Article

2006-11-14 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 anonymous5089 2006-11-14 10:47|| || Front Page|| [7 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 This calls for immediate talks.

Posted by .com 2006-11-14 11:49|| 2006-11-14 11:49|| Front Page Top

#2 This calls for immediate ~~talks~~ surrender

Posted by Intrinsicpilot 2006-11-14 13:33|| 2006-11-14 13:33|| Front Page Top

#3 Lol, IP!

Posted by .com 2006-11-14 13:42|| 2006-11-14 13:42|| Front Page Top

#4 But Tehran claims its program is peaceful and for generating electricity.

Blowing Israel to kingdom come would be in the interest of peace in the ME, wouldn't it?

Posted by gorb 2006-11-14 14:30|| 2006-11-14 14:30|| Front Page Top

#5 The U.S. and some of its allies allege that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and are suspicious of its intentions after Tehran concealed parts of its nuclear development from U.N. inspectors for many years.

No, we're absolutely certain of its intentions - and would be even if Iran hadn't made their plans explicitly clear.

I just love this phony objectivity used by the MSM.
</sarc>

<nitpicking rant>
At least they got the use of allege right. It's one of my pet peeves when reporters misuse it. E.g.: "The woman was allegedly shot by a man who was later arrested."

No, the woman was in fact shot. The only thing alleged is that the man arrested did the shooting. Legally, the sentence is good enough to pass muster, but it's sloppy usage and symptomatic of the casual attitude toward facts rampant in the MSM.

Local reporters are the worst about this, but I've seen it in national media too. They've obviously had it drilled into them by the corp. lawyers that they must use "allege" without really understanding its usage.
</nitpicking rant>

Posted by xbalanke 2006-11-14 14:34|| 2006-11-14 14:34|| Front Page Top

#6 I just had a terrible thought. There were all those carrier groups off Iran at during the election. Could the plan have been, if the GOP kept power, "retard" the Iranian nuclear program, but if they lost, give up and let the DEMs deal with it? Someone please explain why this just couldn't be.....

Posted by Unolurt Snairong1374 2006-11-14 14:34|| 2006-11-14 14:34|| Front Page Top

#7 This calls for SANCTIONS! Oh...

Oops, Maybe we'd better just make THAT MINI--sanctions...

Asymmetrical Triagulation (at)

Posted by AT 2006-11-14 22:15|| 2006-11-14 22:15|| Front Page Top

#8 U.S.: How about this: With the pubs still in charge till Jan, we go ahead with your proposed retardation of Iran's nuke power program, Then let Nancy deal with the fallout ? (sorry, no pun intended)

Posted by USN,Ret 2006-11-14 22:44|| 2006-11-14 22:44|| Front Page Top

23:57 gromgoru
23:53 CrazyFool
23:53 3dc
23:50 JosephMendiola
23:46 anon
23:45 gromgoru
23:40 pihkalbadger
23:31 Zenster
23:30 pihkalbadger
23:25 pihkalbadger
23:22 BA
23:21 .com
23:20 .com
23:19 pihkalbadger
23:16 Frank G
23:15 Frank G
23:15 BA
23:15 Frank G
23:14 3dc
23:13 Frank G
23:13 wxjames
23:11 pihkalbadger
23:09 Frank G
23:01 .com