Article

2005-08-15 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Ebbolutch Thavick3284 2005-08-15 00:09|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 "~~Bush~~ Carter should know that our capabilities are much greater than those of the US," foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said. "We don't think that the US will make such a mistake."

They're trolls. Refuse to play their game.

Posted by Bobby 2005-08-15 07:53|| 2005-08-15 07:53|| Front Page Top

#2 Their capabilities are much greater than ours? I think those guys have been listening to their own bullshit for so long that they actually believe it now. See how they think they controll the whole game, they think they have the EU over a barrel, they think they can come in and swing their sausage around and nobody can do a thing about it. I think they are riding for a fall.

Posted by bigjim-ky 2005-08-15 07:54|| 2005-08-15 07:54|| Front Page Top

#3 buy stock in bomb makers

Posted by Thraing Hupoluper1864 2005-08-15 08:05|| 2005-08-15 08:05|| Front Page Top

#4 told Europe that its attitude would help determine whether it resumes uranium enrichment
Meaning: if you bend over and let us drive, we'll nuke you last.

Posted by Spot">Spot 2005-08-15 08:08|| 2005-08-15 08:08|| Front Page Top

#5 the first strike should pulverize the foreign ministry. (Fuel air maybe?)
the second bomb for the president
the third for the parliment of mullahs
oh and obliterate Qom.

Posted by 3dc 2005-08-15 08:33|| 2005-08-15 08:33|| Front Page Top

#6 Is Iran so unstable that a decapitation strike could do topple it without having to go full-on?

Posted by Tony (UK) 2005-08-15 08:39|| 2005-08-15 08:39|| Front Page Top

#7 I suspect that there are legions of Islamofacists in Iran who would instantly fill any leadership void that happened through a decapitation strike.
Be nice to show them that it can be done though, perhaps that would make the next crew behave better.

Posted by JerseyMike 2005-08-15 08:55|| 2005-08-15 08:55|| Front Page Top

#8 #6

Good question. Its not at all clear how unstable it is, given rigid press controls there. My sense is that the exile web sites,(lets put this charitably) in an attempt to balence silence in the MSM, tend to report every whispered rumor of opposition. OTOH there seems to be genuine hostility to the mullahs among the middle class of North Teheran, and the students. And among the ethnic minorities, esp the Kurds, Azeris, Baluchis, and Awazi Arabs. But among the Farsi speakers of the provinces, and the working class of Teheran (IE the majority), I suspect there are alot of fence sitters (as well as SOME diehard support for the regime) I think the new president was chosen to appeal to those groups. A decapitation strike might stir up nationalist feelings (unlike the arab states, Iran really IS a nation) against the US. OTOH if the situation was such that the Mullahs appeared to have taken the first move, that MIGHT be lessened.

Something of a chess game, I think.

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-08-15 09:39|| 2005-08-15 09:39|| Front Page Top

#9 I actually believe that if they were organized, acted in a coordinated effort, and were armed with what they could handle -- then the Persians would do 90+% of the work in the wake of a full-scale decap strike. I think they would need SF help with certain locations - that other 10%, such as oil infrastructure, which wouldn't be struck and likely has some permanent level of security. So, if we had the CIA of legend in operation, or if we get enough assistance from others who haven't gutted their intel, especially humint - which is the key to success if working with the Persians, then this would be the easy choice option. The extent to which this is the case is a total unknown - for outsiders. I'll wait and see, but have little doubt that these fools have miscalculated to the point of suicide.

Posted by .com 2005-08-15 09:41|| 2005-08-15 09:41|| Front Page Top

#10 There is equal likelihood that the Persians would unite in opposition to the Great Satan meddling in their affairs and stand four square behind the MMs even longer.

We're going to have to settle in for a MAD session with the MMs for the next 30-40 years till the Persians have their fill of them, just as the Russians got fed up with the Bolshis. The danger will be that the MMs give nukes to terrorists.

We should welcome them to the nuclear club and tell them what the rules are. A nuke goes off any where, any time, we'll assume it was theirs. Then we should begin development of neutron weapons, a program halted by...let me see... ah yes, Jimmah Cahtah. That will cause less damage to the oil fields.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-08-15 10:06|| 2005-08-15 10:06|| Front Page Top

#11 ..and told Europe that its attitude would help determine whether it resumes uranium enrichment.

Didn't they already decide to do just that? Looks like they're trying to play the EU like a fiddle. Again.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-08-15 10:24|| 2005-08-15 10:24|| Front Page Top

#12 "Bush should know that our capabilities are much greater than those of the US," foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said.

Um, you're supposed to wear gloves when you handle the radioactive material, dude.

Posted by BH 2005-08-15 10:25|| 2005-08-15 10:25|| Front Page Top

#13 "Aw, c'mon Dad! These monkeys are beggin for it. Can't I just fry, like, Oom or somethin'?"

Posted by mojo">mojo 2005-08-15 10:26|| 2005-08-15 10:26|| Front Page Top

#14 Technically their options are greater than ours.

Though they may soon have nukes delivered from ballistic missiles, they lack a strategic nuclear triad. This means we have the advantage of assuring their destruction in 2nd strike (or 1st strike for that matter) while they can only strike our bases in the region.

However, they have the option to use unconventional means to attack us (ie nukes for terrorists) in a way that lacks a clear 'return address.' We would never do such a thing for a number of reasons. Therefore, they do have more strategic options than we do.

Still talking smack about this is a mistake.

A 'decapitation strike' is not an option. The government has the legitimacy of being elected, however lame the election might have been. Killing their elected leaders would undermine our democratization drive, removing the force multiplier we get from supporting positive change.

Instead we need a combination of 'people power' and economic reality to get the Guardian Council out of the way before they do something stupid. Iran is rich on oil, yet its economy is a mess. The resistance groups need to begin linking the policies of the mullahs to this sad reality while building bridges to whatever legit (i.e. not controlled by mullahs) military and police units may be able to counter the Basji and Rev Guards when the frustration boils over.

Iran is a tough nut. Maybe if Shroeder loses, we can get some real cooperation from the EU but I'm not holding my breath. We should also not be shy in challenging Iran - up to and including entering its territory - if they are harboring terrorists or entering Iraq illegally. If done right, this will help us in Iraq, in the GWOT and in what needs to be our strategic goal for Iran: sweeping aside the Guardian Council before they do something that compels us to kill them all.

Posted by JAB 2005-08-15 10:37|| 2005-08-15 10:37|| Front Page Top

#15 I recall the comment ( Schwarzkopf I think) "After a while all you're doing is making the rubble bounce"

Looks like a good time to prove the theory.

Posted by Redneck Jim 2005-08-15 10:43|| 2005-08-15 10:43|| Front Page Top

#16 Bouncing rubble builds no nukes.

Posted by Laurence of the Rats">Laurence of the Rats 2005-08-15 11:25|| http://www.punictreachery.com/]">[http://www.punictreachery.com/] 2005-08-15 11:25|| Front Page Top

#17 JAB said: "A 'decapitation strike' is not an option."

Not to be argumentative, but to inform with accuracy, that's your opinion, though breathtakingly stated as fact, and is it not shared by the Administration nor the US Congress.

There have been numerous bits and pieces which could be accumulated into a case of casus belli, thus rendering the analogy that they have an elected government and thus cannot be attacked not only questionable, but likely null and void. There's no automatic safety-zone for "elected" Govts that threaten the world. Sheesh, Hitler was elected.

Indeed, there may be blowback among some Persians if we have to act without their assistance, but in the end, if the choice is to allow these insane IslamoNutz to have (and probably share) nukes - or not piss off some of the Persian people, I don't find that a terribly difficult choice. I think your assertion is, on the surface at least, specious and rather missing the big picture thingy, IMHO.

We also have resolutions passed in both the House and Senate. Hell, even Arnaud de Borchgrave, no fan of Bush, said it in plain language (4th paragraph) over a year ago - as shown in this RB article - referring to the, then, House resolution (HCON 398), which the Senate subsequently echoed in SCON 73 & SCON 81. I haven't followed up to see if they made it a joint resolution, but who cares? Are resolutions by both chambers saying "'all appropriate means' to end Iranian nuclear weapons development" insufficient evidence that your assertion is possibly in error?

We shall see. The warrant is already in Bush's back pocket. It might not be judged the prudent course when the moment of truth arrives, but it is already signed and sealed. I happen to trust Bush to do the right thing - and have confidence that he knows one helluvalot more than either you or I do, not to mention the stones to do what he deems is right. Timing will have a lot to do with it, of course, as nothing happens in a vacuum or when it's most convenient.

I won't argue speculations with you, I'll wait and see.

Posted by .com 2005-08-15 11:25|| 2005-08-15 11:25|| Front Page Top

#18 The democratization drive is a noble effort, but not particularly helpful in the face of an existential threat. The USA will respond to Iran, either before or after a nuclear strike on our forces or homeland. At that point, decapitation is beside the point. The point will be to do whatever it takes to remove Iran's capability to strike again - whatever it takes.

Posted by SR-71 2005-08-15 12:13|| 2005-08-15 12:13|| Front Page Top

#19 as usual - I'm with .com on teh eficiency and legitimacy of a decap strike. When teh elected leaders threaten war, they just may get it, and any and all belligerants are targets. Since the "holy" men run the nuthouse, they are legitimate targets and should be made examples of. I've no doubt there would be a hue and cry. F*&k em. Make threats and see what happens - lesson learned

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-08-15 12:15|| 2005-08-15 12:15|| Front Page Top

#20 We should not do a decap strike. The leaders of Iran are not some external force imposed on the unknowing, impotent Iranian people by aliens. If we get to the point where we are willing to do a decap on the Iranian leadership, our action will be as much of a message to the next nation that wants to challenge us as it will be an action taken against Iran. If we tell the world, don't worry, we only want the three or 52 top bad guys, but everybody else gets a pass, there is no lesson to be learned about the cost of a nation adopting a bad ideology.

Part of the reason that Japan and Germany saw the light in 1947 was that every German and Japanese had seen first hand how upset we were about what they had done and suffered the consequences first hand. They also saw how we could be if they decided to change their mind. But kicking the shit out of them was a necessary first step. Every time we choke and don't finish the job by utterly destroying our enemy, we pay the price. Germany 1918, Korea 1950 Viet Nam 1975, Iraq 1991, and frankly, Iraq today. Our real problem there is that Turkey prevented the 4ID from stomping on the Sunni Triangle and utterly destroying it. When we utterly destroy an enemy, they learn to see things our way. Any less only allows resentment to brew till another day. We need to convince our enemy, the Iranian people who support the MMs, and there are a lot of them in Iran, that they made a bad choice that they shouldn't repeat.

As a practical matter Bush does not have the political support to do a decap today. If we get to the point where we are willing to do a decap strike, I suspect it will have been as a result of first use by Iran on somebody some where or the public threat to do so. If that happens we should kill every living thing in Iran. That has to be the new rule for the nuclear club. You use nukes first, you die. All of you. Otherwise the MMs will simply be replaced by the crazies who take over Pakistan and we'll be back to where we are today.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-08-15 12:39|| 2005-08-15 12:39|| Front Page Top

#21 Yes, I was indeed expressing my opinion that a 'decapitation strike' is not now an option.

As I noted, I agree that circumstances may change that would bring us into open military conflict with Iran short of a nuclear counterstrike or preemtive strike necessitated by an imminent situation. Given where we are now, though, it would be difficult to cobble together a politically defensible casus belli absent a more concrete provocation (or revelation of such), especially after we based the Iraq war on WMD that ultimately turned out to be less of a threat than estimated. I trust Bush too, but the President must operate within the constraints of what is politically feasible even if he has the 'warrant' already in his pocket.

Even if we do enter into open conflict short of nukes, I suspect we'll go after the mullahs, nuke sites, Rev Guards, air defense and -- from what I've read as I'm no military expert -- a couple strategic points in the Straits before we hit the PM.

Of course, just my opinion as always.

Posted by JAB 2005-08-15 12:58|| 2005-08-15 12:58|| Front Page Top

#22 Re #10 (Mrs. Davis): "We're going to have to settle in for a MAD session with the MMs for the next 30-40 years..."
No, they won't have enough nukes to destroy us for a long, long time. We will have years to wipe them out before they are capable of a large-scale attack.

Re #14 (JAB): "The government has the legitimacy of being elected..."
Yes, and Saddam was elected too. The mullahs disqualify their opposition before the ballots are even printed.

Re #14 (JAB): "Maybe if Shroeder loses, we can get some real cooperation from the EU..."
Pointless. The EU was all talk and no action even before France threw the constitutional process into chaos. Terror attacks outside the U.S./U.K. are just going to stoke appeasement. "Can't we all just be friends?"

Re #19 (Frank G): "there would be a hue and cry. F*&k em."
I'll take hue and cry over a nuke detonation in a U.S. port any day. F*&k em.

Re #20 (Mrs. Davis): "We should not do a decap strike. The leaders of Iran are not some external force imposed on the unknowing, impotent Iranian people by aliens."
To me, that's all the more reason for a prompt decap to set them way back. And a decap using nukes. The Iranian people and Islam in general both need need an object lesson in which civilization is in charge and which civilization is going to stay in charge. Pardon me -- my western imperialism is showing.

Posted by Darrell 2005-08-15 13:24|| 2005-08-15 13:24|| Front Page Top

#23 Darrell, Agree with your western imperialism. That is exactly why a decap should not be done. It will not get that message across to a broad swath of the Islamic world. They need to understand there is down side for them personally if they pursue these policies. A decap doesn't send that message.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-08-15 13:33|| 2005-08-15 13:33|| Front Page Top

#24 I'm baffled -- how could reducing Qom and a dozen other places to dust and spreading the fallout across Iran NOT send a personal message of the downside?

Posted by Darrell 2005-08-15 14:00|| 2005-08-15 14:00|| Front Page Top

#25 There are a lot of babies in that bath water.

I mentioned it here way back that I had a friend who took a backpacker-style vacation in Iran - it was in fall 2002, I believe. He stayed a month (Aramcons have the $ and the time to do it right, heh) and traveled fairly widely and, as is his nature, spent as much time chatting folks up as sightseeing. He came back with two solid observations: first that if the US were to strike, he figured there would be some nationalistic feeling stirred up, and second that he was amazed by how pro-Western everyone was - especially pro-US. They were not Mullah fans, they ignored them, in fact, out in the provinces.

Observation: this was immediately after Khatami had won by a landslide, obviously before the Mullahs caught on to the fact that they needed to control the elections. The people were full of pride in having elected a President who was a "reformer" and a Majlis with many "reformers" to back him up in liberalizing Iran. So they were still believers in their "democracy"- and rightfully proud of making the "process" work for them.

Observation: There is a major youthful population bubble, as has been pointed out before, much like our Baby Boomers. They are currently in the teens to mid 20's range and most are directly attributable to the Ayatollah Khomeini's "revolution" in '79 (the math is there) which banned all forms of birth control. Their numbers are not insignificant and I do not know where anyone divines heavy support for the MM's. I don't buy it - even the documentaries I've seen since returning to the US substantiate the assertion that the Mullahs do not enjoy wide support.

Observation: Immediately after this period, the Mullahs disqualified all of the Majlis "reformers", replaced them with their own, and pulled Khatami's teeth, making him a hood ornament. I have zero doubt that they feel a lot less pride and nationalistic fervor, today.

Observation: The youth have received a lot of bloody noses in their attempts to protest. They don't stand a chance against the Mullah's thugs. They must harbor serious resentment over the deaths and injuries they've suffered for trying to exercise the "democracy" they thought was theirs.

Observation: In the most recent election cycle, these people stayed away in droves - and the entire process was a sham - the Mullahs had the game down pat, this time.

Now, letting these percolate for a minute or two, don't we want to try to cooperate with these people? I do. Somehow, some way, I do. My final $0.02.

Posted by .com 2005-08-15 14:07|| 2005-08-15 14:07|| Front Page Top

#26 That's not a decap in my book, that's a small nuclear attack. A decap is like when we went after Saddam at the restaurant just before the fighting broke out. Small focused attack that takes out only the targets. Your decap, while nuclear, is still directed to the leadership, not the people.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-08-15 14:09|| 2005-08-15 14:09|| Front Page Top

#27 Thanks -- I understand now, Mrs. Davis. I see your points. I was assuming that a decap would be harsh enough to preclude any prompt, major retaliation. A "Saddam at the restaurant" strike would be worthless. Especially given multiple mullahs.

Posted by Darrell 2005-08-15 14:15|| 2005-08-15 14:15|| Front Page Top

#28 Some may find this link of interest. I do not see a decap as some little restaurant boom or two. I see it as Shock & Awe II - added on top of what you find under Air Strikes at the link.

Posted by .com 2005-08-15 14:20|| 2005-08-15 14:20|| Front Page Top

#29 Observation: The youth have received a lot of bloody noses in their attempts to protest. They don't stand a chance against the Mullah's thugs.

Are the thugs foreigners, or local? If they're not foreigners, well, the Mullahs apparently have enough loyal people to field the thugs.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-08-15 14:38|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-08-15 14:38|| Front Page Top

#30 enuf talk! I'm going to tha market place and buying me sum eggs to throw!

Posted by Uleregum Hupains2323 2005-08-15 14:47|| 2005-08-15 14:47|| Front Page Top

#31 I think we should reopen diplomatic relations and send in Ambassador Jimmy Carter. That way if they grab the embassy our hands aren't tied, he can help them build houses that won't fall over in Earthquakes and you just know they'll be begging for us to withdraw him after a couple of days so we'll have some bargaining pressure.

Posted by rjschwarz 2005-08-15 15:07|| 2005-08-15 15:07|| Front Page Top

#32 RC - Out of ~68 Million? Yeah, they can field some armed thugs to beat up the college kids. Gee, guess we'll have to nuke the lot of 'em, then. Seems to be the consensus.

Posted by .com 2005-08-15 15:29|| 2005-08-15 15:29|| Front Page Top

#33 Since you've upped it to $.06, I'll just say I agree with .com that our best strategy is cooperating with the disaffected youth to overthrow the MMs. I doubt a decap would advance that strategy. But I'll leave that call up to the government employees who speak Farsi.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-08-15 15:46|| 2005-08-15 15:46|| Front Page Top

#34 I should remain silent but I can't 20 + years of death to America and proxy and direct provocations and acts of war against the US are enough for us to deal with the Mad Mullahs today. That said we are going to have to go at this in a quite different way than we would wish. No massive attacks on Iran in the near future. We have to go through all the same gathering of obvious and irrefutable facts we did with Iraq and all the same obstacles tossed up by the EU and the Iranians fellow travelers. Only after we do that can we act. When we do act we will have to fight the same 5th column we are fighting right now.

Posted by Sock Puppet 0â Doom 2005-08-15 15:52|| 2005-08-15 15:52|| Front Page Top

#35 what about a strike aimed at "new defense minister of Iran, Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar, who was the commander of Iranâs Revolutionary Guards in Lebanon at the time of the bombing that killed 241 US Marines"

HT to LGF

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-08-15 16:00|| 2005-08-15 16:00|| Front Page Top

#36 dot com makes some very interesting and relevant points in his list of observations above

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-08-15 16:05|| 2005-08-15 16:05|| Front Page Top

#37 RC - Out of ~68 Million? Yeah, they can field some armed thugs to beat up the college kids. Gee, guess we'll have to nuke the lot of 'em, then. Seems to be the consensus.

Where the fuck did I say that?

Or are you assuming because I asked a question that raises an uncomfortable fact -- there are Iranians who support the Mad Mullahs, and enough of them to keep the Mullahs in power -- that I must be in the "nuke 'em all" crowd?

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-08-15 16:11|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-08-15 16:11|| Front Page Top

#38 Speaking through my hat, it seems to me that a strike to remove the Mullahcracy would have to be paralleled by destruction of the Republican Guards in their barracks, if we are to give the younger generation a chance to take back their country. The impression I've gotten is that they are lovely and idealistic, but have bought into the whole non-violence philosophy -- appropriate for a functioning democracy, but not the violent oligarchy in power there.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-08-15 16:16|| 2005-08-15 16:16|| Front Page Top

#39 Re #32 & #37:
"Gee, guess we'll have to nuke the lot of 'em, then."
"...in the 'nuke 'em all' crowd..."
I don't see the "nuke 'em all" crowd here, except in comments 15 and 16 which were not exactly deep thoughts. Please don't wreck the thread by polarizing it.

Posted by Darrell 2005-08-15 16:55|| 2005-08-15 16:55|| Front Page Top

#40 There are a few of us around who feel that using nuclear weapons to demonstrate resolve against an aggressive Islamic nuclear threat is a legitimate use of those weapons. I am one of them. And I detest the way people often interpret that as a "nuke 'em all" stance.

The genie is out of the bottle. It has been for 60 years. The U.S. has pumped untold billions into nuclear weapons and delivery systems. I think there are appropriate times to use them. I grew up doing "duck and cover" drills in elementary school, and I don't want my grandchildren to be doing them. The mullahs would gleefully exterminate us. I'm simply advocating that we vaporize the mullahs and their main forces before they act on their professed inclinations. Call me "The Great Satan" if you will, but note that there's a "Peace Park" in Hiroshima today and Japan is not our enemy.

Posted by Darrell 2005-08-15 17:09|| 2005-08-15 17:09|| Front Page Top

#41 I think Bin laden and others united in jihad have at least some of Russia's missing nukes already. Zawahiri's last video clearly stated the stated objective is to live in a Jew-free Palestine. The "American Holocaust" is being delayed until Iran's nukes are ready to go. With the American mainland smoldering under a mushroom cloud, Iran could take out our military bases in the region and handle the Israelis. The mad mullahs could effectively rule the world. We need to pre-emptively obliterate any rogue terrorists and anyone associated with them quietly wherever we can find them first. Even Venezuela, Cuba, and Argentina seem to be signing onto their agenda of anti-Americanism, so allowing Iran to stall out is very dangerous, in my opinion. Putting neutron bombs on the fast-track is a great idea...just think how effectively they could preserve the Temple Mount while eliminating the al-Aqsa mosque. Give the settlers heads up and solve the Islamic problem once and for all! Bible prophecy says Israel will one day extend to the Euphrates, hopefully sooner rather than later.

Posted by Danielle 2005-08-15 17:45|| 2005-08-15 17:45|| Front Page Top

#42 Are the thugs foreigners, or local?

Mixed. Reports I've seen mention foreigners including Afghans, Palestinans, and Lebanese Shi'ites.

The volunteers (Baseej) technically come under control of the Revolutionary Guard. But the Baseej were reportedly given sole authority to quell civil disturbances after regular IRGC (Pasdaran) units refused to act against civil uprisings about 10-11 years ago.

Posted by Pappy 2005-08-15 18:33|| 2005-08-15 18:33|| Front Page Top

#43 Wow I don't know who the dangerous people are sometimes; we have the crazy Bin Laden lot to take of, but reading some comments here there seems to be a lot of religious freaks around as well.

comment #41 Bible prophecy says Israel will one day extend to the Euphrates, hopefully sooner rather than later.

Get a grip, religion is a way of controlling the masses and is also a cause of all the shit that is happening now !

OH, ADMIN LAY OFF THE AMAZON COOKIES !!!

Posted by SAM COHEN 2005-08-15 18:35|| 2005-08-15 18:35|| Front Page Top

#44 Wow I don't know who the dangerous people are sometimes;

Generally speaking, it's the ones who are blowing sh*t up and chopping peoples heads off. But that's more of a guideline than a hard, fast rule.

Posted by BH 2005-08-15 18:47|| 2005-08-15 18:47|| Front Page Top

#45 Generally speaking, it's the ones who are blowing sh*t up and chopping peoples heads off. But that's more of a guideline than a hard, fast rule.

Totally agree %100, but you missed a small point, it's also done in the name of GOD

Posted by SAM COHEN 2005-08-15 18:51|| 2005-08-15 18:51|| Front Page Top

#46 Totally agree %100, but you missed a small point, it's also done in the name of GOD

So was the abolition of slavery. What's your point?

Posted by BH 2005-08-15 18:55|| 2005-08-15 18:55|| Front Page Top

#47 Religion... Let me steal a line of that great thinker Bush...
The "Great Satan"

Posted by SAM COHEN 2005-08-15 19:14|| 2005-08-15 19:14|| Front Page Top

#48 RC - Re: The Nuke comment - my bad. Out of 68 million, indeed you can find almost anything, including 20-30 K shithead thugs.

Posted by .com 2005-08-15 19:20|| 2005-08-15 19:20|| Front Page Top

#49 Darrell - I was not trying to wreck the thread. I put at least as much thought into my comments in this thread as anyone else, I believe. And this topic has been hammered to a bloody stump many times before, though not in much depth for a coupla months. Today we're just sorta bringing it up to date a bit - after mucho rope-a-dope. The EU3 are dupes, the Mullahs continue apace trying to kill their people, and the only doubts revolve around whether the US or Israel will try to defang them -- and whether or not the effort will be more than whacking just facilities, i.e. will it include whacking the MMs. Happy happy joy joy, the thread lives.

Posted by .com 2005-08-15 19:29|| 2005-08-15 19:29|| Front Page Top

#50 Sam "ALLCAPS" Cohen - Got a problem? You be tinkin' you be a greater tinker than de Prez Bush? You one of those non-religious folks who think the religious folks are somehow possessed of lesser intellects?

Lol. If so, then you're the fool.

Posted by .com 2005-08-15 19:32|| 2005-08-15 19:32|| Front Page Top

#51 The EU3 are dupes, the Mullahs continue apace trying to kill their people, and the only doubts revolve around whether the US or Israel will try to defang them

Nice and succinct .com, that's really all there is to say about this.

Posted by JerseyMike 2005-08-15 19:38|| 2005-08-15 19:38|| Front Page Top

#52 IT'S NOT MY NAME THAT'S WHY...
Sam invented the neutron bomb as you already knew.
Why do snakes move around on their belly

Posted by SAM COHEN 2005-08-15 19:44|| 2005-08-15 19:44|| Front Page Top

#53 Lol.

Posted by .com 2005-08-15 19:46|| 2005-08-15 19:46|| Front Page Top

#54 Agreed, JerseyMike, .com pretty much summed it up in that one sentence.

Posted by Darrell 2005-08-15 19:51|| 2005-08-15 19:51|| Front Page Top

#55 wow...SAM's deeeep

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-08-15 19:53|| 2005-08-15 19:53|| Front Page Top

#56 Also taking the thread on a slight tangent; People donât always cause suffering because of religion, look at the concentration campsâ¦
Yes, the ones of the Second Reich in South West Africa i.e. Shark Island overseen by Franz Ritter von EPP, mentor of Ernst Rohm and Him.
Nothing to do with religion though.
Religion is sometimes used as an excuse for a myriad of crimes, but they are still crimesâ¦

Posted by SAM COHEN 2005-08-15 19:57|| 2005-08-15 19:57|| Front Page Top

#57 All comments come with a Life Guard and Water Wings.

Posted by .com 2005-08-15 20:06|| 2005-08-15 20:06|| Front Page Top

#58 You one of those non-religious folks who think the religious folks are somehow possessed of lesser intellects?

Lol. If so, then you're the fool.

One last comment.
Itâs easy to provoke a controlled reaction of someone who has a one track mind.
And remember, fundamentalism on all sides destroys the amity between people.
Goodnight.

Posted by SAM COHEN 2005-08-15 20:25|| 2005-08-15 20:25|| Front Page Top

#59 Regardless of Biblical prophesy, Israel does not want to rule to the Euphrates -- look at all the trouble they have with just the Palestinian territories.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-08-15 20:25|| 2005-08-15 20:25|| Front Page Top

#60 Lol, what does it do to your ~~brain fart~~ pet theory when you factor in that I'm an atheist, sonny? *poof* Stick to facts, save your prejudices, and you'll go far. Er, make that further.

Posted by .com 2005-08-15 21:07|| 2005-08-15 21:07|| Front Page Top

#61 You know, I have an opinion about everything. Almost. For some reason solutions to Iran just don't seem right. Holding my breath for their democracy movement to finally sweep the Mullah's out of power is starting to look more and more unlikely.

Posted by rjschwarz 2005-08-15 21:16|| 2005-08-15 21:16|| Front Page Top

#62 they need a nudge - I'm hoping it's GPS-guided

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-08-15 22:27|| 2005-08-15 22:27|| Front Page Top

#63 unlike the arab states, Iran really IS a nation - LH, I was about to agree with you until that statment. Iran is a mini-empire and looks a whole lot like Yugoslavia did and in MVHO opinion will meet the same fate.

Posted by phil_b 2005-08-15 22:34|| 2005-08-15 22:34|| Front Page Top

#64 I've said it before and will continue to say it...
Kill 'em, kill 'em all!

Posted by Constitutional Individualist 2005-08-15 22:44|| 2005-08-15 22:44|| Front Page Top

#65 Sam Cohen said "Totally agree %100, but you missed a small point, it's also done in the name of GOD"
Not quite, it's done in the name of Allah. There is a difference whether you want to admit it or not. Ignoring facts is very dangerous these days. Just listen to our enemies. Allah Akbar is not just a favorite saying. They live by it, and even worse, they die by it.

Posted by Constitutional Individualist 2005-08-15 22:50|| 2005-08-15 22:50|| Front Page Top

#66 LOL. SAM COHEN is a 14-yr-old who feels all grown up now because he/she has boldly proclaimed her/his independence from the manacles of theology. That'll teach Daddy!

Posted by BH 2005-08-15 23:07|| 2005-08-15 23:07|| Front Page Top

23:50 anonymous2u
23:42 Zhang Fei
23:34 Anonymoose
23:17 Zhang Fei
23:14 DMFD
23:12 Glenmore
23:10 Anonymoose
23:09 Jan
23:07 BH
22:56 Frank G
22:51 Thoque Unush3335
22:50 Constitutional Individualist
22:47 bigjim-ky
22:45 Sobiesky
22:44 Constitutional Individualist
22:44 Frank G
22:44 Zhang Fei
22:38 Zhang Fei
22:38 Uleregum Hupains2323
22:36 bigjim-ky
22:34 phil_b
22:30 bigjim-ky
22:29 Captain America
22:27 Frank G