Discussion:
Iran threatens the United States.
(too old to reply)
Stuart Grey
2006-03-08 14:12:27 UTC
Permalink
Am I the only one who sees the White House responce to a direct threat
as lame, even dickless? Oh, we're so worried about Iran's credibility!

Jeezus, I would have said something about how if Iran harmed the US, how
we'd find the destruction of so many historical artifacts and the
irradiation of such a large area of land regretable, and how the Persian
people would be the first to win a Darwin award for a whole population.


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NUCLEAR_AGENCY_IRAN?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-03-08-07-16-28

Mar 8, 11:00 AM EST

Iran Threatens U.S. With 'Harm and Pain'

By GEORGE JAHN
Associated Press Writer

VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- Iran threatened the United States with "harm and
pain" Wednesday for its role in hauling Tehran before the U.N. Security
Council over its nuclear program. But the United States and its European
allies said Iran's nuclear intransigence left the world no choice but to
seek Security Council action.

The council could impose economic and political sanctions on Iran.

The statements were delivered to the 35-member board of the
International Atomic Energy Agency, which is meeting to focus on
Tehran's refusal to freeze uranium enrichment.

The White House dismissed the rhetoric out of Tehran.

"I think that provocative statements and actions only further isolate
Iran from the rest of the world," White House press secretary Scott
McClellan told reporters traveling with President Bush to
hurricane-affected states in the Gulf Coast. "And the international
community has spelled out to Iran what it needs to do."
E***@spamblock.panix.com
2006-03-08 17:30:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stuart Grey
Am I the only one who sees the White House responce to a direct threat
as lame, even dickless?
Too bad the dickless one blew his wad in Iraq, which was never a threat,
rather than concentrating on Iran and North Korea, which have become
bigger threats since he began his term in office.

His policies and actions have made it more difficult for us to deal
effectively with real threats. Let's hope the other guys take over the
Senate and the House so as to restore checks and balances.

In one of the debates, he parroted Kerry in saying that nuclear
proliferation is our biggest international concern. But then he all but
ignored that concern, instead exercising his limited attention span
disproportionately upon his distracting little adventure in Iraq.

And the mindless Reds think he's doing a heck of a job...
Nicholas Anthony
2006-03-08 19:39:17 UTC
Permalink
I am responding not to incite you but bring some facts to the table. For a
change it would be much nicer for Americans to focus on what we agree on
rather then deviding our nation especially during wartime. First off when
Bush spoke of the axis of evil he mentioned all three, Iran, Iraq, North
Korea. He was well aware of each situation and made the best choice. Of the
three only Iraq had exhausted diplomatic talks and economic sanctions. Had
we jumped the gun and just went to war without doing so people would
critisize him. Lets just say we did confront Iran, Iraq would be building up
its arsenal much like Iran is doing now. The argument would be why not North
Korea or Iraq. At least Iraq had talks and sanctions besides all the people
suffering from the embargos that had to end. I am all for checks and
balances and may vote accordingly just for that purpose.
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by Stuart Grey
Am I the only one who sees the White House responce to a direct threat
as lame, even dickless?
Too bad the dickless one blew his wad in Iraq, which was never a threat,
rather than concentrating on Iran and North Korea, which have become
bigger threats since he began his term in office.
His policies and actions have made it more difficult for us to deal
effectively with real threats. Let's hope the other guys take over the
Senate and the House so as to restore checks and balances.
In one of the debates, he parroted Kerry in saying that nuclear
proliferation is our biggest international concern. But then he all but
ignored that concern, instead exercising his limited attention span
disproportionately upon his distracting little adventure in Iraq.
And the mindless Reds think he's doing a heck of a job...
dan
2006-03-09 01:38:16 UTC
Permalink
...only Iraq had exhausted diplomatic talks and economic sanctions. Had
we jumped the gun and just went to war without doing so people would
critisize him.
Now that has to rank up there with the most interesting statements of
the year, by anybody...

Dan
dan
2006-03-09 01:36:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Post by Stuart Grey
Am I the only one who sees the White House responce to a direct threat
as lame, even dickless?
Too bad the dickless one blew his wad in Iraq, which was never a threat,
rather than concentrating on Iran and North Korea, which have become
bigger threats since he began his term in office.
Even worse, if he knew the meaning of diplomacy (like, say, Kerry or
Gore), we could still be making progress with Iran rather than pissing
off yet another sovereign nation...

Now, about those material breeches by India and our recent response to
them...

Must be Clinton's fault.
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
His policies and actions have made it more difficult for us to deal
effectively with real threats. Let's hope the other guys take over the
Senate and the House so as to restore checks and balances.
what we need is a real Progressive Party, unfortunately. Admittedly,
the Democrats can't do any worse, but it would be nice not to have to
revisit the Stone Age...
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
In one of the debates, he parroted Kerry in saying that nuclear
proliferation is our biggest international concern. But then he all but
ignored that concern, instead exercising his limited attention span
disproportionately upon his distracting little adventure in Iraq.
And promises nuclear secrets to India (but not Pakistan). That could be
very interesting.
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
And the mindless Reds think he's doing a heck of a job...
Are you "Red baiting?"

Dan
Nicholas Anthony
2006-03-09 11:29:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by dan
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
Am I the only one who sees the White House responce to a direct threat as
lame, even dickless?
Too bad the dickless one blew his wad in Iraq, which was never a threat,
rather than concentrating on Iran and North Korea, which have become
bigger threats since he began his term in office.
Even worse, if he knew the meaning of diplomacy (like, say, Kerry or
Gore), we could still be making progress with Iran rather than pissing off
yet another sovereign nation...
Russia and the UN cant even get Iran to cooperate how is the US going too?
Another thing you should know is Iran has been sending in troops to Iraq for
sometime causing allot of the massacres to the Iraqi and US soldiers. Iran
has been talking about wiping Israel another soveriegn nation off the map!
As far as talks go, you dont know what your talking about.
Post by dan
Now, about those material breeches by India and our recent response to
them...
Must be Clinton's fault.
No Clintons was with China a country that publically hates us. At least
India gets along with us.
Post by dan
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
His policies and actions have made it more difficult for us to deal
effectively with real threats. Let's hope the other guys take over the
Senate and the House so as to restore checks and balances.
what we need is a real Progressive Party, unfortunately. Admittedly, the
Democrats can't do any worse, but it would be nice not to have to revisit
the Stone Age...
If they put politics and power aside they might get something done. Power
includes the bribes and scandals of corporate world. They are both guilty of
this stuff. We are so short sighted now too we dont have much of a future
left.
Post by dan
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
In one of the debates, he parroted Kerry in saying that nuclear
proliferation is our biggest international concern. But then he all but
ignored that concern, instead exercising his limited attention span
disproportionately upon his distracting little adventure in Iraq.
And promises nuclear secrets to India (but not Pakistan). That could be
very interesting.
Nuclear secrets or is it nuclear power? They already have nuclear weapons
and some power.
Post by dan
Post by E***@spamblock.panix.com
And the mindless Reds think he's doing a heck of a job...
Are you "Red baiting?"
I disagree with quite a few things cause I am an individual and an American.
Something Dems criticized us for too is seeking our own unity and keeping
individuality as if we must belong or answer to the UN.
Ken
2006-03-08 18:23:07 UTC
Permalink
Do you honestly think the US is likely to attack anyone who might be
able to fight back?.............................lol

k
Post by Stuart Grey
Am I the only one who sees the White House responce to a direct threat
as lame, even dickless? Oh, we're so worried about Iran's credibility!
Jeezus, I would have said something about how if Iran harmed the US, how
we'd find the destruction of so many historical artifacts and the
irradiation of such a large area of land regretable, and how the Persian
people would be the first to win a Darwin award for a whole population.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NUCLEAR_AGENCY_IRAN?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-03-08-07-16-28
Mar 8, 11:00 AM EST
Iran Threatens U.S. With 'Harm and Pain'
By GEORGE JAHN
Associated Press Writer
VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- Iran threatened the United States with "harm and
pain" Wednesday for its role in hauling Tehran before the U.N. Security
Council over its nuclear program. But the United States and its European
allies said Iran's nuclear intransigence left the world no choice but to
seek Security Council action.
The council could impose economic and political sanctions on Iran.
The statements were delivered to the 35-member board of the
International Atomic Energy Agency, which is meeting to focus on
Tehran's refusal to freeze uranium enrichment.
The White House dismissed the rhetoric out of Tehran.
"I think that provocative statements and actions only further isolate
Iran from the rest of the world," White House press secretary Scott
McClellan told reporters traveling with President Bush to
hurricane-affected states in the Gulf Coast. "And the international
community has spelled out to Iran what it needs to do."
Northern Raider
2006-03-08 19:11:43 UTC
Permalink
The yanks have breen threatening Iran for over a year, plenty of media
footage of yanks demanding the USAF bomb the Iranian power plants, so how
do you expect the iranian people to react??, Secondly what give any nation
that has nukes itself any rightto complain about any other nation wanting
parity, especially when the first nation has actually used nukes in anger???
Am I the only one who sees the White House responce to a direct threat as
lame, even dickless? Oh, we're so worried about Iran's credibility!
Jeezus, I would have said something about how if Iran harmed the US, how
we'd find the destruction of so many historical artifacts and the
irradiation of such a large area of land regretable, and how the Persian
people would be the first to win a Darwin award for a whole population.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NUCLEAR_AGENCY_IRAN?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-03-08-07-16-28
Mar 8, 11:00 AM EST
Iran Threatens U.S. With 'Harm and Pain'
By GEORGE JAHN
Associated Press Writer
VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- Iran threatened the United States with "harm and
pain" Wednesday for its role in hauling Tehran before the U.N. Security
Council over its nuclear program. But the United States and its European
allies said Iran's nuclear intransigence left the world no choice but to
seek Security Council action.
The council could impose economic and political sanctions on Iran.
The statements were delivered to the 35-member board of the International
Atomic Energy Agency, which is meeting to focus on Tehran's refusal to
freeze uranium enrichment.
The White House dismissed the rhetoric out of Tehran.
"I think that provocative statements and actions only further isolate Iran
from the rest of the world," White House press secretary Scott McClellan
told reporters traveling with President Bush to hurricane-affected states
in the Gulf Coast. "And the international community has spelled out to
Iran what it needs to do."
Nicholas Anthony
2006-03-08 19:57:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Northern Raider
The yanks have breen threatening Iran for over a year, plenty of media
footage of yanks demanding the USAF bomb the Iranian power plants, so how
do you expect the iranian people to react??, Secondly what give any nation
that has nukes itself any rightto complain about any other nation wanting
parity, especially when the first nation has actually used nukes in anger???
Iran has been threatening the US for God knows how long. Remember the
annomosity during the Iran hostage crisis. Next regarding possession and use
of nukes. I understand your logic and would agree in most other situations
but this particular one. If China feels they have a need for nukes cause the
US has them and may be a threat it is understandable even though its going
to start another arms race like we are in now. However when Iran threatens
the existence of other countries the necessity is no longer a deterent but a
threat for world peace. Yes the US used nukes on Japan during a World War
and with the intent to end the war and prevent many more cassualties. The US
wasnt the aggressor it was dragged into the war from that same country it
ultimately used it on. I personally feel it was also more humane to use the
atom bombs then what Japan did to China in Nanking killing and raping some
300k.

Nick
Stuart Grey
2006-03-08 20:17:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Northern Raider
Post by Northern Raider
The yanks have breen threatening Iran for over a year,
Yes. The Yanks have. The Brits have tried to threaten the Iranians, but
being so small and innoffensive, the Iranians just laughed.
Post by Northern Raider
Post by Northern Raider
plenty of media
footage of yanks demanding the USAF bomb the Iranian power plants,
Gibberish. If the United States demanded the United States bomb the
Iranian "power plants", the Iranian nuclear facilities would be rubble.
Post by Northern Raider
Post by Northern Raider
so how
do you expect the iranian people to react??
I guess we expect them to act sort of like Brits, I guess, like they
usually do. Gibber in some strange foreign tongue, jump up and down, and
make idle boasts.
Post by Northern Raider
, Secondly what give any nation
Post by Northern Raider
that has nukes itself any rightto complain about any other nation wanting
parity, especially when the first nation has actually used nukes in anger???
The fact that they are a nation of wacko, genocidal sociopaths has a lot
to do with that right. You, of course, being a rubber room inmate
yourself, wouldn't see it that way.
Post by Northern Raider
Iran has been threatening the US for God knows how long. Remember the
annomosity during the Iran hostage crisis. Next regarding possession and use
of nukes. I understand your logic and would agree in most other situations
but this particular one. If China feels they have a need for nukes cause the
US has them and may be a threat it is understandable even though its going
to start another arms race like we are in now. However when Iran threatens
the existence of other countries the necessity is no longer a deterent but a
threat for world peace. Yes the US used nukes on Japan during a World War
and with the intent to end the war and prevent many more cassualties. The US
wasnt the aggressor it was dragged into the war from that same country it
ultimately used it on. I personally feel it was also more humane to use the
atom bombs then what Japan did to China in Nanking killing and raping some
300k.
Nick
Ken
2006-03-09 05:44:02 UTC
Permalink
"The fact that they are a nation of wacko, genocidal sociopaths has a lot
to do with that right. You, of course, being a rubber room inmate
yourself, wouldn't see it that way".
A very concise description of the worlds No 1 terrorist
state....................the US!

Unless of course any of the many countrys attacked by the US since WW2,
posed any sort of direct threat to them, it would seem these actions
are akin to what Hitler used to get up to!............................


k
Nicholas Anthony
2006-03-09 11:34:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken
"The fact that they are a nation of wacko, genocidal sociopaths has a lot
to do with that right. You, of course, being a rubber room inmate
yourself, wouldn't see it that way".
A very concise description of the worlds No 1 terrorist
state....................the US!
Unless of course any of the many countrys attacked by the US since WW2,
posed any sort of direct threat to them, it would seem these actions
are akin to what Hitler used to get up to!............................
See Godwins law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Gunner
2006-03-10 09:58:05 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 06:34:20 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
Post by Nicholas Anthony
Post by Ken
"The fact that they are a nation of wacko, genocidal sociopaths has a lot
to do with that right. You, of course, being a rubber room inmate
yourself, wouldn't see it that way".
A very concise description of the worlds No 1 terrorist
state....................the US!
Unless of course any of the many countrys attacked by the US since WW2,
posed any sort of direct threat to them, it would seem these actions
are akin to what Hitler used to get up to!............................
See Godwins law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Actually..this doesnt meet the definition..but your heart is in the
right place

Gunner


"The importance of morality is that people behave themselves even if
nobody's watching. There are not enough cops and laws to replace
personal morality as a means to produce a civilized society. Indeed,
the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of
defense for a civilized society. Unfortunately, too many of us see
police, laws and the criminal justice system as society's first line
of defense." --Walter Williams
Nicholas Anthony
2006-03-10 14:53:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 06:34:20 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
Post by Nicholas Anthony
Post by Ken
"The fact that they are a nation of wacko, genocidal sociopaths has a lot
to do with that right. You, of course, being a rubber room inmate
yourself, wouldn't see it that way".
A very concise description of the worlds No 1 terrorist
state....................the US!
Unless of course any of the many countrys attacked by the US since WW2,
posed any sort of direct threat to them, it would seem these actions
are akin to what Hitler used to get up to!............................
See Godwins law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Actually..this doesnt meet the definition..but your heart is in the
right place
Gunner
Well the topic is Iran threatens the United States and it drifts to bringing
up Hitler. Meets the definition. :)
Offbreed
2006-03-10 14:45:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nicholas Anthony
Well the topic is Iran threatens the United States and it drifts to bringing
up Hitler. Meets the definition. :)
I'd always heard of it requiring the use of "Hitler" or "Nazi" as a flame.
Nicholas Anthony
2006-03-10 22:16:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Offbreed
Post by Nicholas Anthony
Well the topic is Iran threatens the United States and it drifts to
bringing up Hitler. Meets the definition. :)
I'd always heard of it requiring the use of "Hitler" or "Nazi" as a flame.
The point I take it as is when someone brings it up as an appeal to emotion
much like the definition at the site mentions.
Mark Trudgill
2006-03-08 20:26:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Northern Raider
The yanks have breen threatening Iran for over a year, plenty of media
footage of yanks demanding the USAF bomb the Iranian power plants, so how
do you expect the iranian people to react??, Secondly what give any nation
that has nukes itself any rightto complain about any other nation wanting
parity, especially when the first nation has actually used nukes in anger???
That's like saying because I'm bigger, harder and stronger than you, you
can do and say what the fuck you like to me, because if I do or say
anything to you I'm a bully and in the wrong.
Sue
2006-03-09 01:49:43 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 19:11:43 +0000 (UTC), "Northern Raider"
Post by Northern Raider
The yanks have breen threatening Iran for over a year, plenty of media
footage of yanks demanding the USAF bomb the Iranian power plants, so how
do you expect the iranian people to react??
Which "yanks" might those be? I never have. I don't know of anyone
who has. I don't want the USAF to bomb *anyone*.
You are, again, painting with a broad brush.
Sue
Post by Northern Raider
, Secondly what give any nation
that has nukes itself any rightto complain about any other nation wanting
parity, especially when the first nation has actually used nukes in anger???
Am I the only one who sees the White House responce to a direct threat as
lame, even dickless? Oh, we're so worried about Iran's credibility!
Jeezus, I would have said something about how if Iran harmed the US, how
we'd find the destruction of so many historical artifacts and the
irradiation of such a large area of land regretable, and how the Persian
people would be the first to win a Darwin award for a whole population.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NUCLEAR_AGENCY_IRAN?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-03-08-07-16-28
Mar 8, 11:00 AM EST
Iran Threatens U.S. With 'Harm and Pain'
By GEORGE JAHN
Associated Press Writer
VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- Iran threatened the United States with "harm and
pain" Wednesday for its role in hauling Tehran before the U.N. Security
Council over its nuclear program. But the United States and its European
allies said Iran's nuclear intransigence left the world no choice but to
seek Security Council action.
The council could impose economic and political sanctions on Iran.
The statements were delivered to the 35-member board of the International
Atomic Energy Agency, which is meeting to focus on Tehran's refusal to
freeze uranium enrichment.
The White House dismissed the rhetoric out of Tehran.
"I think that provocative statements and actions only further isolate Iran
from the rest of the world," White House press secretary Scott McClellan
told reporters traveling with President Bush to hurricane-affected states
in the Gulf Coast. "And the international community has spelled out to
Iran what it needs to do."
Bob Brock
2006-03-08 20:59:10 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 09:12:27 -0500, Stuart Grey
Post by Stuart Grey
Am I the only one who sees the White House responce to a direct threat
as lame, even dickless? Oh, we're so worried about Iran's credibility!
Jeezus, I would have said something about how if Iran harmed the US, how
we'd find the destruction of so many historical artifacts and the
irradiation of such a large area of land regretable, and how the Persian
people would be the first to win a Darwin award for a whole population.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NUCLEAR_AGENCY_IRAN?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-03-08-07-16-28
Mar 8, 11:00 AM EST
Iran Threatens U.S. With 'Harm and Pain'
What should be done about this other rouge nuclear power?

<http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-03-08T142833Z_01_L08205988_RTRUKOC_0_US-NUCLEAR-IRAN-ISRAEL.xml&rpc=22>

BERLIN (Reuters) - If the U.N. Security Council is incapable of taking
action to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Israel will have
no choice but to defend itself, Israel's defense minister said on
Wednesday.

Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz was asked whether Israel was ready to use
military action if the Security Council proved unable to act against
what Israel and the West believe is a covert Iranian nuclear weapons
program.

"My answer to this question is that the state of Israel has the right
give all the security that is needed to the people in Israel. We have
to defend ourselves," Mofaz told Reuters after a meeting with his
German counterpart Franz Josef Jung.
Nicholas Anthony
2006-03-09 11:41:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Brock
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 09:12:27 -0500, Stuart Grey
Post by Stuart Grey
Am I the only one who sees the White House responce to a direct threat
as lame, even dickless? Oh, we're so worried about Iran's credibility!
Jeezus, I would have said something about how if Iran harmed the US, how
we'd find the destruction of so many historical artifacts and the
irradiation of such a large area of land regretable, and how the Persian
people would be the first to win a Darwin award for a whole population.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NUCLEAR_AGENCY_IRAN?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-03-08-07-16-28
Mar 8, 11:00 AM EST
Iran Threatens U.S. With 'Harm and Pain'
What should be done about this other rouge nuclear power?
<http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-03-08T142833Z_01_L08205988_RTRUKOC_0_US-NUCLEAR-IRAN-ISRAEL.xml&rpc=22>
BERLIN (Reuters) - If the U.N. Security Council is incapable of taking
action to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Israel will have
no choice but to defend itself, Israel's defense minister said on
Wednesday.
Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz was asked whether Israel was ready to use
military action if the Security Council proved unable to act against
what Israel and the West believe is a covert Iranian nuclear weapons
program.
"My answer to this question is that the state of Israel has the right
give all the security that is needed to the people in Israel. We have
to defend ourselves," Mofaz told Reuters after a meeting with his
German counterpart Franz Josef Jung.
How is Israel rogue? They've been attacked ever since their second coming
and should have the right to defend herself. Just like you saying if we give
a woman a gun you cant rape her anymore.
Bob Brock
2006-03-09 16:00:48 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 06:41:32 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
Post by Nicholas Anthony
Post by Bob Brock
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 09:12:27 -0500, Stuart Grey
Post by Stuart Grey
Am I the only one who sees the White House responce to a direct threat
as lame, even dickless? Oh, we're so worried about Iran's credibility!
Jeezus, I would have said something about how if Iran harmed the US, how
we'd find the destruction of so many historical artifacts and the
irradiation of such a large area of land regretable, and how the Persian
people would be the first to win a Darwin award for a whole population.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NUCLEAR_AGENCY_IRAN?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-03-08-07-16-28
Mar 8, 11:00 AM EST
Iran Threatens U.S. With 'Harm and Pain'
What should be done about this other rouge nuclear power?
<http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-03-08T142833Z_01_L08205988_RTRUKOC_0_US-NUCLEAR-IRAN-ISRAEL.xml&rpc=22>
BERLIN (Reuters) - If the U.N. Security Council is incapable of taking
action to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Israel will have
no choice but to defend itself, Israel's defense minister said on
Wednesday.
Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz was asked whether Israel was ready to use
military action if the Security Council proved unable to act against
what Israel and the West believe is a covert Iranian nuclear weapons
program.
"My answer to this question is that the state of Israel has the right
give all the security that is needed to the people in Israel. We have
to defend ourselves," Mofaz told Reuters after a meeting with his
German counterpart Franz Josef Jung.
How is Israel rogue? They've been attacked ever since their second coming
and should have the right to defend herself. Just like you saying if we give
a woman a gun you cant rape her anymore.
Has Israel ever officially admitted having nuclear capabilities? You
know there is a reason for that. So let me see if I have this
right...It's OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons, but if any other
country want's one, they are a rouge state. Israel needs nukes to
defend itself from other nations who only have conventional weapons.
Is that pretty much how you see it?
Nicholas Anthony
2006-03-09 19:53:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Brock
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 06:41:32 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
Post by Nicholas Anthony
Post by Bob Brock
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 09:12:27 -0500, Stuart Grey
Post by Stuart Grey
Am I the only one who sees the White House responce to a direct threat
as lame, even dickless? Oh, we're so worried about Iran's credibility!
Jeezus, I would have said something about how if Iran harmed the US, how
we'd find the destruction of so many historical artifacts and the
irradiation of such a large area of land regretable, and how the Persian
people would be the first to win a Darwin award for a whole population.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NUCLEAR_AGENCY_IRAN?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-03-08-07-16-28
Mar 8, 11:00 AM EST
Iran Threatens U.S. With 'Harm and Pain'
What should be done about this other rouge nuclear power?
<http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-03-08T142833Z_01_L08205988_RTRUKOC_0_US-NUCLEAR-IRAN-ISRAEL.xml&rpc=22>
BERLIN (Reuters) - If the U.N. Security Council is incapable of taking
action to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Israel will have
no choice but to defend itself, Israel's defense minister said on
Wednesday.
Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz was asked whether Israel was ready to use
military action if the Security Council proved unable to act against
what Israel and the West believe is a covert Iranian nuclear weapons
program.
"My answer to this question is that the state of Israel has the right
give all the security that is needed to the people in Israel. We have
to defend ourselves," Mofaz told Reuters after a meeting with his
German counterpart Franz Josef Jung.
How is Israel rogue? They've been attacked ever since their second coming
and should have the right to defend herself. Just like you saying if we give
a woman a gun you cant rape her anymore.
Has Israel ever officially admitted having nuclear capabilities? You
know there is a reason for that. So let me see if I have this
right...It's OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons, but if any other
country want's one, they are a rouge state. Israel needs nukes to
defend itself from other nations who only have conventional weapons.
Is that pretty much how you see it?
First off don't draw conclusions that put words in peoples mouths. I didn't
say any country was rogue to begin with and clearly stated Israel certainly
is not. Without going into who has what and why let me ask you who is the
aggressor? Should we give nations that wage war weapons or those who want to
live in peace and just even exist the right to defend itself. The Arab world
isn't attacked by Israel but rather themselves nonetheless. Would you give a
violent offender weapons. Look at some facts. There are only a few million
Israelis that occupy less then 1% of the land that the 200-300million Arabs
have. The amount of conventional weapons the Arabs have should have clearly
wiped Israel off the map as they intend to do but clearly a miracle happened
during the 6 day war (saw it the other day on History channel). Israel
wouldnt have the space to accomodate enough conventional weapons to go
against the Arab world. More recently Israel faced suicide bombers, notice
how that has come to a hault since we invaded Iraq btw.
Bob Brock
2006-03-09 20:16:18 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 14:53:26 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
Post by Nicholas Anthony
Post by Bob Brock
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 06:41:32 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
Post by Nicholas Anthony
Post by Bob Brock
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 09:12:27 -0500, Stuart Grey
Post by Stuart Grey
Am I the only one who sees the White House responce to a direct threat
as lame, even dickless? Oh, we're so worried about Iran's credibility!
Jeezus, I would have said something about how if Iran harmed the US, how
we'd find the destruction of so many historical artifacts and the
irradiation of such a large area of land regretable, and how the Persian
people would be the first to win a Darwin award for a whole population.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NUCLEAR_AGENCY_IRAN?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-03-08-07-16-28
Mar 8, 11:00 AM EST
Iran Threatens U.S. With 'Harm and Pain'
What should be done about this other rouge nuclear power?
<http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-03-08T142833Z_01_L08205988_RTRUKOC_0_US-NUCLEAR-IRAN-ISRAEL.xml&rpc=22>
BERLIN (Reuters) - If the U.N. Security Council is incapable of taking
action to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Israel will have
no choice but to defend itself, Israel's defense minister said on
Wednesday.
Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz was asked whether Israel was ready to use
military action if the Security Council proved unable to act against
what Israel and the West believe is a covert Iranian nuclear weapons
program.
"My answer to this question is that the state of Israel has the right
give all the security that is needed to the people in Israel. We have
to defend ourselves," Mofaz told Reuters after a meeting with his
German counterpart Franz Josef Jung.
How is Israel rogue? They've been attacked ever since their second coming
and should have the right to defend herself. Just like you saying if we give
a woman a gun you cant rape her anymore.
Has Israel ever officially admitted having nuclear capabilities? You
know there is a reason for that. So let me see if I have this
right...It's OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons, but if any other
country want's one, they are a rouge state. Israel needs nukes to
defend itself from other nations who only have conventional weapons.
Is that pretty much how you see it?
First off don't draw conclusions that put words in peoples mouths. I didn't
say any country was rogue to begin with and clearly stated Israel certainly
is not.
Anyone willing to do a search of the thread can plainly see who first
used the term "rogue." Hint...it wasn't me.
Post by Nicholas Anthony
Without going into who has what and why let me ask you who is the
aggressor? Should we give nations that wage war weapons or those who want to
live in peace and just even exist the right to defend itself. The Arab world
isn't attacked by Israel but rather themselves nonetheless. Would you give a
violent offender weapons. Look at some facts. There are only a few million
Israelis that occupy less then 1% of the land that the 200-300million Arabs
have. The amount of conventional weapons the Arabs have should have clearly
wiped Israel off the map as they intend to do but clearly a miracle happened
during the 6 day war (saw it the other day on History channel). Israel
wouldnt have the space to accomodate enough conventional weapons to go
against the Arab world. More recently Israel faced suicide bombers, notice
how that has come to a hault since we invaded Iraq btw.
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't some Arab's get in the way of
some bulldozers recently? Weren't some kids shot for throwing rocks at
tanks? Israel's no virgin when it comes to using ruthlessness when it
feels like it and telling the world to piss off.

Israel has one of the most modern and powerful standing armies in the
world. I've never discussed the US giving anything to Iran. However,
the right of a country to govern itself used to be a given. However,
so was the Bill of Rights.
Nicholas Anthony
2006-03-09 20:59:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Brock
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 14:53:26 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
Post by Nicholas Anthony
Post by Bob Brock
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 06:41:32 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
Post by Nicholas Anthony
Post by Bob Brock
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 09:12:27 -0500, Stuart Grey
Post by Stuart Grey
Am I the only one who sees the White House responce to a direct threat
as lame, even dickless? Oh, we're so worried about Iran's
credibility!
Jeezus, I would have said something about how if Iran harmed the US, how
we'd find the destruction of so many historical artifacts and the
irradiation of such a large area of land regretable, and how the Persian
people would be the first to win a Darwin award for a whole population.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NUCLEAR_AGENCY_IRAN?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-03-08-07-16-28
Mar 8, 11:00 AM EST
Iran Threatens U.S. With 'Harm and Pain'
What should be done about this other rouge nuclear power?
<http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-03-08T142833Z_01_L08205988_RTRUKOC_0_US-NUCLEAR-IRAN-ISRAEL.xml&rpc=22>
BERLIN (Reuters) - If the U.N. Security Council is incapable of taking
action to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Israel will have
no choice but to defend itself, Israel's defense minister said on
Wednesday.
Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz was asked whether Israel was ready to use
military action if the Security Council proved unable to act against
what Israel and the West believe is a covert Iranian nuclear weapons
program.
"My answer to this question is that the state of Israel has the right
give all the security that is needed to the people in Israel. We have
to defend ourselves," Mofaz told Reuters after a meeting with his
German counterpart Franz Josef Jung.
How is Israel rogue? They've been attacked ever since their second coming
and should have the right to defend herself. Just like you saying if we give
a woman a gun you cant rape her anymore.
Has Israel ever officially admitted having nuclear capabilities? You
know there is a reason for that. So let me see if I have this
right...It's OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons, but if any other
country want's one, they are a rouge state. Israel needs nukes to
defend itself from other nations who only have conventional weapons.
Is that pretty much how you see it?
First off don't draw conclusions that put words in peoples mouths. I didn't
say any country was rogue to begin with and clearly stated Israel certainly
is not.
Anyone willing to do a search of the thread can plainly see who first
used the term "rogue." Hint...it wasn't me.
Yes you are right and so I will remind you that you did on On Wed, 08 Mar
2006 09:12:27 -0500.

Reminder you said, "What should be done about this other rouge nuclear
power?" Then posted a link to an article on Israel will have to act on Iran
if UN can't.

I cant believe you would forget a day later but hey it happens.
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Nicholas Anthony
Without going into who has what and why let me ask you who is the
aggressor? Should we give nations that wage war weapons or those who want to
live in peace and just even exist the right to defend itself. The Arab world
isn't attacked by Israel but rather themselves nonetheless. Would you give a
violent offender weapons. Look at some facts. There are only a few million
Israelis that occupy less then 1% of the land that the 200-300million Arabs
have. The amount of conventional weapons the Arabs have should have clearly
wiped Israel off the map as they intend to do but clearly a miracle happened
during the 6 day war (saw it the other day on History channel). Israel
wouldnt have the space to accomodate enough conventional weapons to go
against the Arab world. More recently Israel faced suicide bombers, notice
how that has come to a hault since we invaded Iraq btw.
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't some Arab's get in the way of
some bulldozers recently? Weren't some kids shot for throwing rocks at
tanks? Israel's no virgin when it comes to using ruthlessness when it
feels like it and telling the world to piss off.
Israel has one of the most modern and powerful standing armies in the
world. I've never discussed the US giving anything to Iran. However,
the right of a country to govern itself used to be a given. However,
so was the Bill of Rights.
Correct me if I am wrong, but so many suicide bombers are in and out of
these establishments. There is no other way to remove the terrorists other
then making them move further and further away not closer. These kids that
throw rocks at tanks arent beng shot, the ones throwing rocks at soldiers
are. I dont know about you or how respectful you are but try that yourself
sometime in any other country throwing rocks at soldiers. Aside of the fact
many kids are the ones strapping on suicide bombs. I can see your point if a
kid was doing nothing at all minding its business but being a catalyst
starting shit? About the bulldozers, the same thing happened when the
Israelis had to leave their homes in the Gazza. Israel has the right to
defend itself, the problem is this has been going on for so so many years
that no one might get confused and say who really started what and look at
either sides actions as despicable. We do know this time around with the
second coming of Israel the Arabs started it. I just know that everytime
Israel tries to have peace some other Arab ruins it. Now that Israel gave
back the Gazza strip in a peaceful effort the Hamas has recruited thousands
of soldiers to destroy Israel.The hamas shot some 200 missiles into Israel
just last month but the news never reports it.
Bob Brock
2006-03-10 04:44:20 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 15:59:44 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
Post by Nicholas Anthony
Post by Bob Brock
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 14:53:26 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
Post by Nicholas Anthony
Post by Bob Brock
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 06:41:32 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
Post by Nicholas Anthony
Post by Bob Brock
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 09:12:27 -0500, Stuart Grey
Post by Stuart Grey
Am I the only one who sees the White House responce to a direct threat
as lame, even dickless? Oh, we're so worried about Iran's credibility!
Jeezus, I would have said something about how if Iran harmed the US, how
we'd find the destruction of so many historical artifacts and the
irradiation of such a large area of land regretable, and how the Persian
people would be the first to win a Darwin award for a whole population.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NUCLEAR_AGENCY_IRAN?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-03-08-07-16-28
Mar 8, 11:00 AM EST
Iran Threatens U.S. With 'Harm and Pain'
What should be done about this other rouge nuclear power?
<http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-03-08T142833Z_01_L08205988_RTRUKOC_0_US-NUCLEAR-IRAN-ISRAEL.xml&rpc=22>
BERLIN (Reuters) - If the U.N. Security Council is incapable of taking
action to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Israel will have
no choice but to defend itself, Israel's defense minister said on
Wednesday.
Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz was asked whether Israel was ready to use
military action if the Security Council proved unable to act against
what Israel and the West believe is a covert Iranian nuclear weapons
program.
"My answer to this question is that the state of Israel has the right
give all the security that is needed to the people in Israel. We have
to defend ourselves," Mofaz told Reuters after a meeting with his
German counterpart Franz Josef Jung.
How is Israel rogue? They've been attacked ever since their second coming
and should have the right to defend herself. Just like you saying if we give
a woman a gun you cant rape her anymore.
Has Israel ever officially admitted having nuclear capabilities? You
know there is a reason for that. So let me see if I have this
right...It's OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons, but if any other
country want's one, they are a rouge state. Israel needs nukes to
defend itself from other nations who only have conventional weapons.
Is that pretty much how you see it?
First off don't draw conclusions that put words in peoples mouths. I didn't
say any country was rogue to begin with and clearly stated Israel certainly
is not.
Anyone willing to do a search of the thread can plainly see who first
used the term "rogue." Hint...it wasn't me.
Yes you are right and so I will remind you that you did on On Wed, 08 Mar
2006 09:12:27 -0500.
Reminder you said, "What should be done about this other rouge nuclear
power?" Then posted a link to an article on Israel will have to act on Iran
if UN can't.
I cant believe you would forget a day later but hey it happens.
In this case, it did. I stand corrected.
Post by Nicholas Anthony
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Nicholas Anthony
Without going into who has what and why let me ask you who is the
aggressor? Should we give nations that wage war weapons or those who want to
live in peace and just even exist the right to defend itself. The Arab world
isn't attacked by Israel but rather themselves nonetheless. Would you give a
violent offender weapons. Look at some facts. There are only a few million
Israelis that occupy less then 1% of the land that the 200-300million Arabs
have. The amount of conventional weapons the Arabs have should have clearly
wiped Israel off the map as they intend to do but clearly a miracle happened
during the 6 day war (saw it the other day on History channel). Israel
wouldnt have the space to accomodate enough conventional weapons to go
against the Arab world. More recently Israel faced suicide bombers, notice
how that has come to a hault since we invaded Iraq btw.
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't some Arab's get in the way of
some bulldozers recently? Weren't some kids shot for throwing rocks at
tanks? Israel's no virgin when it comes to using ruthlessness when it
feels like it and telling the world to piss off.
Israel has one of the most modern and powerful standing armies in the
world. I've never discussed the US giving anything to Iran. However,
the right of a country to govern itself used to be a given. However,
so was the Bill of Rights.
Correct me if I am wrong, but so many suicide bombers are in and out of
these establishments. There is no other way to remove the terrorists other
then making them move further and further away not closer. These kids that
throw rocks at tanks arent beng shot, the ones throwing rocks at soldiers
are. I dont know about you or how respectful you are but try that yourself
sometime in any other country throwing rocks at soldiers. Aside of the fact
many kids are the ones strapping on suicide bombs. I can see your point if a
kid was doing nothing at all minding its business but being a catalyst
starting shit? About the bulldozers, the same thing happened when the
Israelis had to leave their homes in the Gazza. Israel has the right to
defend itself, the problem is this has been going on for so so many years
that no one might get confused and say who really started what and look at
either sides actions as despicable. We do know this time around with the
second coming of Israel the Arabs started it. I just know that everytime
Israel tries to have peace some other Arab ruins it. Now that Israel gave
back the Gazza strip in a peaceful effort the Hamas has recruited thousands
of soldiers to destroy Israel.The hamas shot some 200 missiles into Israel
just last month but the news never reports it.
OK, I curious. If the news never reports it, how did you know about
it? I will stand by my convictions that if the US is going to allow
one side of a conflict to have nukes, they shouldn't whine too much if
the other side wants them.
Nicholas Anthony
2006-03-10 15:31:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Brock
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 15:59:44 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
Post by Nicholas Anthony
Post by Bob Brock
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 14:53:26 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
Post by Nicholas Anthony
Post by Bob Brock
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 06:41:32 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
Post by Nicholas Anthony
Post by Bob Brock
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 09:12:27 -0500, Stuart Grey
Post by Stuart Grey
Am I the only one who sees the White House responce to a direct threat
as lame, even dickless? Oh, we're so worried about Iran's credibility!
Jeezus, I would have said something about how if Iran harmed the US, how
we'd find the destruction of so many historical artifacts and the
irradiation of such a large area of land regretable, and how the Persian
people would be the first to win a Darwin award for a whole population.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NUCLEAR_AGENCY_IRAN?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-03-08-07-16-28
Mar 8, 11:00 AM EST
Iran Threatens U.S. With 'Harm and Pain'
What should be done about this other rouge nuclear power?
<http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-03-08T142833Z_01_L08205988_RTRUKOC_0_US-NUCLEAR-IRAN-ISRAEL.xml&rpc=22>
BERLIN (Reuters) - If the U.N. Security Council is incapable of taking
action to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Israel will have
no choice but to defend itself, Israel's defense minister said on
Wednesday.
Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz was asked whether Israel was ready to use
military action if the Security Council proved unable to act against
what Israel and the West believe is a covert Iranian nuclear weapons
program.
"My answer to this question is that the state of Israel has the right
give all the security that is needed to the people in Israel. We have
to defend ourselves," Mofaz told Reuters after a meeting with his
German counterpart Franz Josef Jung.
How is Israel rogue? They've been attacked ever since their second coming
and should have the right to defend herself. Just like you saying if
we
give
a woman a gun you cant rape her anymore.
Has Israel ever officially admitted having nuclear capabilities? You
know there is a reason for that. So let me see if I have this
right...It's OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons, but if any other
country want's one, they are a rouge state. Israel needs nukes to
defend itself from other nations who only have conventional weapons.
Is that pretty much how you see it?
First off don't draw conclusions that put words in peoples mouths. I didn't
say any country was rogue to begin with and clearly stated Israel certainly
is not.
Anyone willing to do a search of the thread can plainly see who first
used the term "rogue." Hint...it wasn't me.
Yes you are right and so I will remind you that you did on On Wed, 08 Mar
2006 09:12:27 -0500.
Reminder you said, "What should be done about this other rouge nuclear
power?" Then posted a link to an article on Israel will have to act on Iran
if UN can't.
I cant believe you would forget a day later but hey it happens.
In this case, it did. I stand corrected.
Post by Nicholas Anthony
Post by Bob Brock
Post by Nicholas Anthony
Without going into who has what and why let me ask you who is the
aggressor? Should we give nations that wage war weapons or those who
want
to
live in peace and just even exist the right to defend itself. The Arab world
isn't attacked by Israel but rather themselves nonetheless. Would you
give
a
violent offender weapons. Look at some facts. There are only a few million
Israelis that occupy less then 1% of the land that the 200-300million Arabs
have. The amount of conventional weapons the Arabs have should have clearly
wiped Israel off the map as they intend to do but clearly a miracle happened
during the 6 day war (saw it the other day on History channel). Israel
wouldnt have the space to accomodate enough conventional weapons to go
against the Arab world. More recently Israel faced suicide bombers, notice
how that has come to a hault since we invaded Iraq btw.
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't some Arab's get in the way of
some bulldozers recently? Weren't some kids shot for throwing rocks at
tanks? Israel's no virgin when it comes to using ruthlessness when it
feels like it and telling the world to piss off.
Israel has one of the most modern and powerful standing armies in the
world. I've never discussed the US giving anything to Iran. However,
the right of a country to govern itself used to be a given. However,
so was the Bill of Rights.
Correct me if I am wrong, but so many suicide bombers are in and out of
these establishments. There is no other way to remove the terrorists other
then making them move further and further away not closer. These kids that
throw rocks at tanks arent beng shot, the ones throwing rocks at soldiers
are. I dont know about you or how respectful you are but try that yourself
sometime in any other country throwing rocks at soldiers. Aside of the fact
many kids are the ones strapping on suicide bombs. I can see your point if a
kid was doing nothing at all minding its business but being a catalyst
starting shit? About the bulldozers, the same thing happened when the
Israelis had to leave their homes in the Gazza. Israel has the right to
defend itself, the problem is this has been going on for so so many years
that no one might get confused and say who really started what and look at
either sides actions as despicable. We do know this time around with the
second coming of Israel the Arabs started it. I just know that everytime
Israel tries to have peace some other Arab ruins it. Now that Israel gave
back the Gazza strip in a peaceful effort the Hamas has recruited thousands
of soldiers to destroy Israel.The hamas shot some 200 missiles into Israel
just last month but the news never reports it.
OK, I curious. If the news never reports it, how did you know about
it? I will stand by my convictions that if the US is going to allow
one side of a conflict to have nukes, they shouldn't whine too much if
the other side wants them.
I dont mean this in a demeaning way but you are a simple man. If you allowed
Israels enemies to have nukes you will lose all of the Israelies. Look at
the size and numbers of both sides. Israeli population is 6million compared
to 300 million Arabs. The size of the nations check out this link:
http://www.iris.org.il/sizemaps/arabwrld.htm

As far as missile attacks on Israel:
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2006/me_israel_02_23.html
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/TEMP/me_palestinians_09_14.html

http://www.iris.org.il/katyusha.htm
Bob Brock
2006-03-10 16:44:01 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 10:31:02 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
Post by Nicholas Anthony
Post by Bob Brock
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 15:59:44 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
Post by Nicholas Anthony
Post by Bob Brock
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 14:53:26 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
Post by Nicholas Anthony
Post by Bob Brock
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 06:41:32 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
Post by Nicholas Anthony
Post by Bob Brock
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 09:12:27 -0500, Stuart Grey
Post by Stuart Grey
Am I the only one who sees the White House responce to a direct threat
as lame, even dickless? Oh, we're so worried about Iran's credibility!
Jeezus, I would have said something about how if Iran harmed the US, how
we'd find the destruction of so many historical artifacts and the
irradiation of such a large area of land regretable, and how the Persian
people would be the first to win a Darwin award for a whole population.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NUCLEAR_AGENCY_IRAN?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-03-08-07-16-28
Mar 8, 11:00 AM EST
Iran Threatens U.S. With 'Harm and Pain'
What should be done about this other rouge nuclear power?
<http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-03-08T142833Z_01_L08205988_RTRUKOC_0_US-NUCLEAR-IRAN-ISRAEL.xml&rpc=22>
BERLIN (Reuters) - If the U.N. Security Council is incapable of taking
action to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Israel will have
no choice but to defend itself, Israel's defense minister said on
Wednesday.
Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz was asked whether Israel was ready to use
military action if the Security Council proved unable to act against
what Israel and the West believe is a covert Iranian nuclear weapons
program.
"My answer to this question is that the state of Israel has the right
give all the security that is needed to the people in Israel. We have
to defend ourselves," Mofaz told Reuters after a meeting with his
German counterpart Franz Josef Jung.
How is Israel rogue? They've been attacked ever since their second coming
and should have the right to defend herself. Just like you saying if
we
give
a woman a gun you cant rape her anymore.
Has Israel ever officially admitted having nuclear capabilities? You
know there is a reason for that. So let me see if I have this
right...It's OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons, but if any other
country want's one, they are a rouge state. Israel needs nukes to
defend itself from other nations who only have conventional weapons.
Is that pretty much how you see it?
First off don't draw conclusions that put words in peoples mouths. I didn't
say any country was rogue to begin with and clearly stated Israel certainly
is not.
Anyone willing to do a search of the thread can plainly see who first
used the term "rogue." Hint...it wasn't me.
Yes you are right and so I will remind you that you did on On Wed, 08 Mar
2006 09:12:27 -0500.
Reminder you said, "What should be done about this other rouge nuclear
power?" Then posted a link to an article on Israel will have to act on Iran
if UN can't.
I cant believe you would forget a day later but hey it happens.
In this case, it did. I stand corrected.
OK, I curious. If the news never reports it, how did you know about
it? I will stand by my convictions that if the US is going to allow
one side of a conflict to have nukes, they shouldn't whine too much if
the other side wants them.
I dont mean this in a demeaning way but you are a simple man. If you allowed
Israels enemies to have nukes you will lose all of the Israelies. Look at
the size and numbers of both sides. Israeli population is 6million compared
http://www.iris.org.il/sizemaps/arabwrld.htm
Israel existed as a much smaller nation in the 1950's and 60's without
nukes.
Post by Nicholas Anthony
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2006/me_israel_02_23.html
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/TEMP/me_palestinians_09_14.html
http://www.iris.org.il/katyusha.htm
You post news links as proof that the news didn't report it? That is
very odd indeed.

From somewhere else in the news...

THE JEWISH BOMB

by Husayn Al-Kurdi

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was extended indefinitely on May
11, 1995. The 178-nation agreement basically reaffirmed the official
monopoly on nuclear weapons to be enjoyed by the "Big Five" nuclear
powers — The United States, Russia, Britain, France and China — who
also happen to be the same states that hold veto power in the United
Nations Security Council. The extension was pushed through at the
behest of the United States, which was the first to build, develop and
actually use the atomic bomb on civilian populations. "Off the books"
of the NPT, with a U.S.-sponsored exemption from having to submit to
the treaty or its terms, is the state that is regarded as the Sixth
Nuclear power in the world today — Israel.

The Jewish state has been developing its nuclear capabilities since
the mid-1950s. At first in collaboration with France, and subsequently
with the cooperation of the white regime in South Africa and others,
the Jewish state has built what has been referred to by Israel
officials proudly as the "Third Temple," testing its nukes in New
Caledonia in the Pacific, in Algeria when it was a French colony, off
the coast of South Africa, and in underground tunnels in the Sinai
Desert.

Sensationalistic media accounts of "Islamic," "Arab," and "Third
World" nuclear bombs are bruited about as a matter of course, usually
with reference to nations which do not actually possess nuclear
weapons (Libya, Iran, North Korea) while Israel’s substantial nuclear
reservoir receives scant and sporadic attention at best. Were it not
for the efforts of two Jews, one a nuclear technician and the other a
Pulitzer Prize-winning American journalist, the world would be much
more ignorant about Israel’s nuclear capabilities.

Mordechai Vanunu, the Israeli who blew the whistle on Israel’s nukes
and facilitated subsequent investigations by others, was a technician
at Dimona. In late 1985, after working for over nine years at the
facility, he had had enough. He moved to Australia, taking two rolls
of photographs with him. The pictures provided incontrovertible
evidence that Israel was producing nuclear weapons.

Vanunu approached the London Sunday Times with detailed pictures of
the nuclear bomb factory several levels below ground, where plutonium
was being reprocessed. The world had been shut out of the
tightly-controlled facility since it first came into existence in
1957. Israel has always refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty, keeping its plants closed to outside inspections of any kind.
U.S. congress people have been denied access to Dimona, and an Israeli
plane was shot down when it happened to accidentally strayed over the
plant. A false control room was even installed at Dimona to fool U.S.
inspectors who were let in before 1969.

It is widely believed that the CIA turned a blind eye to the
development of the Israeli bomb from the very beginning. In 1973, when
alarmed Israeli scientists brought the CIA photographs of nuclear
warheads stacked underground, there were no signs of interest. In
1979, when Israel and South Africa conducted one of their joint
nuclear tests in the South Atlantic, some brief notice was taken in a
few newspapers. The Carter administration tried to cover up by
ascribing the nuclear "double flashes" picked up on the radar of
orbiting satellites to quirky atmospheric phenomena of some kind.
Israel and South Africa had long cooperated in developing nuclear and
other weapons. The two apartheid states got closer as they became
increasingly regarded as international pariahs before their recent
U.S.-sponsored rehabilitations. Israel helped South Africa develop
nuclear-capable artillery pieces. The militaries of the two states had
a mutual wartime agreement to assist each other in times of armed
conflict. South Africa gave Israel carte blanche to conduct nuclear
tests in the Indian Ocean, with or without South African supervision.
South Africa provided Israel with uranium, and even allegedly
conducted the first Indian Ocean atomic bomb test "on Israel’s behalf"
in 1968.

Vanunu, the "Citizen Spy," has paid a typically harsh price for his
efforts at revealing Israel’s nuclear arsenal to the world: he was
lured to Rome from London by a female Mossad operative who used the
promise of sexual favors to entice him, pounced upon on his arrival at
a Rome apartment, drugged, kidnapped and taken to Israel, where he
landed in chains, crated up under diplomatic immunity and delivered to
the Israeli courts for their pronouncements. He got 18 years in prison
for treason. According to Sam Day of the U.S. Campaign to Free
Mordechai Vanunu, "Mordechai Vanunu continues to deteriorate
physically and mentally in the six by nine foot cell he has occupied
since the fall of 1986 in Ashkelon Prison."

Day went on to remark about the lack of interest in the Vanunu case
shown by "peace" and "progressive" circles in the United States.
"Mainline peace and justice, human rights and science policy groups
have chosen not to become involved" in the effort to obtain Vanunu’s
release. This comes as no surprise to defenders of Palestinian rights
or to anyone critical of Israel. The "progressive community" has often
been ready to excuse numerable atrocities which they would hardly
condone if the perpetrator did not happen to be the Jewish state.

This hostility toward Arabs and Muslims, combined with a reverence for
"heroic" Israel, was brought out in bold relief on June 12, 1982, date
of the largest anti-nuclear demonstration ever. Israel had just
invaded Lebanon and was in the process of tearing that country apart,
destroying all and everything in its way. Cluster bombs, napalm,
phosphorus shells, all manner of heavy and light artillery and
thousands of tons of bombs were unleashed on Arabs.

At the massive "peace" demonstration in front of the United Nations,
the predominantly Caucasian and Jewish revellers hooted at a Lebanese
speaker who was expressing anguish over the fate of his country,
making it clear that "peace" should not necessarily extend to Israel’s
victims, just as the recent feverish concern over nuclear
proliferation seems to overlook the world’s sixth-rated nuclear power.
At a large demonstration in San Diego on the very day that Desert
Storm was being unleashed on Iraq in January 1991, a Jewish peace
official with ties to "Left" organizations, including both the
Communist Party of the United States of America and the Democratic
Socialists of America, announced that there was a report that
"chemical missiles" had been launched against Israel. The "peace"
crowd she relayed this false report to were hushed into a stunned
silence. Concern for "poor beleaguered Israel" remains a preoccupation
with many of the "progressive" milieu. Many in the "peace" crowd
joined in breathing a sigh of relief that there were so few AMERICAN
casualties with the war ended. A couple of hundred thousand Iraqi
Arabs who lost their lives did not count, as the more-than-a-million
who have perished since as a result of the U.S.-driven U.N. sanctions
similarly do not figure in the hearts and minds of policy makers and
even many who profess an interest in achieving justice and peace.

The other Jew who played a prominent role in exposing the Jewish Bomb
to public attention was Seymour Hersh, the Pulitzer Prize-winning
reporter who wrote The Samson Option, published by Random House in
1991. Hersh put the pieces together and came up with a portrait of
Israel as an unstable, dangerous player in the nuclear game, a state
with both the capacity and the propensity to resort to methods of
extreme and indiscriminate terrorism.

Since its activities were, and are, largely tied in to attacking and
invading Palestinians and other Arabs in whose midst it has implanted
itself as a colonizing entity, the danger of accidental (or
purposeful) nuclear detonation is obvious. Until and unless Israel
changes its course of evermore paranoid confrontationism, something it
shows no real sign of doing at the present time, the Jewish people
will be in peril, in Israel and elsewhere.

People who demand that other countries sign the NPT or open their
nuclear facilities to international inspection are seldom, if ever,
heard making the same demands when it comes to Nuclear Power #6. The
obsession in both the establishment "policy" circles and in much of
what remains of the moribund "peace" movement is with what
establishment policy player Paul Warnke described as "the drive to
enter the nuclear club by countries like North Korea, Iraq and Iran,
or the growing number of terrorist groups gaining access to nuclear
materials." Liberals like actor Robert (The Great Peace March) Blake
and "Ecology" guru David Browder were raising the spectre of Libyans
crossing the borders into America with nuclear bombs in their
backpacks in the mid-1980s when Libya was declared U.S. Enemy Number
One. There was barely a peep from the "Left" when Libya was repeatedly
attacked by U.S. military forces. If it is Arab or Muslim, it already
has three strikes against it to many of the self-appointed custodians
of international social progress.

The "Samson" or "Madusa" complex involves a willingness to unleash any
horror in maniacal pursuit of strategic goals, or even obtain a
tactical advantage in a crisis situation. It is an element hardwired
into Israeli strategic plans. Israel has often threatened to use the
bombs at its disposal. During the 1937 Arab-Israeli war, the Jewish
state had 13 nukes all loaded up and ready to go on B-52s. Noam
Chomsky, in his masterful post-Lebanon invasion study, The Fateful
Triangle (South End Press 1983), describes the threatened use of the
nukes at that time as a ploy to speed up massive U.S. shipments of
conventional weaponry to Israel.

Chomsky’s ongoing attempts at stirring the "peace" crowd to an
awareness of the dangers inherent in such a force possessing the
nuclear option have gone virtually unheeded. An article he wrote for
Worldview, an organ of the Council on Religion and International
Affairs, was edited to specifically exclude Israel from mention as one
of five examples Chomsky offered of conflicts posing possible nuclear
catastrophe.

Another voice in the "progressive" wilderness has been the veteran
peace and social justice activist David Dellinger. He received a
wake-up call when he heard an Israeli Colonel Hamuzrahi bluntly state,
"We are not going to yield an inch to the Arabs even if it means
atomic flashes in New York." The fact that nearly two million Jews
live in the New York area would presumably not deter the execution of
such an unspeakable act.

Israel currently possesses hundreds of nuclear warheads which may be
launched on missiles which have a range to Tripoli, Tehran, Turkey and
Sudan. The very existence of this arsenal remains unmentioned or
obscured. The Oxford Companion to Politics of the World (Oxford
University Press, 1993) makes no mention of Israel under the heading
"Nuclear Nonproliferation." Although it does state that military
expenditures amount to "about 30% of GNP," in the main article on
"Israel," it does not mention the nukes. The sole reference to the
Israeli bomb occurs under the heading "Nuclear Weapons" and confirms
that "Israel has built as many as several hundred nuclear weapons as
weapons of last resort in the ongoing Middle East conflict." Israel is
almost inevitably portrayed as beleaguered and defensive, getting an
exemption from norms applied to others on that basis.

The liberal-leftist 4 Walls 8 Windows Press published a book, Deadly
Business by Herbert Krosney, which justifies the Israeli nukes by
claiming, "The specter of an Israeli Bomb (has) provided a measure of
deterrence," dovetailing neatly with the Israeli view expressed in a
volume on Arms Control and the New Middle East Security Environment
released by the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv
University in 1994, that the priority is on "preventing a
multi-nuclear Middle East" and that "Israel should not be expected to
give up its nuclear capacity." According to The Other Israel, a
newsletter put out by the Israeli Council for Israeli-Palestinian
peace, "All mainstream politicians (government and opposition alike)
support the continuation of the nuclear option" although "The
government did issue the very unobliging undertaking to 'open
negotiations on a nuclear-free Middle East two years after full peace
agreements with all members of the Arab League, as well as with Iran,
are signed.’" An opinion poll by a major Israeli daily newspaper found
71% of Israelis against the NPT.

The widely cited Jane’s Review of London confirmed in its November
1994 issue that Israel has seven nuclear installations and over 200
fully-armed nuclear weapons, any one of which could destroy a major
city. Hydrogen bombs, neutron bombs, Cruise missiles and nuclear
cannon are only a few among the weapons that have been perfected and
added to Israel’s arsenal in recent years. Chomsky rates Israel as the
world’s fourth greatest military power in The Fateful Triangle. Only
the "Big Five" (USA, Britain, Russia, France and China) can claim to
surpass Israel in terms of nuclear war capability. People throughout
the Middle East and even citizens of New York may be legitimately
disturbed by the knowledge of the prospects this may entail
Nicholas Anthony
2006-03-10 23:26:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Brock
You post news links as proof that the news didn't report it? That is
very odd indeed.
I apologize I should have said mainstream media or rather on TV or cable
news.
Post by Bob Brock
From somewhere else in the news...
THE JEWISH BOMB
by Husayn Al-Kurdi
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was extended indefinitely on May
11, 1995. The 178-nation agreement basically reaffirmed the official
monopoly on nuclear weapons to be enjoyed by the "Big Five" nuclear
powers - The United States, Russia, Britain, France and China - who
also happen to be the same states that hold veto power in the United
Nations Security Council. The extension was pushed through at the
behest of the United States, which was the first to build, develop and
actually use the atomic bomb on civilian populations. "Off the books"
of the NPT, with a U.S.-sponsored exemption from having to submit to
the treaty or its terms, is the state that is regarded as the Sixth
Nuclear power in the world today - Israel.
The Jewish state has been developing its nuclear capabilities since
the mid-1950s. At first in collaboration with France, and subsequently
with the cooperation of the white regime in South Africa and others,
the Jewish state has built what has been referred to by Israel
officials proudly as the "Third Temple," testing its nukes in New
Caledonia in the Pacific, in Algeria when it was a French colony, off
the coast of South Africa, and in underground tunnels in the Sinai
Desert.
Sensationalistic media accounts of "Islamic," "Arab," and "Third
World" nuclear bombs are bruited about as a matter of course, usually
with reference to nations which do not actually possess nuclear
weapons (Libya, Iran, North Korea) while Israel's substantial nuclear
reservoir receives scant and sporadic attention at best. Were it not
for the efforts of two Jews, one a nuclear technician and the other a
Pulitzer Prize-winning American journalist, the world would be much
more ignorant about Israel's nuclear capabilities.
Mordechai Vanunu, the Israeli who blew the whistle on Israel's nukes
and facilitated subsequent investigations by others, was a technician
at Dimona. In late 1985, after working for over nine years at the
facility, he had had enough. He moved to Australia, taking two rolls
of photographs with him. The pictures provided incontrovertible
evidence that Israel was producing nuclear weapons.
Vanunu approached the London Sunday Times with detailed pictures of
the nuclear bomb factory several levels below ground, where plutonium
was being reprocessed. The world had been shut out of the
tightly-controlled facility since it first came into existence in
1957. Israel has always refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty, keeping its plants closed to outside inspections of any kind.
U.S. congress people have been denied access to Dimona, and an Israeli
plane was shot down when it happened to accidentally strayed over the
plant. A false control room was even installed at Dimona to fool U.S.
inspectors who were let in before 1969.
It is widely believed that the CIA turned a blind eye to the
development of the Israeli bomb from the very beginning. In 1973, when
alarmed Israeli scientists brought the CIA photographs of nuclear
warheads stacked underground, there were no signs of interest. In
1979, when Israel and South Africa conducted one of their joint
nuclear tests in the South Atlantic, some brief notice was taken in a
few newspapers. The Carter administration tried to cover up by
ascribing the nuclear "double flashes" picked up on the radar of
orbiting satellites to quirky atmospheric phenomena of some kind.
Israel and South Africa had long cooperated in developing nuclear and
other weapons. The two apartheid states got closer as they became
increasingly regarded as international pariahs before their recent
U.S.-sponsored rehabilitations. Israel helped South Africa develop
nuclear-capable artillery pieces. The militaries of the two states had
a mutual wartime agreement to assist each other in times of armed
conflict. South Africa gave Israel carte blanche to conduct nuclear
tests in the Indian Ocean, with or without South African supervision.
South Africa provided Israel with uranium, and even allegedly
conducted the first Indian Ocean atomic bomb test "on Israel's behalf"
in 1968.
Vanunu, the "Citizen Spy," has paid a typically harsh price for his
efforts at revealing Israel's nuclear arsenal to the world: he was
lured to Rome from London by a female Mossad operative who used the
promise of sexual favors to entice him, pounced upon on his arrival at
a Rome apartment, drugged, kidnapped and taken to Israel, where he
landed in chains, crated up under diplomatic immunity and delivered to
the Israeli courts for their pronouncements. He got 18 years in prison
for treason. According to Sam Day of the U.S. Campaign to Free
Mordechai Vanunu, "Mordechai Vanunu continues to deteriorate
physically and mentally in the six by nine foot cell he has occupied
since the fall of 1986 in Ashkelon Prison."
Day went on to remark about the lack of interest in the Vanunu case
shown by "peace" and "progressive" circles in the United States.
"Mainline peace and justice, human rights and science policy groups
have chosen not to become involved" in the effort to obtain Vanunu's
release. This comes as no surprise to defenders of Palestinian rights
or to anyone critical of Israel. The "progressive community" has often
been ready to excuse numerable atrocities which they would hardly
condone if the perpetrator did not happen to be the Jewish state.
This hostility toward Arabs and Muslims, combined with a reverence for
"heroic" Israel, was brought out in bold relief on June 12, 1982, date
of the largest anti-nuclear demonstration ever. Israel had just
invaded Lebanon and was in the process of tearing that country apart,
destroying all and everything in its way. Cluster bombs, napalm,
phosphorus shells, all manner of heavy and light artillery and
thousands of tons of bombs were unleashed on Arabs.
At the massive "peace" demonstration in front of the United Nations,
the predominantly Caucasian and Jewish revellers hooted at a Lebanese
speaker who was expressing anguish over the fate of his country,
making it clear that "peace" should not necessarily extend to Israel's
victims, just as the recent feverish concern over nuclear
proliferation seems to overlook the world's sixth-rated nuclear power.
At a large demonstration in San Diego on the very day that Desert
Storm was being unleashed on Iraq in January 1991, a Jewish peace
official with ties to "Left" organizations, including both the
Communist Party of the United States of America and the Democratic
Socialists of America, announced that there was a report that
"chemical missiles" had been launched against Israel. The "peace"
crowd she relayed this false report to were hushed into a stunned
silence. Concern for "poor beleaguered Israel" remains a preoccupation
with many of the "progressive" milieu. Many in the "peace" crowd
joined in breathing a sigh of relief that there were so few AMERICAN
casualties with the war ended. A couple of hundred thousand Iraqi
Arabs who lost their lives did not count, as the more-than-a-million
who have perished since as a result of the U.S.-driven U.N. sanctions
similarly do not figure in the hearts and minds of policy makers and
even many who profess an interest in achieving justice and peace.
The other Jew who played a prominent role in exposing the Jewish Bomb
to public attention was Seymour Hersh, the Pulitzer Prize-winning
reporter who wrote The Samson Option, published by Random House in
1991. Hersh put the pieces together and came up with a portrait of
Israel as an unstable, dangerous player in the nuclear game, a state
with both the capacity and the propensity to resort to methods of
extreme and indiscriminate terrorism.
Since its activities were, and are, largely tied in to attacking and
invading Palestinians and other Arabs in whose midst it has implanted
itself as a colonizing entity, the danger of accidental (or
purposeful) nuclear detonation is obvious. Until and unless Israel
changes its course of evermore paranoid confrontationism, something it
shows no real sign of doing at the present time, the Jewish people
will be in peril, in Israel and elsewhere.
People who demand that other countries sign the NPT or open their
nuclear facilities to international inspection are seldom, if ever,
heard making the same demands when it comes to Nuclear Power #6. The
obsession in both the establishment "policy" circles and in much of
what remains of the moribund "peace" movement is with what
establishment policy player Paul Warnke described as "the drive to
enter the nuclear club by countries like North Korea, Iraq and Iran,
or the growing number of terrorist groups gaining access to nuclear
materials." Liberals like actor Robert (The Great Peace March) Blake
and "Ecology" guru David Browder were raising the spectre of Libyans
crossing the borders into America with nuclear bombs in their
backpacks in the mid-1980s when Libya was declared U.S. Enemy Number
One. There was barely a peep from the "Left" when Libya was repeatedly
attacked by U.S. military forces. If it is Arab or Muslim, it already
has three strikes against it to many of the self-appointed custodians
of international social progress.
The "Samson" or "Madusa" complex involves a willingness to unleash any
horror in maniacal pursuit of strategic goals, or even obtain a
tactical advantage in a crisis situation. It is an element hardwired
into Israeli strategic plans. Israel has often threatened to use the
bombs at its disposal. During the 1937 Arab-Israeli war, the Jewish
state had 13 nukes all loaded up and ready to go on B-52s. Noam
Chomsky, in his masterful post-Lebanon invasion study, The Fateful
Triangle (South End Press 1983), describes the threatened use of the
nukes at that time as a ploy to speed up massive U.S. shipments of
conventional weaponry to Israel.
How can Israel have nukes in 1937 when it wasnt even a nation yet? Can you
please post links you are getting this information from. I didnt go over the
rest of it with a fine tooth comb however I still have to say based upon the
information I already posted, a hostile nation shouldnt be on par for nukes
with a peaceful one that wishes to just exist and defend itself. If any
country in the world should have nukes Israel would be at the top of the
list for how many times it is attacked just as a deterent so other nations
dont try what they did in 1948. I see the NPT as harmful to Israel as giving
back the Gaza strip it so needed as a buffer zone. Now that the Hamas is in
power in the Gaza strip Israel is being attacked even more then before. I
remember awhile back reading how they were cutting off the water supply
going into Israel. Peace must be established and enforced.

T.L. Davis
2006-03-09 02:36:16 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 09:12:27 -0500, Stuart Grey
Post by Stuart Grey
Am I the only one who sees the White House responce to a direct threat
as lame, even dickless? Oh, we're so worried about Iran's credibility!
Jeezus, I would have said something about how if Iran harmed the US, how
we'd find the destruction of so many historical artifacts and the
irradiation of such a large area of land regretable, and how the Persian
people would be the first to win a Darwin award for a whole population.
No lie. How about taking a page from JFK:

"It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear missile
launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an
attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full
retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union."

Full statement at
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1962kennedy-cuba.html

Remember "we will make no distinction against terrorists and those
countries that support them"?

TLD
Post by Stuart Grey
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NUCLEAR_AGENCY_IRAN?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-03-08-07-16-28
Mar 8, 11:00 AM EST
Iran Threatens U.S. With 'Harm and Pain'
By GEORGE JAHN
Associated Press Writer
VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- Iran threatened the United States with "harm and
pain" Wednesday for its role in hauling Tehran before the U.N. Security
Council over its nuclear program. But the United States and its European
allies said Iran's nuclear intransigence left the world no choice but to
seek Security Council action.
The council could impose economic and political sanctions on Iran.
The statements were delivered to the 35-member board of the
International Atomic Energy Agency, which is meeting to focus on
Tehran's refusal to freeze uranium enrichment.
The White House dismissed the rhetoric out of Tehran.
"I think that provocative statements and actions only further isolate
Iran from the rest of the world," White House press secretary Scott
McClellan told reporters traveling with President Bush to
hurricane-affected states in the Gulf Coast. "And the international
community has spelled out to Iran what it needs to do."
Continue reading on narkive:
Search results for 'Iran threatens the United States.' (newsgroups and mailing lists)
125
replies
The United States of North America WILL Make War Against Israel
started 2007-01-23 14:44:19 UTC
sci.med.cardiology
16
replies
The United States is, Really and Truly, in a War
started 2004-07-24 01:19:00 UTC
mn.politics
29
replies
PUBLIC COURT TO HEAR: United States v. George W. bush et al. - Conspiracy to defraud the United States.
started 2006-12-14 01:27:34 UTC
soc.culture.iranian
5
replies
COMING DOWNFALL OF THE UNITED STATES: ‘Has the Battle for America Begun?’ – “What is unique about this analysis is the author’s contention that the U.S. is being used unwittingly by the European-based financial powers for their own purposes. They know that the U.S. economy is bankrupt, because they have made it so through a quarter century of financial manipulations that have destroyed our manufacturing base and left us horrendously in debt. Now they have suckered us into the last thing we need—a major Asian land war that threatens to bring Russia and perhaps China into the fray. But that’s all right, because once we have exhausted ourselves and courted nuclear retaliation, Europe, which is uniting under the European Union, will likely be left standing, as will Israel…”
started 2008-05-15 07:24:08 UTC
soc.culture.japan
5
replies
COMING DOWNFALL OF THE UNITED STATES: ‘Has the Battle for America Begun?’ – “What is unique about this analysis is the author’s contention that the U.S. is being used unwittingly by the European-based financial powers for their own purposes. They know that the U.S. economy is bankrupt, because they have made it so through a quarter century of financial manipulations that have destroyed our manufacturing base and left us horrendously in debt. Now they have suckered us into the last thing we need—a major Asian land war that threatens to bring Russia and perhaps China into the fray. But that’s all right, because once we have exhausted ourselves and courted nuclear retaliation, Europe, which is uniting under the European Union, will likely be left standing, as will Israel…”
started 2008-05-15 07:24:08 UTC
soc.culture.russian
Loading...