destroy their ability to make HEU and set their nuclear program back at least 5-10 years.

But the problem is that Iran already has a nuclear weapon(s) IMO. AQ Khan had 20 years of clandestine activity. He spread nuclear technology around the globe. He is the father of the Pakistan nuclear program so it's inconceivable that he didn't provide Iran (who has unlimited funds thanks to our need for their oil) with a working device.

dman- Do you have evidence that they don't? No? Hmmmm.... Doesn't prove anything then does it?

Hope not Rodney. Too many friends have been there and dealt with it. Tomahawks could do the trick from safety 100 miles off shore.

So, go ahead, hide under your bed. The Iranian's are coming!

Call it what you want,

I think I remember someone else who said something similar to you moronic view of the world:

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice:

I don't think that anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile

So go ahead and continue to underestimate people who don't care about dying and only care about killing as many Americans as they can. You have absolutely know idea of threats we face.

I suggest you spend a little more educating yourself and less time pontificating nonsense.

Barry,

Tomahawks can not deliver bunker busters. Iran has buried much of their nuclear program (again they are not stupid people). The only delivery system we have for deeply buried targets are manned aircraft.

The other aspect of an attack is that any target deeper than 300-400 feet is out of range for conventional munitions.

The Bush administration decided that a new class of nuclear weapons, called Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, should be used to destroy targets deeper than 400 feet.

So here's the question, should the US use a tactical nuclear weapon against another nation that is a NPT (Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty) member?

If we decide that we need to destroy their nuclear arsenal, RNEP is almost a guarantee or else the attack is senseless because conventional weapons will not reach the heart of their nuclear program.

The Bush Administration has again requested funding from Congress to research a new type of nuclear bomb. The Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) is a nuclear weapon that would burrow a few meters into rock or concrete before exploding and thus generating a powerful underground shock wave. Its hypothetical targets are deeply buried command bunkers or underground storage sites containing chemical or biological agents.

The RNEP budget: RNEP is not just a feasibility study: the Department of Energy's 2005 budget included a five-year projection—totaling $484.7 million—for the weapons laboratories to produce a completed warhead design and begin production engineering by 2009.[1] Last year, David L. Hobson, the Republican chairman of the House Appropriations Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, zeroed out FY05 funding for the program, stating, "we cannot advocate for nuclear nonproliferation around the globe, while pursuing more usable nuclear weapons options here at home." However, the FY06 budget request includes $4 million for RNEP and an additional $4.5 million to modify the B-2 bomber to carry the weapon.

The RNEP design: Weapons designers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory intend to use an existing high-yield nuclear warhead—the 1.2-megaton B83 nuclear bomb—in a longer, stronger and heavier bomb casing. The B83 is the largest nuclear weapon in the U.S. arsenal, and nearly 100 times more powerful than the nuclear bomb used on Hiroshima.[1]

Technical realities:
According to several recent scientific studies, RNEP would not be effective at destroying many underground targets, and its use could result in the death of millions of people.[2]

• RNEP would produce tremendous radioactive fallout: A nuclear earth penetrator cannot penetrate deep enough to contain the nuclear fallout. Even the strongest casing will crush itself by the time it penetrates 10-30 feet into rock or concrete. For comparison, even a one-kiloton nuclear warhead (less than 1/10th as powerful as the Hiroshima bomb) must be buried at least 200-300 feet to contain its radioactive fallout.[3] The high yield RNEP will produce tremendous fallout that will drift for more than a thousand miles downwind. As, Linton Brooks, the head of the National Nuclear Security Administration told Congress in April, "the laws of physics will [never allow a bomb to penetrate] far enough to trap all fallout. This is a nuclear weapon that is going to be hugely destructive over a large area" if it goes off underground.
• RNEP could kill millions of people: A simulation of RNEP used against the Esfahan nuclear facility in Iran, using the software developed for the Pentagon, showed that 3 million people would be killed by radiation within 2 weeks of the explosion, and 35 million people in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India would be exposed to increased levels of cancer-causing radiation (see Figure 1).[4]

RNEP would not be effective at destroying chemical or biological agents: Unless the weapon detonates nearly in the same room with the agents, it will not destroy them. Because the United States is unlikely to know the precise location, size and geometry of underground bunkers, a nuclear attack on a storage bunker containing chemical or biological agents would more likely spread those agents into the environment, along with the radioactive fallout (See Figure 2). [5, 6]

• RNEP would not be effective at destroying the deepest or widely separated bunkers.The seismic shock produced by the RNEP would only be able to destroy bunkers to a depth of about a thousand feet. Modern bunkers can be deeper than that, with a widely separated complex of connected rooms and tunnels.
• There are more effective conventional alternatives to RNEP: Current precision-guided conventional weapons can be used to cut off a bunker's communications, power, and air, effectively keeping the enemy weapons underground and unusable until U.S. forces secure them. Sealing chemical or biological agents underground is far more sensible than trying to blow them up.

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_weapons_and_global_security/nuclear_weapons/technical_issues/the-robust-nuclear-earth.html

dman,

If we use RNEP, who thinks they won't return the favor.

Knowing a bit more about what the stakes are helps in making a coherent argument.

I'm a believer in the rule of 3s, we've gotten away with 2 attacks on mid-east countries...we won't get away with a third.

So far we have gotten away with attacks on a third ME country. Yemen.

Low intensity conflict, mostly drone strikes and we were technically "invited" in.

...but I get your point, Mac

Unfortunately the average American (that's average Walmart customer) has only a high school education / and a 6th grade reading level. I believe you're right, but perhaps preaching to people who are unable (but not unwilling) to understand. I have a graduate degree and I still don't know enough about military ins and outs to fully grasp it all. Very few do. Still I try to learn what I can.

@ Rodney who wrote:

They've seen what's happened to Iraq and Afghanistan and are prepared for a fight. They will use a nuclear device if they are backed into a corner. It won't be an ICMB but an asymmetrical attack on either CONUS (Continental US) or Israel.

You are correct. We need to be very careful about how we talk to them. It almost would seem that they are looking for an excuse to go into war with us. Something that would be disastrous...to say the least.

Yea, Iran has the capability to respond, but they're gonna have to send it over here via taxi! They don't have ICBM capabilities (yet), and good luck getting a substantial nuke on board a non-stop airliner in carry-on luggage!

man- Do you have evidence that they don't? No? Hmmmm.... Doesn't prove anything then does it?

Barryfrompa - I base my assessment on the reported concensus of the world intelligence community. Here's what was reported in a New York Time story from Sept. of this year:

There continue to be questions about how well the program is faring. In early January 2011, the departing chief of Israel’s intelligence agency said that Iran would not be able to produce a nuclear weapon before 2015 because of “measures that have been deployed against them.”

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iran/nuclear_program/index.html

If the Israeli intelligence community does not believe Iran has produced a nuclear bomb, an opinion I believe is shared by the U.S. Intelligence community.

One never prove a negative, but the evidence in favor of Iran already possessing nuclear weapons is slim to none, and if they did have them, then the recent campaign of assassination and sabotage, which many attribute to Israel, would have no motive.

So, I'll repeat where is the creditable source stating that Iran has these weapons?

I think I remember someone else who said something similar to you moronic view of the world:

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice:

I don't think that anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile

Well, Rodney, you quote Ms Rice, the same "expert" who pointed at aluminum tubes as evidence of an active Iraqi Nuclear program:

... doubts about the quality of some of the evidence that the United States is using to make its case that Iraq is trying to build a nuclear bomb emerged Thursday. While National Security Adviser Condi Rice stated on September 8 that imported aluminum tubes 'are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs' a growing number of experts say that the administration has not presented convincing evidence that the tubes were intended for use in uranium enrichment rather than for artillery rocket tubes or other uses. Former U.N. weapons inspector David Albright said he found significant disagreement among scientists within the Department of Energy and other agencies about the certainty of the evidence.

As to her post-disaster assessment of the tactics used on 9/11 both the European and the American intelligence community had been aware of vague threat of hijacking an airplane to use as a weapon.
Moreover, the use of an airplane as a weapon, while unconventional, was well within the practical capabilities of trained pilots willing to die. But absent possession of a nuclear bomb or the technical capabilities to deliver it, it is impossible, for Iran to launch a nuclear attack on the U.S., even if they were stupid enough to want a nuclear war with the most powerful nation on earth.

No bomb and no missile = no attack.

Got it (I hope)?

So go ahead, keep citing the idiots of the last administration, and posing wild what ifs. It may keep you up at night it will not trouble my sleep.

dman,

If we use RNEP, who thinks they won't return the favor.

Knowing a bit more about what the stakes are helps in making a coherent argument.

Rodney, what does the unrealized RNEP capability of the U.S. Military have to do with Iran's nascent nuclear weapons program, which has yet to produce a single bomb?

In direct answer to your question, I'm sure they might (use RNEP), if they had such technology. You keep portraying Iran as a nation capable to launching a nuclear attacks, or of answering U.S. technological developments on an equal basis. They are not. They just do not possess the infrastructure and the technical capabilities.

One can construct any type of fairy-tale reality, wherein Iran (or Iraq, a decade ago) is accorded all manner of offensive capabilities. But when one attempts to apply such constructs to the real world, the template fails to fit. George W. Bush, and Condolezza Rice gave us an object lesson on this principal 8 years ago. Apparently you did not notice.

As of today, Iran is not capable of posing a nuclear threat even to Israel, let alone the U.S. Perhaps in 5 or 10 years time this picture will change. But many other things may change in the interim.

dman- Just because the intelligence community tells us that they are not ready until 2015 does not mean that it's the whole truth. There are always reports of "intelligence" that was overlooked or hidden after an event. Yemen, 9/11 and so many other incidents bear that fact. Another side is even a more simple position. By planting that "false" intelligence maybe there is hope that Iran will tip their hand a bit and let the news leak out. Some times misinformation is the best way to gain true intelligence...

It is possible that in a country so vast that the proof is hidden out there. Look at all the things in the US which are talked about but not proven. 9/11 conspiracy, Area 51/Groom Lake as examples. In the end the question is how to handle the threat based off of the true intelligence that the powers that be hold. If tomorrow Israel and other nations came together and said that there is new proof that Iran does have the capability would that be the truth? Or would it be to justify new sanctions or the threat of war?

It is possible that in a country so vast that the proof is hidden out there. Look at all the things in the US which are talked about but not proven. 9/11 conspiracy, Area 51/Groom Lake as examples.

barry, you've strung together a lot of "might be" and "could be" possibilities. That is a far cry from proof.

Almost anything might termed "possible", but absent some corroborating evidence, rational people do not make plans based upon those possibilities.

..and to my knowledge, none of the "things in the U.S which are talked about", have ever been proven. These rumors are the fodder of the conspiracy-theorists; they are not proof of anything, except the endless willingness of some people to believe that a vast conspiracy has been hidden, just beyond the reach of public perception, but not of their clever powers of deduction.

If tomorrow Israel and other nations came together and said that there is new proof that Iran does have the capability would that be the truth?

I don't know. I'd have to see what evidence was offered in support of such claims. I will say this, that Israels current actions, which appeared targeted at slowing Iran's nuclear weapons program, only makes sense if they believe Iran does not yet have nuclear weapons. Otherwise, they are just closing the barn door after the cow is out.

You guys sound like a bunch of meatheads just looking for something to hit, grow up and put your violent fantasy's to bed.

Rodney:

Condoleeza and the Bush Admin. were warned by intelligence agencies that attacks by extremists using planes as WMD's, were highly probable(intel reported plans overheard/found).

Isn't it just precious how Rice claimed she and her staff "didn't get the memos", when questioned by the 9/11 Commission?

dman,

If the Israeli intelligence community does not believe Iran has produced a nuclear bomb, an opinion I believe is shared by the U.S. Intelligence community.

US intelligence, British intelligence, Israeli intelligence or any western intelligence agency had no idea of AQ Khan's activities for 20 years. So if our defense is based on what our intel agencies know it's a deadman's bet...CIA really called the collapse of the USSR or Saddam's move on Kuwait or George Tenet's slam dunk WMD in Iraq.

The list of failures is long.

I have the utmost respect for our covert agents, but their ability to penetrate mid east organizations is very limited. The culture does not lend itself to outsiders so conventional HUMIT methods are ineffective.

You are so focused on them BUILDING a device, you totally miss the fact that could have purchased a completed device...Got it (I doubt it - that seems to be beyond your capabilities).

A betting man bets on a nuclear armed Iran.

Nancy4366

Unfortunately the average American (that's average Walmart customer) has only a high school education / and a 6th grade reading level. I believe you're right, but perhaps preaching to people who are unable (but not unwilling) to understand. I have a graduate degree and I still don't know enough about military ins and outs to fully grasp it all. Very few do. Still I try to learn what I can.

Thanks Nancy, I think you have a very valid point...it can be hard to get people to see past the propaganda and really think for themselves.

Any reasonable nation would assume that the only way to defend themselves against attack is to become a nuclear armed nation.

If I know that others will destroy any facilities I need to build a weapon, then I do everything I can to acquire a completed device and use the nuclear program as a decoy.

AQ Khan had the capability to supply that completed device.

If people really want to understand nuclear proliferation, then Nuclear Proliferation 101 is the AQ Khan case.

rg-3850477

Yea, Iran has the capability to respond, but they're gonna have to send it over here via taxi! They don't have ICBM capabilities (yet), and good luck getting a substantial nuke on board a non-stop airliner in carry-on luggage!

...or they could put it on a container ship and park it in New York Harbor. Since we only inspect less than 10% of all shipping that comes into the country, that's a good bet. Or they could use the drug smuggling routes from Mexico into the US (the most likely scenario). If cartels can smuggles cocaine by the metric ton I'm sure they could smuggle a WMD device using the same methods and smuggling routes.

What's really got the intel guys nervous is a drone launched offshore, flying at low level and undetected by radar.

I don't think our defense agencies are spending much time discussing taxis or carry on luggage.

dman

In direct answer to your question, I'm sure they might (use RNEP), if they had such technology. You keep portraying Iran as a nation capable to launching a nuclear attacks, or of answering U.S. technological developments on an equal basis. They are not. They just do not possess the infrastructure and the technical capabilities.

We sent B-52s to bomb bicycle trails in Vietnam and the bicycles won. Stop playing XBox and start reading real world material, Call of Duty is not the real world, put the controller down and pick up some books.

American Lobo

Isn't it just precious how Rice claimed she and her staff "didn't get the memos", when questioned by the 9/11 Commission?

When you are that asleep at the switch, you have to come up with something that sounds good. Too bad it was a comment that sounded good in her head but came out of her mouth like a lead balloon.

If Iran does not have one at this time they will have one soon

I would say they have one now cause of the way they talk and act. They want to provoke something so they can use it and prove that they are great.

Do they really need a glass parking lot? they must have other plans for all that glass

I don't know. I'd have to see what evidence was offered in support of such claims.

And you won't, why do you think that Iran can't keep a secret?

That's what wrong with this country, people that Americans have a "god" capability. We don't know everything, can't know everything and people die because assumptions are made the are dead wrong (I know that fact first hand).

mj899

I tend to agree with that POV...

Barry

I stand corrected, the USAF has developed a bunker buster Tomahawk...unfortunately, it's nuclear.

AGM-86A ALCM

WARHEAD   -  NUCLEAR W-80 NUCLEAR WARHEAD 250 KILOTON YIELD
             CONVENTIONAL 1,000+ LB. FRAGMENTARY OR BUNKER
             BUSTER WARHEAD WITH ROCKET ASSIST PENETRATION
RANGE     -  750 MILES A VERSION
             1,500 MILES B VERSION
WING SPAN -  9 FT. 5 IN. A VERSION
             12 FT. B VERSION
LENGTH    -  14 FT. A VERSION
             20 FT. 9 IN. B VERSION
DIAMETER  -  25 IN.
WEIGHT    -  1,900 POUNDS A VERSION
             2,825 POUNDS B VERSION
ENGINE    -  ONE F-107-WR-100 WILLIAMS TURBOFAN 600 LBS. THRUST
GUIDANCE  -  GPS, TERCOM AND IR/RADAR IMAGING SYSTEM WITH
             ACCURACY OF +/- 1 METER
SPEED     -  CRUISE MACH .65 - TERMINAL MACH 1.1 B VERSION

Here's a post that lays it out some more (I have no idea if this guy is authentic)

I worked for General Dynamics for several years on the Tomahawk project. We worked closely with McDonnell Douglas on the system back then. We worked with a Rear Admiral. Stephen J. Hostettler on the project. He ran the show for the most part. Then in came Rear Admiral. Larry E. Blose, who was a real @!$%# if you ask me.

We've worked on several variants obviously, and I won't get into details about myself. I am probably going to get in some trouble for this. But since I am a patriot, what I have learned and worked on the past couple years has pushed me beyond any capabiity of keeping shut. I keep hearing those words spoken about the Military Industrial Complex, but I never believed it because I worked closely with many people for so many years. It couldn't be true. Well. It is.

We have been working on an extremely secret project with the Tomahawks. I won't tell you exactly how they work, but they could be considered "bunker busters" for short. They are not like your conventional bombs that penetrate deep into the ground before detonating. Our variant is well beyond the capabilities of any bunker buster, and even some of the nuclear bunker busters we already have.

We recently ran Tactical Tomahawk tests in 02 and 4 highly successful TECHEVAL flights.

This paved the way for our latest technology which we tested in Florida a couple months back. I heard you guys here had a post about people seeing the cruise missile.

Well lets cut right to the chase. We've develeped and produced more systems in the last 2 years for a large scale military offensive. It has been in the pipeline for a long time. Our successful tests of our latest secret model were so successful, that the militart has ordered mass production of these units.

They are nuclear, but beyond anything you could imagine. They detonate underground without any radioactive spillage at all. The technique uses several variants of missiles all working in tandem with redundancy built in. The guidance systems already are accurate to 1 ft, which is all we need. We only need about 10ft for this to be effective.

What I'm trying to say is that we have a massive "RUSH" Order on these new systems, and they need 300 of the new models retrofitted by the end of May. We have been working round the clock and even hired more people on. 16hr shifts usually.

I don't know what the target is, but I can assure you this. There will be nuclear detonations on foreign soil soon.

God help us all.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message220892/pg1

A betting man bets on a nuclear armed Iran.

So, let me see if I have your "thought process" correct. You admit that the world intelligence community does not believe Iran has nuclear weapons. You offer no countering evidence. Yet you are betting that they do have such weapons because they might have bought them without anybody knowing.

Yeah, I got it. Unless some absolute proof is found that Iran does not have such weapons, you assume that they do.

You might with equal logic assume that little green men are out dancing on your lawn at night. You don't know it is not happening, therefore, you bet that it is.

Yeah, I got it. Straight down the rabbit hole with Alice & company, right?

Proof, or even evidence is not required. Just wild supposition, backed by paranoia.

Your final message, (10.35) says a great deal about your reality testing. You admit, you don't know "if this guy is authentic", yet you post his message as if it were the gospel truth.

You can always find some "source" on the internet to back any wild train of speculative thought. Apparently, for you, it does not matter if these sources are in any way verifiable.

I would say they have one now cause of the way they talk and act. They want to provoke something so they can use it and prove that they are great.

Do they really need a glass parking lot? they must have other plans for all that glass

mj - I remember similar pronouncements being made about the Russians, that they were crazy, and did not care about the consequences of a nuclear war, or that they felt they could survive such a conflict.

As was shown a numerous points in the cold war, this assessment proved to be incorrect. The Russians were not crazy or suicidal. I do not believe the Iranians are either.

Iran is interested in expanding its influence in the Middle East. They are not interested in starting a nuclear conflict with the West, one which would begin with a limited nuclear assault launched from Iran, and end with Iran becoming virtually uninhabitable for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

Whatever the truth may be concerning this recently reported attempt by Iran to stage an assassination here, in the U.S.A., we should keep our response in measure with the true threat which Iran represents, which is limited.

We sent B-52s to bomb bicycle trails in Vietnam and the bicycles won.

Rodney, I'm well aware of the Vietnam War,and what a guerrilla force can do to resist foreign occupation. None of this has anything to do with Iran's nonexistent ability to use technology they do not possess. You are the one which dragged advanced nuclear weapons technology, such as RNEP into this theoretical conflict. Now, suddenly, we are bombing bicycle trails in Vietnam.

wow.

If, and God forbid it happening, actual armed conflict breaks out between the U.S. and Iran, it is highly unlikely that it will involve direct invasion by the U.S. military. The most likely scenario, is a limited aerial strike at high profile military targets in that country. Against such an attack, there is little of nothing Iran can do in response, especially if the attacks are mounted by drone air craft.
They don't have ICBM technology. Despite your often repeated fears, there is no strong evidence that they possess even one nuclear weapon. So if they want to wait for us to bomb bicycle trails, that is alright with me.

I'm not advocating war with Iran; quite the reverse. I'm merely pointing out that of all the valid reasons to shy away from such a conflict, their phantom nuclear arsenal is not one of them.

Where's your proof they don't have them? Intel agencies? The same slam dunk agencies? Here's a news flash for you, 80% of the intelligence collected by western nations is collected by US intelligence agencies and then disseminated to allied nations.

You've written a lot of words, but nothing to prove they don't have them except for the press releases force feed to you by the same propaganda machine that brought us Iraq's phantom WMD program and a war of choice.

Rodney, I'm well aware of the Vietnam War,and what a guerrilla force can do to resist foreign occupation. None of this has anything to do with Iran's nonexistent ability to use technology they do not possess.

Failure to understand your enemy - try reading Sun Tzu.

Against such an attack, there is little of nothing Iran can do in response, especially if the attacks are mounted by drone air craft.

What your limit mind can't seem understand is that any strike that doesn't destroy their nuclear program is senseless and that can't be done with conventional weapons, that leaves only nuclear bunker busters. Hence, ANY attack on Iran will be with nuclear weapons or there will be no attack...period.

Once attacked with a nuclear weapon (or any weapon), they have a legal right under every single international law on the books, to respond in kind.

I'm not advocating war with Iran; quite the reverse. I'm merely pointing out that of all the valid reasons to shy away from such a conflict, their phantom nuclear arsenal is not one of them

You really fail to understand the geo-political dynamics of an attack on Iran. They don't threaten the US directly, they threaten Israel. As long as Israel faces this threat there will be calls for an attack.

Where's your proof they don't have them? Intel agencies? The same slam dunk agencies?

I have no such proof. But I have more evidence on my side than you do. You've offered nothing, as n-o-t-h-i-n-g by way of verification of your claims. You're only evidence consists of reminding us that U.S. intelligence is not perfect or omniscient. Therefore, by your logic, whatever alternative reality you pose, must be true.

Dazzling logic.

Despite your rather pretentious references to Sun Tzu, whose works, I admit, I have not read, you in no way advance your argument that Iran is capable of striking at the U.S., except through terrorist attacks. I'm guessing that Sun Tzu was not an expert in nuclear weapons technology.

I understand very well that we are unlikely to take out or eliminate their nuclear weapons program through a direct aerial attack. But, as your limitless (in inventiveness) mind no doubt realizes, there are other reasons for mounting an attack. In the 1980s, Reagan launched a retaliatory air strike on Tripoli. It was done, not in expectation that Libya would abandon any illicit weapons program, but in response to repeated backing by the Libyan government of covert terrorist attacks in Europe. The effect was almost immediate. In subsequent years Libya was no longer a government being linked to terrorist plots.

Once attacked with a nuclear weapon (or any weapon), they have a legal right under every single international law on the books, to respond in kind.

Rights and international law would have very little to do with their response. Their response would be predicated by their capabilities, and simply put, I do not believe they would have the capability today to launch a nuclear weapon at either the U.S. or even Israel. Moreover, I do not believe Israel believes this is a possibility. Simply put, I trust their intelligence assessment more than I do yours.

You really fail to understand the geo-political dynamics of an attack on Iran. They don't threaten the US directly, they threaten Israel. As long as Israel faces this threat there will be calls for an attack.

Let me get this straight. If we attack Iran, Iran will attack Israel. Therefore, there will be calls for an attack??! By Israel? The United States? I can't even guess why you think that makes sense. Are you sure you haven't been puffing on that Draino bong?

Nancy was right...and I've wasted enough time with you.

Adios.

go do some studying, start with Sun Tzu,

18. All warfare is based on deception.

19. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable;
    when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we
    are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away;
    when far away, we must make him believe we are near.

20. Hold out baits to entice the enemy.  Feign disorder,
    and crush him.

21. If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him.
    If he is in superior strength, evade him.

22. If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to
    irritate him.  Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.

23. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest.
    If his forces are united, separate them.

24. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where
    you are not expected.

25. These military devices, leading to victory,
    must not be divulged beforehand.

dman- I realize that I made a lot of assumptions but that was my point. The one thing that has been shown clearly over time is that the intelligence community tends to not be very intelligent. Not in finding out the information necessarily but in handling it correctly. Whether or not they have nukes or any other type of WMD is really anyone's guess at this time. I tend to not believe all I am told or read. Seeing is the most best way to ensure the truth.

In the end I don't want anymore of our military to perish over unintelligent handling of intelligence. A glass parking lot? I can live with that if it stops Americans and innocent people from being slaughtered.

In the end I don't want anymore of our military to perish over unintelligent handling of intelligence. A glass parking lot?

Barry, as general precepts, I can agree with everything you've said, except the above. It would take a great deal more than a bunch of what-ifs, and nobody-knows, for me to sign-off on the premptive attack you trailing remarks ("A glass parking lot?") implicitly justifies. We're talking about an event which would kill millions, not thousands of individuals, and which would set the precedent for use of nuclear weapons in what is becoming an increasingly tense and angry world. To take such a step on the basis of what might be true, is beyond criminal; it is criminally stupid.

So yes, I would agree we cannot absolutely know that Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, but given the level of evidence offerred by you and Rodney to support such a scenario, his remark, and I quote, "Anyone that believes Iran doesn't have the capability to respond to an attack with a nuclear weapon(s) is smoking Drano...", strike me as arrogant, stupid and border-line delusional.

...and no, Rodney, quoting (but apparently not comprehending) Sun Tzu, does not advance your arguments one iota. Understanding one's opponent is not the same as overestimating him. Imagining exaggerated capabilities on the part of your opponent does not make you more ready to face him, but rather less.

The inglorious failure to act by the Gen. George McClellan, the noted Civil War General, would illustrate this concept. He never rose to your level of speculation, gifting his Confederate opponents with an imaginary nuclear arsenal. But he did repeatedly overestimate their numbers, and refused to act even when he held a strong strategic advantage. It could be argued that he is partially responsible for extending the length of that war by a year. Perhaps if he read Sun Tzu with your level of comprehension, we would be fighting still.

Have fun with your wild speculations. I am very glad that your viewpoint does not appear to be widely shared by the current Administration. A delusional person on the street is a trifle alarming and sad. A delusional person in charge is terrifying.

...and no, Rodney, quoting (but apparently not comprehending) Sun Tzu, does not advance your arguments one iota. Understanding one's opponent is not the same as overestimating him. Imagining exaggerated capabilities on the part of your opponent does not make you more ready to face him, but rather less.

There is no such thing as overestimating your enemy, in military terms. The United States Armed Forces does not want a fair fight. We want to dominate every single engagement and control the battle space. That means we seek to have a kill ratio as high as humanly possible. 10 million to 1 ratio would be absolutely fantastic.

Make no mistake about it, the United State military is in the business of killing people, it's what we are trained to do. The flip side of that coin is bringing every American warrior home alive. So, if we kill all of the enemy and lose no one, would that be an overestimation of the enemy or a great military operation?

The very fact that you think overestimating the capabilities of an adversary is a bad thing highlights how little you understand about military assessments, intelligence gathering and evaluation.

I would rather have my Marines hit the beach expecting a division and facing a platoon than expecting a platoon and facing a division.

I understand Sun Tzu just fine, it was required reading in several of my military schools, how about you? Was it ever required reading in any of your military schools?

There is no such thing as overestimating your enemy, in military terms.

What a silly statement. To accord your opponent a capability he does not possess, is to overestimate his capabilities. And if this false assessment paralyzes your will to fight, then you are defeated before ever firing a shot.

Again, I would suggest you read about General McClellan and his noted unwillingness to fight. Read about the "Quaker Guns", the Peninsula Campaign and the Battle of Antietam. Read how in each of these episodes, he wildly overestimated the forces arrayed against him. Then tell me again how it is impossible to overestimate your opponent.

As to your comprehension of Sun Tzu, perhaps your are correct. Show me a passage from his text wherein he advised one should be dissuaded from attacking one's enemy by wild conjectures regarding his strength. Then I'll concede the point.

...and just to be clear, I am not advocating an attack on Iran. I just do not believe their supposed "nuclear capability" is in any way a present factor, and I find your "draino smoking" comment ridiculous, both in its arrogance and its stupidity.

I would rather have my Marines hit the beach expecting a division and facing a platoon than expecting a platoon and facing a division.

Again, I would suggest you read about General McClellan and his noted unwillingness to fight. Read about the "Quaker Guns", the Peninsula Campaign and the Battle of Antietam. Read how in each of these episodes, he wildly overestimated the forces arrayed against him. Then tell me again how it is impossible to overestimate your opponent.

You are talking on a strategic level, I'm taking on a tactical level. From a strategic standpoint, sure, overestimation will have an effect on allocation of forces, logistics and other strategic aspect of warfare which could (or could) affect the over all campaign.

On a tactical level, every Marine on the ground prays for overestimation, they dream of it every single day of combat because what we usually get is underestimation or just flat wrong intel.

As to your comprehension of Sun Tzu, perhaps your are correct. Show me a passage from his text wherein he advised one should be dissuaded from attacking one's enemy by wild conjectures regarding his strength. Then I'll concede the point.

Wild conjecture...

What's baffling is why you think a country that wants nuclear weapons, has suffered through international sactions for decade in pursuit of nuclear weapons, has refused IAEA inspections regimes if their nuclear program, lives under continued threat of attack by Israel...sure, wild conjecture, what ever you say...you're the intel expert here. /s

LOL...

dissuaded from attacking one's enemy by wild conjectures regarding his strength

BTW - when I did say we should be dissuaded from attacking Iran? If we have to attack Iran, I'd support it... the key word is "have".

Attacking Iran for the sake of Israel or Saudi Arabia, no way. But if there is a valid national security level threat posed by Iran, of course I would support it, regardless of their arsenal. But I've yet to hear a national security threat that meets that standard.

A longtime CIA officer who spent 21 years in the Middle East is predicting that Israel will bomb Iran in the fall, dragging the United States into another major war and endangering US military and civilian personnel (and other interests) throughout the Middle East and beyond.

Earlier this week, Robert Baer appeared on the provocative KPFK Los Angeles show Background Briefing, hosted by Ian Masters. It was there that he predicted that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is likely to ignite a war with Iran in the very near future.

Robert Baer has had a storied career, including a stint in Iraq in the 1990s where he organised opposition to Saddam Hussein. (He was recalled after being accused of trying to organise Saddam's assassination.) Upon his retirement, he received a top decoration for meritorious service.

Baer is no ordinary CIA operative. George Clooney won an Oscar for playing a character based on Baer in the film Syriana (Baer also wrote the book).

He obviously won't name many of his sources in Israel, the United States, and elsewhere, but the few he has named are all Israeli security figures who have publically warned that Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are hell-bent on war.

Most former Mossad chiefs wary of Netanyahu

Baer was especially impressed by the unprecedented warning about Netanyahu's plans by former Mossad chief Meir Dagan. Dagan left the Israeli intelligence agency in September 2010. Two months ago, he predicted that Israel would attack and said that doing so would be "the stupidest thing" he could imagine. According to Haaretz:

When asked about what would happen in the aftermath of an Israeli attack Dagan said that: "It will be followed by a war with Iran. It is the kind of thing where we know how it starts, but not how it will end."

The Iranians have the capability to fire rockets at Israel for a period of months, and Hizbollah could fire tens of thousands of grad rockets and hundreds of long-range missiles, he said.

According to Ben Caspit of the Israeli daily Maariv, Dagan's blasts at Israel's political leadership are significant not only because Mossad chiefs, in office or retired, traditionally have kept their lips sealed, but also because Dagan is very conservative on security matters.

Caspit writes that Dagan is "one of the most rightwing militant people ever born here. ... When this man says that the leadership has no vision and is irresponsible, we should stop sleeping soundly at night".

Dagan describes the current Israeli government as "dangerous and irresponsible" and views speaking out against Netanyahu as his patriotic duty.

And his abhorrence of Netanyahu is not uncommon in the Israeli security establishment. Accordingto Think Progress, citing the Forward newspaper, 12 of the 18 living ex-chiefs of Israel's two security agencies (Mossad and Shin Bet), are "either actively opposing Netanyahu's stances or have spoken out against them". Of the remaining six, two are current ministers in Netanyahu government, leaving a grand total of four out of 18 who independently support the prime minister.

In short, while Congress dutifully gives Netanyahu 29 standing ovations, the Israelis who know the most about both Netanyahu and Israel's strategic situation think he is a dangerous disaster.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/07/201171775828434786.html

One final thought...

Let me clarify my position

1) This Saudi assassination plot is bogus IMO.

2) I don't not support war based on Israeli desires or threats to the Saudi envoy.

3) We should assume that Iran has a nuclear weapon and war plan accordingly

4) Only go to war if our nation security interest are threatened, not the security interest of any other nation, including Israel.

You are talking on a strategic level, I'm taking on a tactical level. From a strategic standpoint, sure, overestimation will have an effect on allocation of forces, logistics and other strategic aspect of warfare which could (or could) affect the over all campaign.

The principle is the same. One does not base ones actions on wild over estimations of the enemy's capabilities.

I would rather have my Marines hit the beach expecting a division and facing a platoon than expecting a platoon and facing a division.

That is a sound principal. But the correct parallel to this discussion would be refusing to hit the beach because you believe the enemy holds the beach head with a division, when all available evidence indicates they have but a platoon.

Another Example:
At the Battle on Anzio, allied forces fearing a non-existent trap on the part of the German and Italian forces, delayed their seizure of the high ground commanding the beachhead for sufficient time for the Germans to take those positions, thus condemning the landing force to several months of bombardment, and near annihilation.

Wild conjecture...

What's baffling is why you think a country that wants nuclear weapons, has suffered through international sactions for decade in pursuit of nuclear weapons, has refused IAEA inspections regimes if their nuclear program, lives under continued threat of attack by Israel...sure, wild conjecture, what ever you say...you're the intel expert here. /s

A sentence has a subject and a predicate. You never complete yours; you say "a nation that wants nuclear weapons, ...has sufferred, ...has refused ..." and what, automatically has them because they desire to do so? Wanting is not having. If it were, you would see 911 porches next to every home in a trailer park. Yes, they probably want them. No, that doesn't mean they already have them.

I looked at your summary points, and I somewhat agree with numbers 2 and 4. War with Iran is not justified by the current situation, and our nation should not engage in a war where our vital interests are not threatened.

But as to your assessment of the Saudi Assassination plot, show me some evidence, beyond your gut feelings, that this was not a real event, engineered by the Iranians, and as to the Iranian supposed nuclear weapons arsenal, no we should not assume they have nuclear weapons, when all the evidence is to the contrary.

...enough said.

The principle is the same. One does not base ones actions on wild over estimations of the enemy's capabilities.

Please, stop already, you have no idea what you are talking about. The principles are not remotely the same.

...enough said.

My God. we can only hope...please tell us you really, really mean it.

I am not saying we should strike first. However we should watch and wait. Be ready for anything. I would not compare Russian thinking with Iran thinking.

There was always a bit of sharing between the USA and the USSR.

Iran is actively hostel not in words but in deeds. This is the difference. They are not working with a full deck. My bet is they will do something that will provoke a nasty response from the USA and in less then 1 year

I base this on just my opinion it is not fact.

Rodney - The fault is mine.
Why would i expect somebody who cannot construct an English sentence, complete his thoughts, or follow a logical argument to be capable of honest debate?

My bad.

I would not compare Russian thinking with Iran thinking.

There was always a bit of sharing between the USA and the USSR.

Iran is actively hostel not in words but in deeds. This is the difference.

mj899 - I would say that your perception on the facts relative to the Soviet Union as compared to the Iranians is a function of time. Time has softened peoples memories of the fear inspired by the Soviets, when they attempted to place nuclear weapons in Cuba, when they blockaded Berlin, when they declined to withdraw their troops from Iran following WWII, when they invaded Afghanistan. I defy you to list any comparable list of aggressive actions on the part of the current government of Iran.

...and people said many of the same things about the Soviets as are now said about Iran. They pointed (with good reason) at the paranoid actions of Stalin, or at Khrushchev pounding his shoe on the podium at the U.N., and they said "they are all crazy." or "They are not working with a full deck."

I too would not ignore the bad actions of Iran. Nor would I be deterred from taking any necessary punitive actions by unrealistic fears of their ability to retaliate. But I emphatically would not overreact and start a war over either this recent incident involving the Saudi Ambassador, or over their nuclear weapons program.

dman- your points are well taken. Sorry but I did not mean literally a glass parking lot. I was thinking more of tactical bombing to disrupt the ability of the regime to convey acts of war. However in the unlikely and very scary scenario that it was confirmed they possessed nuclear weapons and had the intent to use them preemptive action beats knee-jerk reaction hands down. I am not for killing innocent people for any reason. Truth is that most of those who die in any war, including the combatants, are innocents. Many are fighting for their lives and families and following orders. They are not killing for the pure joy of it.

The most dangerous enemy is not one with something to lose but rather one with nothing to lose. Showing them that there is something to live for, to throw down their weapons for, will go much further in the end. The problem is that in the case of a country like Iran, run on fear and intimidation, the combatants many times don't have a choice but to fight. If not there is the possibility that their families, friends and livelihood may be taken from them by those they are doing the fighting for. If that happens then they have nothing to lose which makes them all the more dangerous.

It's a sick cycle that many people live in. The one which the US has gotten into isn't always a whole lot better at times. War is a failure of diplomacy. But that does not always mean that diplomacy itself is to blame. Sometimes the powers that be only have desire to forward their own prestige and power, at any expense, which usually comes at the expense of the innocent.

To defend life is the greatest honor of all. To watch life be taken without action is a sin.

Why would I expect somebody who cannot construct an English sentence, complete his thoughts, or follow a logical argument to be capable of honest debate?

I just love how some, who have never defended as much as a dog house, seem to be the ones with all the expert answers.

Dick Cheney

Doug Feith

Paul Wolfowitz

John Bolton

dman-353357

The problem is that in the case of a country like Iran, run on fear and intimidation, the combatants many times don't have a choice but to fight. If not there is the possibility that their families, friends and livelihood may be taken from them by those they are doing the fighting for. If that happens then they have nothing to lose which makes them all the more dangerous.

What you say is true, to some extent, but it over simplifies the West's relationship with Iran.

The problem with Iran is not as simple as good vs evil, or even something to live for vs something to die for.

The problem with Iran started many decades ago with the overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddegh by British and American intelligence agencies at the direction of President Eisenhower and Winston Churchill.

It's always been about oil, after all, BP is an evolution of the Anglo/Iranian Oil Company and with the threat of losing control over the Iranian oil reserves, the two countries decided to get rid of a former ally in Mosaddegh (Operation Ajax) which led to the rule of Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi (the West's installed puppet), the Iranian revolution, the rule of Ayatollah Khomeini.

Most people Americans only see good (Americans) vs evil (everyone else) as the driving force of world conflict without actually understanding the history of the conflict. Most simply ingest the force feed propaganda supplied by those in power.

This country has the military power to prevent others from meddling in our internal politics, but this country and its allies, has been nothing but meddlers in the affairs of other nations. When they finally decide the throw of the yoke of western colonialism, they are destroyed.

This country created the headache we know today as Iran, we can thank John Foster Dulles, Ike, Churchill, Kermit Roosevelt Jr., MI6 and CIA.

...in the end, the west lost control of the Iranian oil reserves anyway.

I just love how some, who have never defended as much as a dog house, seem to be the ones with all the expert answers.

...and isn't it sad that those who cannot argue their positions effectively resort to ad hominem attacks.

Sad, but predictable.

It is how Rodney entered this debate with his "smoking draino" comment, and it is pretty much how he finishes.

...later twinky.

Barry, I appreciate your clarification on Iran.

...enough said.

My God. we can only hope...please tell us you really, really mean it.

Yet another display of bluster and insult masquerading as conscious thought. Very impressive.

e·nough

adj.
Sufficient to meet a need or satisfy a desire; adequate: enough work to keep us all busy. See Synonyms at sufficient.

Please, take your own advice.

The advice was to you, twinky. I don't need to give written instructions to myself.

Please, take your own advice.

Do I need to explain what that means as well, you don't seem to comprehend the written language too well.

Rodney, to repeat myself, my advice was, to you. That is one the simplest concepts one can communicate in the English language, either by the written word, or verbally.

That is, "to you", as in directed towards you, and not at the speaker (or writer). I know that anyone with a high school mastery of English would understand this distinction. But...

If you cannot even grasp this much, then I guess I should not be too surprised by some of the other odd and malformed ideas rattling around in your skull: saddened, but not surprised.

LOL...indeed derpy, well said.

...but I'm sure that won't be understood either.

LOL...for sure

Well, well, well...the casus belli Netanyahu, AIPAC and the American war posse has been looking for.

Don't be surprised to see an additional Carrier Battle Group move into the region or maybe begin exercise with "NATO Allies" in the Med, increased BARCAP and Recon flights right up to the Iranian border from both Iraq and Afghanistan (after all, that was another reason for not withdrawing troops from either country).

One has to wonder why a plot now, on the eve of the American draw down from Iraq? Would the more reasonable move have been to wait for US forces to leave Iraq?

I really have to wonder if this is nothing more than a pretext for war with Iran. It's what Netanyahu has wanted for years. After Obama's UN speech and Netanyahu's political endorsement (my words) afterwards, Israel feels they are owed a favor in return.

A weak American President, at the beginning of an election cycle, with slumping poll numbers among American Jews attacks an Islamic nation on behalf of an Arab ally for the benefit of its Jewish partner...ain't this a wonderful world?

There is not a security expert out there that believes this was a real threat from the top leadership of the Iran gov't.

“We do not think it was a rogue operation, in any way,” a different official said, although he added, of the chief of the Iranian Quds Force, Qassem Suleimani, “We don’t have specific knowledge that Suleimani knew about specific” details of the plot.

"Suleimani and Khameini understand how to do political murder," said Bob Baer, a former CIA agent, and another skeptic of the extent of the scheme. "If they were in on this, they've either lost their minds, or they've lost control, or they're committing suicide. Those are your three choices. There isn't a fourth choice."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/12/iran-assassination-plot-skeptics_n_1008068.html

I wonder if Suleimani took lessons from holder and acts stupid or ignorant of the facts!!!

US Begins Huge Military Maneuvers Aimed at Iran
Battle-ready troops on standby

Global Research, October 18, 2011

The United States will this week commence huge military maneuvers aimed at Iran, with a massive air fleet patrolling middle eastern skies ready to land at any time, in response to Irans involvement in an alleged assassination plot that experts have labeled dubious, amidst fears that US and Israeli targets could be hit by attacks.

As we reported last week, during US Defense Secretary Leon Panettas October 3 Tel Aviv visit, Israeli hawks attempted to persuade Panetta to give the green light for a military strike on Iran. Within ten days, details of an alleged assassination plot against a Saudi ambassador emerged and the foiled attack was blamed on Iran. Innumerable experts immediately voiced their doubts about the authenticity of the plot, with 21-year CIA veteran Robert Baer labeling the story a truly awful Hollywood script.

The US military will respond this week with a series of significant military maneuvers designed to threaten Iran, including, an American air fleet in Middle East skies ready to land at any moment for any contingency, reports DebkaFile.

The United States launches a large-scale exercise over the Middle East deploying 41 giant transports of the 22nds Airlift Squadron Monday Oct. 17, states the report, adding that the aircraft will be packed with fully equipped, battle ready troops.

A further seven warships from the Stennis Battle Group will also provide ground troops with combat support and strike land and sea targets.

The Israeli, Egyptian and Saudi armies have also been placed on maximum preparedness, echoing reports that U.S. troops being sent to the region have also been put on full alert.
The maneuvers are also linked to the scheduled release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit by Hamas on Tuesday, an event that US intelligence officials fear could set off a chain of attacks in the region against US and Israeli targets. Should embassies be targeted, US troops will be in place to react swiftly.

Geopolitical experts have been consistent in their warnings that Israel was preparing to strike Iran this fall.

Back in July, CIA veteran Baer told KPFK Los Angeles that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was planning an attack on Iran in September to coincide with the Palestine bid for UN membership.

Whether the maneuvers are merely designed to be an act of belligerence against Iran or represent preparations for an actual military strike in support of Israel remains to be seen, but as Gulf News reporter Patrick Seale pointed out Friday, the window of opportunity for an attack on Iran is closing.

Some western military experts have been quoted as saying that the window of opportunity for an Israeli air attack on Iran will close within two months, since the onset of winter would make such an assault more difficult, writes Seale, adding that the Israelis eagerness to launch the attack has caused considerable alarm in Washington and in a number of European capitals.

Both Republican and Democratic US lawmakers have issued strong statements against Iran in recent days, with several all but calling for war. Last week, New York Republican Peter King called on the Obama administration to put troops on standby, labeling the alleged Iranian assassination plot an act of war. On Sunday, Democrat Dianne Feinstein, the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, warned that the US and Iran were on a collision course.

I want to ask you a question, have you ever served in anyone of the American military?

M.Correll,

I have, Specwarcom, 9yrs and NO, Seal 6 is not the answer as this idiot doesn't know the objectives/S.O.P. of a Seal team.

A team will never knowingly allow itself to get engaged in a protracted firefight as that is plain suicidal for a Seal team! With the fire power of a platoon, teams hits hard and fast, and then withdraws thru rally points to be sure to get away safely in their egress.

And Seals are NOT IMMORTAL, or SUPER HUMAN, we die also, as do all service members, we die in the Service to OUR COUNTRY!! With Honor and Respect from our Brothers in Arms!! And hopefully, Our Country that we serve and protect!!

I hope I schooled fedupwithidiots 2010592

And Seals are NOT IMMORTAL, or SUPER HUMAN, we die also, as do all service members, we die in the Service to OUR COUNTRY!! With Honor and Respect from our Brothers in Arms!! And hopefully, Our Country that we serve and protect!!

You are totally correct. People need to stop thinking of you as commodities that can be used whenever things get too tough to handle. The fact that Team 6 was lost over a mistake that was easy to avoid, is proof that you guys are human, and not super-heroes.

The same thing can be said about some of the Marines.

I totally understand you, and I wish you the best to you and your family. Thank you for your service.

Ha ha. What should I do to save the country and help all the people?

Oh wait a minute, I'll go ask MY god.

~ I tried to imagine.

We do, and he goes around Congress without hesitation or let up!!!

My thought exactly...Iran couldn't even beat Iraq in the 80's, and everyone knows how bad Iraq was owned by the U.S. in both '91 and '03 (and in '91, Iraq wasn't just some peon country, they had the 4th or 5th largest standing army in the world and got schooled big time).

It wouldn't even be a fair fight and when somebody dies in a fight that they didn't start its a crime, get it? Say no to war and it's profits to the few.

HEGEMONY.

..one to beam up.....please.....

i love your optimism. i wish we could turn our world into a Star Trek kind of world where the rich don't exploit the poor and people of every heritage live in peace, celebrating their customs and living as brothers. it could be done, but as with any birth, i fear this one will not be without pain. and unfortunately, those who have the least will suffer the most. but, you know, this move on wall street could be the catalyst to a brighter future as long as it doesn't disinegrate into violence. i believe the protesters want change peacefully. and this act of civil disobedience will work as long as we don't give up. the 99% don't want communism. we don't want to kill the free market. we don't want to destroy the rich. we just want a FAIR deal. and that could happen. what i see happening is a world wide march on wall street. people everywhere are beginning to realize that we are worth more than indentured servitude. this is happening in china, the middle east, south america as well as europe. i spoke to a woman who came into the grocery store where i work the other day. she is an international trader. and when i mentioned that i had read that the chinese workers there were beginning to demand higher wages and better working conditions, she adamantly agreed. she said what we are not being told and the corporations don't want us to know is that this is happening and that many companies are now seriously thinking of bringing back their workforce to america because it is no longer cost effective to ship the jobs overseas. i know you read alot about that going on right now, but it is actually slowing down, not speeding up. and if we as american workers, regardless of your political outlook, stand together and demand that companies who want to benefit from tax breaks have the majority of their workforce here, they will change. why? because nothing is more important to them than money.

i have to give thanks to the egyptians who started this all. i seriously think if they had not stood up and changed their world, people in other countries including here, would not have believed they could change anything. but, we can change the world into the Star Trek society and we don't HAVE to kill anyone to do it.

you know, i follow this philosophy called the SECRET. it basically follows that what you concentrate on and believe in will happen because the universe and ourselves are so intricately connected that you can actually change the energy around you from negative to positive. wouldn't it be something if enmass we started really believing in a peaceful world where everyone had enough. if all of our negative energy that we have been exhibiting lately towards mainly each other, could redirected towards this positive future. someone out there tell me why THAT would be wrong, unamerican, unchristian. explain to me why bickering, namecalling, hate-mongering and spitefullness is a better way.

i dare you all to put down your arms, put your nasty attitudes on hold for just one moment and think about all the things in this world that we should be grateful for and just for a moment, visualize a beautiful future. just for a moment. it doesn't cost a penny, and you don't have to lose one iota of face.

..my bad....make that two to beam up.......

exactly the response i would expect from a hatemongerer. but, you didn't answer my question. why is violence, hatred and namecalling better than peace, brotherhood and cooperation? can you answer that or are you only capable of short one sentence instults? YOU are the problem we have in this world. YOU who instigate hate, YOU who love hate. YOU love spreading the hatred because it gives you a sense of personal power. you must have an incredibly low self esteem that the only way to make yourself feel empowered is to insult people who are doing nothing more than forwarding something positive. i'm not delusional. i know, the chances of this world becoming a peaceful place to live are remote at best. and mainly, because of people like YOU, who would rather spread hatred than brotherhood. but, i will NOT stop believing in something positive. I will NOT stop dreaming of a better world. and all the insults and hatred you vent into the world will not stop those of us who want something better for our children and also for YOU. you insult me, but the truth is i only pray that you will have a better life. that's the difference between YOU and me.

..wow alessa....

....YOU may be better served if YOU not only suck to your guns in regards to all of those things YOU will NOT stop doing......but added a sense of humor into the mix.....

...but I guess you took me as seriously as you take yourself.....

...lol..meant "stuck" to your guns.....

i DO stick to my guns. you want to see my sense of humor? what's funny about people suffering? what's funny about hard working americans getting slave wages while their corporate overlords wallow in money? if you meant your posts to be humorous, you should have clearer. they both just sounded like insults.

Thank you alessa. You have said pretty much everything that I have to say on Newsvine today about this issue other than this: I think this entire issue is just another example of how our politicians are being managed and maneuvered. The wealthy families on Wall Street are in no way concerned with the danger of Iran. They are concerned with OWS and the 99%. We will only continue to grow even though they may try to distract us with war. It does not matter in the least because the American people are awake and alert now and such machinations on the part of these individuals and families on Wall Street will not work. Long live the Republic and to the devil with the Imperialists on Wall Street and K Street! May the OWS movement grow day by day, never look back and never turn back. We tried voting for 30 years. It didn't work. We tried contacting our political leadership for 30 years to no effect. Now is the time for protest among the people to grow, grow and grow and if needs be we should have revolution to oust the tyrants among us.

If you remember your Star Trek history, mankind had to practically destroy itself to bring about that kind of change. But I digress, it's only fiction.

I don't see you getting too much traction with that Nuc war talk but I know I wouldn't want to be near the top of the next country we go to war with. With these drones and fourth or fifth generation Cruse missiles it might get cheep and easy to take Iran. Our forces could disable their air defenses in three or four days and pick off their leadership on their way to the outhouse. I think this getting to be the only thing we are real good at. Not much to brag about.