Time to Bomb Iran out of existance
 

From CNN:

No nuclear halt, warns Khamenei

Ayatollah Khamenei said the West was trying to stop Islamic progress
Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, has said his country will press ahead with its nuclear programme.


:scared:

specifically what would you suggest?

So,

who do you think will be the 2nd ?

no oil?

the 2nd what, nic?

:AP:
pisser is just being a good little right wing tool as usual, spouting the first crap that enters his head that will piss off anyone with any common sense. Last time I looked, Israel and the US were busy with a psychological war designed to keep the citizens of the west in a constant state of fear and make radical Islamics do something stupid like use atomic weapons or biological weapons . If they get a few home grown terrorists to blow them selves up along the way thats just a bonus for their propaganda machine.

Forget the conspiricies this is right in your face . Trying repeatedly to prove the events of 9/11 were designed by the US government is futile ,as is trying to prove they let it happen. If people concentrated on the events of the last 150 years that led up to 9/11 as much as the energy that went into constantly pushing that huge rock up that huge hill the reasons for 9/11 would be pretty clear by now. Terrorism is the 'big lie' that has been used quite well .The British and the Jews have known for hundreds of years how the Islamics will fight when pushed into a corner and so it has been easy to align modern politics against them over the last 90 or so years . I see the same brainless drone advocate bombing Iran that was screaming 'nuke' Bagdad and Afganistan a few years ago ,so I take it he means 'nuke' them.
(probably a side effect of too much FOX news)

Spoken like a true terrorist.....

Whatever it takes to ensure that they do not possess or retain nuclear capabilitites. If that means destroying infrastructure, so be it.

Don't feed the environmentalist. Might hurt the environment.

you are the fucking terrorist you idiot..
I am not calling for anyone to be bombed

go suck albeds dick

nobody can ensure that. what does destroying infrastructure do for us? ask israel how destroying arab infrastructure has made them any safer. ask the US how destroying iraqi infrastructure has made us any safer.

after fifty years of fighting jihads of one sort or another, with the net result being an ever escalating islamic fundamentalist threat, after iraq, after afghanistan, after gaza - what on earth gives you the idea that there is a military solution to this problem?

The bombs aren't falling in Iran - not yet anyway. Unfortunately, It's probably just a matter of time - it depends on how uncooperative and belligerent the Iranians get.

It is not in the best interests of organized nations to permit Iran to gain nuclear weapons. It's a given that the uranium enrichment they want to do is for development of fissile nuclear weapons - to spread their "Islamic fundamentalism" abroad.

The path of diplomacy is currently being tried in earnest. Trouble is, these "Islamic fundamentalists" do not seem to respond to diplomatic solutions very well. When diplomacy fails, the last resort is often a military one in these kinds of cases.

Iran pokes at Israel and the U.S. in an effort to draw a military confrontation. The main purpose of that is to manufacture an excuse for even more acts of "Islamic fundamentalism" (a.k.a. terrorism).

Iran should be careful what they wish for, because they might get it - and they won't like it. Iran thinks the underground hardened facilities are safe - but they are not. The U.S., The U.K., and Israel have the tools to take out those facilities if need be.

Military action against terrorism has been considerably more effective than the opponents of military action in Iraq and Afghanistan are admitting.

In a war scenario, destruction of infrastructure hampers the ability of the opponent forces to fight back. You take out power plants, communications, and other things that the opponent forces need to continue to wage war. Conventional wars are won by killing the opponent forces and blowing up the things that they need. Unfortunately, non-combatants (civilians) are often effected by the same infrastructure damage.

Generally speaking, war sucks - that's why diplomacy is tried first.

now now, touchy touchy, musta hit a nerve there, eh?

Israel cannot reason with people that want to DESTROY them.

Political solutions just won't happen.

If not political, what other option do they have, kissing more arab enemy ass?

Get real, clueless. It is a harsh reality, but that's the way it is.

the harsh reality is that nothing in the Middle East has ever been solved militarily. so when geniuses like you toss around bumper-sticker sound bites like "we need to take out Iraq/Iran/Syria", it means you have no clue and have learned nothing.

Present your solution then? WTF is there to solve anyway? You must not have figured out reality there or more likely you don't have that capability.


You must see a lot of those "War is not the answer" bumper stickers, huh?

not at all, you pathetic tool

plain and simple YOU are the terrorist calling for other terrorists to bomb something.

tell me where I am calling on anyone to harm anyone else.


what it really comes down to is ,if the middle east was to get a major policy change where Israel was forced to have nuclear inspection or face sanctions and was basicly put on equal footing with the Arab Nations. If the Arabs were given a much better deal from the international comunity
in turn for leaving Israel alone. Call it appeasing or whatever you wish ,it doesn't matter.

Could this of happened decades ago,the situation there might be quite different but we have these forever ruthless scheming Islamo-facists would just become more powerful and reneg on the whole thing and try and destroy Israel even though the mutual destruction that would ensue would not stop them because they want to convert the whole world to Islam? because they are just crazy and rather destroy the whole world than to see Israel exist.?

So with that never ending argument being force fed into the ear of the major western democratic governments nothing like that would ever happen ... but something is going to give sooner or later. There are obviously people out there who want to cause large scale attocities on the west ,I am not in favor of people losing their freedoms the way they have been but the governments can't sit on their hands and do nothing and when the incoming government takes office it will be face with the same challenges.

Calling everyone a terrorist that doesn't want the current government to continue and thinks a new government will do a better job is just people grabbing at last ditch attempt to use the lowest form of disinformation to derail their opponents and it's getting rather old rather quickly.

You actually believe that they would 'leave Israel alone'???

Earth to Multi: They want Israel OBLITERATED along with the US.

NOTHING ELSE WILL SATISFY THEM! THEY DON'T WANT TO CO-EXIST!

Can you H E A R me?

So once again, I say kill um first, before they have the chance to kill you!

NO OTHER SOLUTION. PERIOD.

but Israel is small and has no oil...

Wouldn't just be easier to kill the ones that have had and stole the nukes?

Why not be practical about it?

Earth to Pisser:
What part of "nothing like that would ever happen" don't you understand ?

I agree on not agreeing to deals with terrorists and I am not saying arm the Arabs like happend though the 80&90's to even the playing field ,more I am saying
get them to start disarming ,scaling down the military on all sides in a mutual way. Israel cant afford to keep up their military incursions into Lebanon and Gaza for too much longer without looking like the bad guy. A drastic change in approach is required
at some stage in future ,the drastic change for some people is for them all to start a nuclear war with each other ,with Iraq the way it is and current attitudes of all the big power players in the game
they just might get their wish.

Odds are within the next 10 years somebody over there gets nuked.

It would be cheaper to move all the 'Israelis' one more time. It is a very small country that would easily fit in the CA deserts. Give each and every one of them a million $ for the move and be done with it.

Them fucs can't wait to use the BOMB........... :EB:

I like your proposition, Nic. Instead of being surrounded by enemies the Israelis would be surrounded by American friends. They would not need their 300 or so (?) nukes anymore so US could take them into its possession and thereby stabilize the world a lot. Nor would US need anymore to spend huge sums of money to arm Israel with expensive modern fighters, missiles and whatever - the million dollar 'start money' per Israeli would be peanuts compared to the long term savings for the US taxpayers. Having their own land the Palestinians could focus working hard for the development of their own state and society instead of living on global welfare and planning suicide attacks. And as we already know Israelis to be hard working and skillful business people, they would make the CA deserts bloom in no time and have great friendly consumer market of the US just next door. And as for the holy land thing for the religious ones, this being a God-created Earth, why wouldn't CA be just as holy as some little piece of land in the Middle East?
:hflag: :W:

there ya go :) tg's idea could bring peace to the ME, and a shitstorm to Nics house lol

The idea was Nic's - the Nobel Peace Prize will belong to him. :BL:

I need whatever you guys are smoking...........

It makes more sense and would be cheaper than the alternatives.

Think about it. Israel is way way smaller than San Bernardino county in CA.

Yeah, but we would have to build um a wailing wall..... :BRC:

"While the U.S. has been playing poker in the region, Iran has been playing chess."
 

interesting and insightful take on on Iran:

our belligerent, drunk-guy-in-a-bar-looking-for-a-fight approach to MIddle East policy seems to have done nothing but strengthen Iran and islamic fanatacism in general.

well, economic sanctions usually don't seem work very well and the military option has no history of success in the Middle East. so why is a nuclear Iran is any more ominous than a nuclear Pakistan or North Korea?

Because Pakistan and North Korea don't give millions of dollars and weapons to terrorist, nor do they say out in public certain countries should be completely destroyed.

right - al queda is now based in pakistan, a country with nukes and lots of goverment support for ben laden and the taliban, but we need to think about attacking iran because they might have nukes in 5 or 10 years.

Blah - Blah Blah knife ---

"Pakistan is committed to its policy on the war on terror, and Osama caught anywhere in Pakistan would be brought to justice," the country's top army spokesman, Gen. Shaukat Sultan, told The Associated Press.

Under the deal, the militants are to halt attacks on Pakistani forces in the semiautonomous region and stop crossing into nearby eastern Afghanistan to attack U.S. and Afghan forces, who are hunting al-Qaeda and Taliban forces there.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...tm?POE=NEWISVA


I could give more sources but you give one, I will give one.


Show me something where the government of Pakistan directly makes a threat towards another country.

what a shocker - yet another rush to war based on bullshit. deja vu all over again. maybe this time we can fiind out before we kill 50,000 people and waste $500 billion dollars.

http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...D8K565400.html

Or the lesson from Iraq that if you shut out UN inspectors you'll get your ass kicked, might have to be repeated for the slow learners.

What rush to war?

It's a parrot thing.

this one:

- CNN, 9/18/06

video link

a handy guide to potentially dangerous countries, for the reality-challenged:

Here's the permalink to knife's video if anyone else wants to see it.

So, if we've been sending small groups of special forces into Iran for the past 18 months, with nary a word going to the press untill now, how is that a rush, exactly? Seems more like a slow mosey, or even a lazy, relaxing perambulation. At this rate it's possible that no American troops have died in Iran since the war on terror started and costs have been low enough that nobody even noticed. You're such an alarmist, knife. When the president asks Congress for the funding needed for military action in Iran, that's when you'll know that something big is happening there.

yeah, i know - that's they told me in 2003.

what's alarming is the naivete of people who are blithely buying the same stories from the same people who took us into iraq under the same circumstances...and then are expecting a different outcome.

How is anyone expecting a different outcome?

WMD programs will be eliminated again just like before.

apparently, there aren't any - just like before.

but Mad Dog Cheney wants to attack anyway:
hopefully, Cheney & Co.will be a lot less comfortable come January - they truly need to be on a short leash.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061119...y_061119034024

apparently, you know exactly when and when not to believe a CIA assessment.:)

Hey when Seymour Hersh says "squawk this:" the parrot squawks.


Lol; check out the photo in the article. You know it's real now.