It sure is humiliating for Iran to have the international community
insist that Iran stop being the worst nation in the world in terms
of sponsoring mass murder of innocent civilians.

How hard it must be on the poor Iranian clerics.

Shame. Shame. Shame.

Clearly the only response is for Iran to kill more innocent civilians
and develop nuclear weapons. Only way they will ever stop the humiliation!




Well I for one hope that we don't have to bomb Iran. But most of
the world supports sanctions against them developing nuclear
weapons because they are a radical Islamic terrorist theocracy
which openly terrorizes their own citizens and has vowed also to
attack other peaceful nations including the U.S. because they
perceive these nations to be un-Islamic or to have a kind of Islam
which is not the same as the dominant Shiite Govt religion.

It is clearly a good idea to oppose a nation such as Iran from
obtaining nuclear weapons and most of the nations of the world
agree on that point including most other Islamic countries.

Nevertheless Iran continues to try to develop nuclear capability
and if they do not immediately and completely and verifiably stop
their march toward nukes then they will in fact likely be stopped
by force with the consent of the vast majority of peace loving
countries in the world.

This would not be genocide. This would be avoiding genocide.

It is totally up to Iran - but according to the latest news they
seem to be hell bent on forcing the rest of the world to military
action as the last resort to stop their active aggressive illegal
nuclear program.

US actions make China-Russia alliance appealing

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90780/7710844.html


Mainstream forces in Washington are trying to sell a ludicrous standpoint to the American people: that it is worthwhile to bear financial costs and even lose some lives to confront lurking dangers to US security in the Middle East.

How anyone can justify another was is beyond me....
I'm gonna go throw up!

Iran has also given signals that should the Syrians be attacked, it will not hesitate to intervene militarily to come to Syria’s aid. Washington does not want this. The Pentagon would much rather swallow Syria first, before turning its full and undivided attention to Iran. The Pentagon’s objectives are to fight its targets piecemeal. Despite the U.S. military doctrine of fighting simultaneous wars in multiple theatres and all the Pentagon literature about it, the U.S. is not ready yet to wage a conventional regional war against both Iran and Syria or risk an expanded war with Iran’s Russian and Chinese allies yet. The march to war, however, is far from over. For now the U.S. government will have to continue the shadow war against Iran and intensify the media, diplomatic, and economic war.

There will be no war with Iran or Syria.
No need for it.

If Iran is attacked it will retaliate.

Like I said. There will be no war with
Iran whether they try to retaliate or not.
The whole rest of the world is against
fruitcake radical Islamic terrorists developing
nuclear weapons capability. So it is them
against the world.

Bombing the keyrap out of their nuclear
development facilities will only result
in the elimination of their nuclear facilities.



No war. Peace. Peace without radical Islamist
terrorist sponsors having nuclear weapons
development capability.

Which is a good thing!

as anyone would

if we attack Iran we will be bringing
a world of hurt onto ourselves....

Like their bottle rockets and bb guns can hurt us.

War with Iran is going to happen, they are already getting ready for it sending three of the largest carrier battle groups down there in the past two weeks with plans to send more really soon, and thats not for show especially with the cost of sending them down there being each battle group has several ships and thousands of men and women on Carriers, several Destroyers, several Cruisers, Subs, Supply ships, and air units in each carrier group.

How many Murdered Innocent Iranians will you be comfortable with?

It will be minimal since only military and civilian contractors involved in Irans illegal nuclear facilities will be killed when we take the facilities out.

Absolute security is a luxury that no country can afford. If the US unscrupulously imposes its own will and even forces Russia and China into taking action, global dynamics may go back to chaos over which the US will have little control. History shows that any power having an inflated ego usually ends badly.

None. Any deaths which occur are solely the responsibility
of the Iranians who pursued the nuclear program in violation
of their commitment in the NPT.

Like I said, I would prefer if Iran simply ceases their
pursuit of nuclear weapons without the need for any
dismantling of their nuclear facilities by force.

But if the Iranians don't stop it is obvious that the rest of
the world will have to act and they surely will.

minimal like iraq was supposed to be....

over 6,000 dead americans and more than
100,000 iraqi's, many were unarmed civilians

and your ok with this, REALLY?

We cant force Russia or China to do anything!

Better then millions dead and hundreds of millions affected from Nuclear Fallout.

No boots on the ground in Iran. Just precision heavy targeting of
nuclear facilities with support of all the other Mideast countries
and other countries which have been attacked by Islamic fundamentalist
terrorists.

Like I said, you can't call it "war".

Really the only peaceful thing to do is to eliminate the nuclear
capabilities of the terrorist sponsors. Anything less would be
inviting nuclear disasters.

But it is up to Iran. If they voluntarily dismantle then there
will be no need for bombing at all.

I dunno, if they keep plotting and trying to assassinate foreign diplomats on US soil that might be grounds righ there.

Don't worry. As long as they get to learn about all the brown people that get murdered on Fox News they'll be happy. Civilians be damned, they'll say-it's all in the name of fightin fer freedumz! (except they also gladly obliterate freedomz every chance they get, so their propaganda is really amusing in a dark way. After all, since they hate us fer our freedomz, they won't hate us anymore if the freedomz are gone! )

George Carlin had the Chickenhawks nailed years ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDkhzHQO7jY

Who Wants War With Iran?

by Patrick J. Buchanan

January 21, 2012


On Sept. 21, 1976, as his car rounded Sheridan Circle on Embassy Row, former Chilean ambassador Orlando Letelier was assassinated by car bomb. Ronni Moffitt, a 25-year-old American women who worked with Letelier at the leftist Institute for Policy Studies, died with him.

Michael Townley, an ex-CIA asset in the hire of Chile's intelligence agency, confessed to using anti-Castro Cubans to murder Letelier, in what was regarded as an act of terrorism on U.S. soil.

Which raises a question: Are not the murders of four Iranian scientists associated with that nation's nuclear program, by the attachment of bombs to their cars in Tehran, also acts of terrorism?

Had the Stalin- or Khrushchev-era Soviets done this to four U.S. scientists in Washington, would we not have regarded it as acts of terrorism and war?

Iran has accused the United States and Israel of murder. But Hillary Clinton emphatically denied any U.S. complicity: "I want to categorically deny any United States involvement in any kind of act of violence inside Iran."

"The United States had absolutely nothing to do with this," added National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor, "We strongly condemn all acts of violence, including acts of violence like this."

Victoria Nuland, Clinton's spokeswoman at State, denounced "any assassination or attack on an innocent person, and we express our sympathies to the family."

The assassinated scientist was a supervisor at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility that hosts regular inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. If Iran is building a bomb, it is not at Natanz.

U.S. denial of involvement leaves Mossad as the prime suspect. Israel has not denied it, and this comes at a sensitive time in U.S.-Israeli relations.

In Foreign Policy magazine, author and historian Mark Perry, claiming CIA documentation, alleges that Mossad agents in London posed as CIA agents and contacted Jundallah, a terrorist group, to bribe and recruit them to engage in acts of terror inside Iran.

Jundallah has conducted attacks in Sistan-Baluchistan province, killing government officials, soldiers, and women and children.

According to Perry, when George W. Bush learned of the Mossad agents posing as CIA while recruiting terrorists, he "went totally ballistic."

Yet Meir Dagan, head of Mossad at the time, denies it, and, ironically, has called any Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities "the stupidest thing I have ever heard."

Who is telling the truth? We do not know for sure.

What we do know is that "Bibi" Netanyahu is desperate to have the United States launch air and missile strikes to stop Teheran from becoming the world's ninth nuclear power. And he is echoed not only by U.S. neocons, but GOP candidates save Ron Paul.

Nor should we be surprised.

To bring America into its war with Germany, Winston Churchill set up William Stephenson, "A Man Called Intrepid," with hundreds of agents in New York to engage in everything from bribery to blackmail of U.S. senators to get the United States to enter the war and pull England's chestnuts out of the fire.

This is what desperate countries do.

And while America First kept us out of the European war until Adolf Hitler invaded Russia, ensuring that Russians, not Americans, died in the millions to defeat him, eventually America was maneuvered into war.

Whoever is assassinating these Iranian scientists, be it homegrown Iranian terrorists, Jundallah at the instigation of Israel, or Mossad, the objective is clear: Enrage the Iranians so they strike out at America, provoking a U.S.-Iranian war.

Is such a war in America's interests? Consider.

While U.S. air and naval power would prevail, Iranian civilians would die, as some of their nuclear facilities are in populated areas. Moreover, we cannot kill the nuclear knowledge Iran has gained. Thus we would only set back their nuclear program by several years. And a bloodied and beaten Iran would then go all-out for a bomb.

The regime, behind which its people would rally, would emerge even more entrenched. U.S. bombing did not cause Germans to remove Hitler or Japanese to depose their emperor. And we lack the ground troops to invade and occupy a country three times the size of Iraq.

All U.S. ships, including carriers in that bathtub the Persian Gulf, would be at risk from shore-based anti-ship missiles and the hundreds of missile boats in Iran's navy. Any sea battle would send oil prices to $200 and $300 a barrel. There goes the euro-zone.

Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Shia of the Saudi oil fields and Bahrain, home port to the Fifth Fleet, and Iranian agents in Afghanistan and Iraq could set the region aflame.

As America started up the road to Baghdad in 2003, Gen. David Petraeus is said to have asked, "Tell me how this ends."

Before some agent provocateur pushes us into war with Iran, Congress should debate the wisdom of authorizing President Obama, or anyone else, to take America into her fifth war in a generation in the Middle and Near East.