This, along with his statement that the cost in both lives and money in Iraq was "worth it," is... not good.

War coming in 2013! Like I said in another thread:

Iran will be moving into Iraq really fast now that they have a friendly leader next door. This will be seen as a threat to US security and, in order to sell it to the Hawks, a desecration to the sacrifice made by our troops to liberate Iraq from tyranny. Given 2012 is an election year, they will talk peace and sanctions, but come 2013, something like a "Pearl Harbor type event" will occur that will make tolerance of Iran no longer possible and action by either the UN or NATO will have to be taken with the US leading the way.

.
What planet is Penetta living on.?.. and why has Obama not sacked his sorry ass.?......
.
America cannot afford another 'victory' like Iraq.

and why has Obama not sacked his sorry ass.?......

#3 | Posted by skizziks at 2011-12-20 03:05 PM

Here's hoping he doesn't.

Welcome back to reality libtards.

What makes him think they don't already have nukes? It's seems that someone who is seeking to secretly build nukes wouldn't be running off at the mouth like Iran has been. I'm thinking they have a few but need an excuse to use them. So they smack talk the west into attacking them so they can nuke Israel. That way they would merely be defending themselves.

"Merely defending themselves" will yield the same result for the mullahs -- certain destruction.

They may consider destroying some Israeli cities, and perhaps all of Israel, to be a fair price.

Would they nuke Jerusalem? Or limit themselves to, say, Haifa?

Posted by kanrei at 2011-12-20 03:05 PM | Reply

Sanctions are war. War not on tyranny, but on the poor subjects of tyrants.

Why would one assume the Russia's wouldn't just sell them one?

I mean, they do have a soft spot for the little buggers...

Why would one assume the Russia's wouldn't just sell them one?

Because the radiation signature from the nuke can be traced back to the source.

They may consider destroying some Israeli cities

It will take from 50-100 nukes to finish Iran.

It will only take ONE to finish Israel.

"Israel is only one nuke wide" (not my quote)

What makes him think they don't already have nukes?

They don't have nukes.

In order to have nukes, you would have found evidence of "cold testing".... which isn't there.

One can create a nuke if one has enough computing power... super-computers... which Iran does not have.

The most practical way for them to create a nuke is for them to test it. Or else everything they make might turn out to be a dud.

Besides, Iran considers nukes "un-islamic" because they kill civilians. They have said so.

Can the US stop Iran from getting nukes?

Of course not.

There are only two ways:

1. Economic sanctions (which won't work on an oil producer)

2. War (which America can't afford)

Iran's only weakness is food. But that they fixed by taking 3 years worth supply of rice from Pakistan. And more after that.

If they run out of bread, they can now eat rice. LOL

Tosser, we want to hear your full opinion on this. You give us tidbits, but could you flesh it out a bit more?

they smack talk the west into attacking them so they can nuke Israel. That way they would merely be defending themselves.

#6 | Posted by Species8472

Iran is not going to nuke Israel.

To state the patently obvious, if Iran does do that, they are finished forever as a country, as a people. Israel can and will strike back. Tehran will be obliterated and rendered uninhabitable for 10,000 years.

Some Muslim nations will be quick to strike Israel in retaliation. They too will feel The Heat.

The Arab oil nations however will remain neutral. They know which side of the bread their butter is on.

2. War (which America can't afford)

#15 | Posted by Tosser

If we could afford WWII in 1941 after 12 years of recession/depression and printing money, you better believe we can afford more war now. At the least, it's not safe to think we think "we can't afford it." LOL

Those who think the Ayatollah would nuke Israel where Jerusalem also happens to be aren't thinking very realistically. The only real value of a nuclear weapon is that if you have even only one that you can deliver to your enemy's closest city or base of importance you basicly become uninvadable.

"Iran's only weakness is food."

Ghadaffi thought similar thoughts, so did Mubarak. Assad as well. All of their biggest weakness is their own people. We need to give them time to take care of their own nation. This is none of our business.
I am disturbed that Obama hasn't smacked Panetta to the matt over this.

Obama needs to review the relationship LBJ and Robert McNamara and make sure he doesn't have a similar one with Panetta.

I keep hoping this will be self-limiting - that one fine day, an Iranian nuclear scientist will be putting the final touches on a super-bomb capable of taking out an entire city, when....

....A whatchamacallit slips and knocks a gizmo loose, which falls onto a frammistat and shorts it out, activating the weapon and causing the scientist to utter his last words....

....Which should be whatever the Farsi is for "Oh SHIT."

I am disturbed that Obama hasn't smacked Panetta to the matt over this.

#20 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2011-12-20 05:55 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

LOL!

And the children rest their eyes so they could not see what was before them....

A path to peace....Ron Paul 2012!

"A path to peace....Ron Paul 2012!"

Dirk, you never made a more valid point. Obama take notice!

#25 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2011-12-20 06:41 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

If you don't hold obamas feet to the fire no one else is there to do it. He already knows he does not have guys like my vote. Obama is banking on the fact that you will overlook his wars etc... To get a free something? from government. He thinks you are for sale. The question is are you?

The Rep Est is no different BTW. In my case they will find out how much they are wrong if Romney gets the ticket.

I am disturbed that Obama hasn't smacked Panetta to the matt over this.

#20 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2011-12-20 05:55 PM | REPLY | FLAG

1. do you really think Panetta would have said this if he hadn't cleared it with Obama?

2. do you really think it's a good idea to tell Iran that military action is not on the table?

#27 | Posted by somoco

I'll take a shot at these:

1. do you really think Panetta would have said this if he hadn't cleared it with Obama?

Given that he didn't actually say anything that had any meaning, probably not.

2. do you really think it's a good idea to tell Iran that military action is not on the table?

Do you actually think Iran doesn't already suspect there is a chance "someone" out there might have some kind of plan regarding attacking them in some way?

So Iran can't have nukes when almost everyone else does! Gee did your invisible man tell you that? Iran never did anything to anyone. But the USA did invaded two countries thats didn't do anything to us. Seem like if any country should not be allowed to have nukes, it should be the USA....

But that makes too much sense!

Besides, Iran considers nukes "un-islamic" because they kill civilians. They have said so.

#14 | Posted by Tosser

Jesus, must be hard for folks to about in your religion.

So many things can kill, that most things around must be un-islamic.

I can hear you guys now..don't touch that..watch out..wait!..that kills..that there's infidel cutlery..hey, that's tainted...

we have drones flying over their country, we kill their scientists, we forment revolution, we attack them with computer viruses, rumsfeld issued orders to kill iranians in iraq

and we will call them aggressors.

we are already at war with iran.

"...when almost everyone else does!"
#29 | Posted by truthteller101

Look up how many countries there are on the planet and also look up how many of them have nuclear weapons and compare those stats.

Feel free to report back.

"we are already at war with iran."
#31 | Posted by truthhurts

No, you are not.

the acts I described above, which are happening are not acts of war?

This is a bizarre world we live in. The ones that use WMDs are the ones who keep attacking those that never use it over the off chance that they will use WMDs even if it makes zero sense for them to do so.

Besides, Iran considers nukes "un-islamic" because they kill civilians. They have said so.
#14 | Posted by Tosser

So it's 'un-islamic' to threaten Israel to wipe them off the map?

When folks say things--over and over--it's reasonable to believe what they say.

As for being at war with Iran-- They are just as much at war with us then by your definition.

So it's 'un-islamic' to threaten Israel to wipe them off the map?

Self-Defense is not un-islamic.

You give us tidbits, but could you flesh it out a bit more?

Smart-ass.

So Iran can't have nukes when almost everyone else does!

#29 | Posted by truthteller101

Tell the truth, make not fantastical statements.

List of nuclear powers:

USA
Russia
UK
France
China
India
Pakistan
North Korea
(Israel)*

* In parentheses because Israel remains undeclared.

Hardly "almost everyone else."

Out of the eight (nine), Pakistan and North Korea bear watching the most as first strikers, though North Korea's capability is tiny compared even to Pakistan's or India's small nuclear arsenals.

The ones that use WMDs are the ones who keep attacking those that never use it over the off chance that they will use WMDs even if it makes zero sense for them to do so.

#35 | Posted by daniel_3

Define WMDs in your context.

"As for being at war with Iran-- They are just as much at war with us then by your definition."

At war with us? Funny thing, I haven't heard of any battles lately. I sort of think you want there to be a war so you pretend there already is one. This is a rerun of the build-up to the idiotic and disastrous Iraq invasion and occupation. You folks never learn.

Out of the eight (nine), Pakistan and North Korea bear watching the most as first strikers, though North Korea's capability is tiny compared even to Pakistan's or India's small nuclear arsenals.

#40 | Posted by ZOT

Actually the US is the most likely to be a first striker.

Besides, Iran considers nukes "un-islamic" because they kill civilians. They have said so.

#14 | Posted by Tosser
It's un-islamic to kill civilians,you are the dumbest goat fucker I've ever heard. That's all you Allah akbar yelling terrorist do is kill civilians

North Korea bear watching the most as first strikers

Norks have not been able to shrink their nukes enough to mate them onto a missile.... yet. (making a nuke missile warhead is harder than making the nukes in the first place)

They need bombers to deliver their nukes to target... and they don't have effective heavy bombers.

Actually the US is the most likely to be a first striker.

#43 | Posted by truthhurts

I disagree. Unless it comes in the form of a ground-penetrating bunker buster type weapon.

The consequences for any nation using a nuke, even a relatively small one such as the type I mentioned above, would be dire. It is my assertion that the US, though the holder of the most and best nuke toys, would not use them except in a retaliatory strike. And even them, would severely limit the strike. An all-out nuclear strike scenario would only end in one way: global suicide.

North Korea is like that crazy relative who keeps a loaded and cocked shotgun by the door and grabs it everytime somebody comes knocking. One day you know he will blast someone to pieces with it because he's, well, nucking futs.

The irrational tensions between India and Pakistan would be just the excuse enough for them Tali-Islamist whack-jobs who are interwoven into Pakistani fabric to obtain a few nukes and lob them over the border into India, just to prove the assholes that they are, that they can wield power. Pakistan itself ain't none too stable lately, and only getting worse. I'd love to hear the discussions concerning the future of Pakistan taking place behind closed doors by the Chinese.

It's un-islamic to kill civilians

Here ass-worm.

Tali-Islamist whack-jobs who are interwoven into Pakistani fabric to obtain a few nukes

Impossible.

Pakistan itself ain't none too stable lately

Pakistan is very stable.

The President of Pakistan is very unstable and might run away. LOL

Khamenei: Nuclear weapons un-Islamic

"Using nuclear weapons is against Islamic rules," he continued, according to AFP news service.

You should know better than to challenge me, Trash. I made you change your name twice... want to make it third time? LOL

Posted by Tosser at 2011-12-21 10:20 AM |

We have no doubt he said it Tosser. We just know he is full of shit based on his actions and other statements. Either he was lying then or lying now; either way he was lying and not to be trusted.

I'd love to hear the discussions concerning the future of Pakistan taking place behind closed doors by the Chinese.

China has already told you all you need to know about Pakistan.

In a widely reported incident in 2010, a US delegate confronted a Chinese diplomat on China's unwavering support for Pakistani policy to which the diplomat responded with the sarcastic retort: "Pakistan is our Israel."

And that is that.

Either he was lying then

Give me some credit... I know my Islamic Studies.

A nuke really is an Un-Islamic, non-kosher weapon if you use it to attack cities.

It is forbidden in "Jihad" to target civilians.

During all our wars with India, neither India nor Pakistan really bombed cities... they could have but didn't.

The Iranian was correct that nukes are inherently un-Islamic.

Does that mean Iran isn't making nukes? Who knows? I am only talking of his statement in a theoretical sense.

Either he was lying then or lying now; either way he was lying and not to be trusted.

If you mean, he is lying about making nukes... THAT he could be lying about, sure.

I am only talking of his statement in a theoretical sense.

In a reality sense, things are done everyday that violates faith in the name of defending said faith.

It is forbidden in "Jihad" to target civilians.

But occupiers are not seen as civilians; it is a symantic game played by all leaders of "Us" and "Them." Just look at Iraq post Saddam to see they clearly don't believe that.

Pakistan is our Israel."

And that is that.

#50 | Posted by Tosser
You just made my point about racist asians, to China your it's pet goat.Like I said at the bottom of the asian pecking order. They will use you then spit you out when their done getting what they need.

In a reality sense, things are done everyday that violates faith in the name of defending said faith.

Sad but true.

However, I am only saying, the faith itself doesn't agree with nuclear weapons.

But occupiers are not seen as civilians

The occupiers in Iraq are certainly not civilians.

You just made my point about

Keep barking.

The occupiers in Iraq are certainly not civilians.

Posted by Tosser at 2011-12-21 10:41 AM

Some are. Also, Iraqis tend to kill civilians from the other sect quite often as well. Sunni vs Shiite has civilian casulaties.

As with every other faith, Islam is pretty good until it reaches mankind.

Iraqis tend to kill civilians from the other sect quite often as well.

Well, they will end up in Hell for that.

Actually, they are already in Hell.

Actually, they are already in Hell.

Posted by Tosser at 2011-12-21 10:45 AM |

We all are; a very carefully constructed Hell made to keep us in slight discomfort for all time. Extreme pain heals, but an itch you can't scratch will drive you mad.

Sunni vs Shiite has civilian casulaties.

Also, don't be under the impression this hasn't been helped along.

Iran benefits from chaos. So did the US. We all remember how two SAS members were caught in Iraq planting bombs to frame the Sunnis.

a very carefully constructed Hell made to keep us in slight discomfort for all time. Extreme pain heals, but an itch you can't scratch will drive you mad.

If we got everything we always wanted, it would be terrible.

"How do you destroy a man? Give him what wants!"

Give him what wants = what HE wants.

Iran benefits from chaos. So did the US.

We may have thought we would, but we didn't. Iran did for sure. Iran played the Iraq war beautifully and are the big winner. Remember, "Curveball," the source of WMD tales in Iraq, was traced back to Iran. They used us, our post-9/11 fear, and Dubya's Oedipal complex to perfection.

Iran played the Iraq war beautifully and are the big winner.

Yeah.. they got it all.

The US may pretend it won in Iraq (won what???) but Iran is the winner.

They used us, our post-9/11 fear, and Dubya's Oedipal complex to perfection.

Posted by kanrei at 2011-12-21 10:51 AM | Reply

Busting out the Oedipus... Nice.

"How do you destroy a man? Give him what wants!"

#61 | Posted by Tosser
Can I get you another goat? got to be better than those big nose, bitches you mate with .

Busting out the Oedipus

Gotta dust off that English Major every once in a while. =D

If any country needs to be banned from having nukes, it should be the USA!

After all we're the only country who's ever used them. Iran never did anything to us. We invaded two countries who never did anything to us.

Think about it!

Can I get

Keep barking.

#27 | Posted by somoco
I'll take a shot at these:
1. do you really think Panetta would have said this if he hadn't cleared it with Obama?
Given that he didn't actually say anything that had any meaning, probably not.
2. do you really think it's a good idea to tell Iran that military action is not on the table?
Do you actually think Iran doesn't already suspect there is a chance "someone" out there might have some kind of plan regarding attacking them in some way?
#28 | POSTED BY REDIAL AT 2011-12-20 10:44 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

If he didn't say anything that had meaning, why is Danni in a tizzy?

Of course Iran suspects this. Danni said that Panetta should be taken to the mat for not saying that military option is off the table. that would be stupid.

Is it a good idea for any country to have nukes including USA, Israel and Iran? I don't see a rational basis for any.

When is the left going to admit that in the area of foreign policy, Obama is no different then Bush.

I would speculate that there is a connection between the recent loss of a US drone in Iran and the hyperbole coming out of the mouths of Gen. Dempsey and SecDef Panetta. Dont know for sure, just speculating.

Perhaps hyperbole wasnt the right word. Allusions and thinly veiled threats is more accurate.

"Israel is only one nuke wide" (not my quote)
#12 | Posted by Tosser

Israel has the ultimate nuclear deterrent -- nuclear weaponed submarines. Whoever attacks Israel will be quickly counter-attacked; the same nuclear stalemate that we shared with the USSR not so long ago.

If Iran has deluded itself into thinking that it could survive a full-out nuclear strike, well ... that would be the difference. We will never have to worry about the BS from the Iranian mullahs again.

For those lefties shrieking about Panetta's comments -- when will you join the real world? Yes Dorothy ... Iran wants nukes, we do not want them to have them. Yes, Iran hates us even with the messiah in office -- had nothing to do with Bush. Wake up.

Another asshole that thinks everything we do is good and anyone who disagrees with us or wants to do what we do is bad.

nuclear weaponed submarines.

That is a rumor... not confirmed.

Whoever attacks Israel will be quickly counter-attacked

Yes... but Iran will live because it can take more than a few hits.

Israel won't survive the first 5 minutes.

Iran never did anything to anyone.. We can not say that about the USA who used nukes and invaded other countries who never did anything to us..

#19. Then why did Panetta make this statement?

And we will just forget about obama's statements on the subject, after all he's not held actionable for his words!!

Suggestion:

Encourage Israel and the Iranians to duke it out. If they destroy each other in the process look at it as a huge positive to the world in ending the decades long rationale for their false flags and wars.....it would be relief akin to squeezing and popping a festered pimple.

Obviously the Israelis would rather take land from the Pals than exchanging and giving up their illegal nukes and then putting Americans on the hook for their defense. Fuck Israel and Iran. Neither means a tinkers damn to me or most Americans.

Iran and Israel should just duke it out. The problem is Iran would get stomped and then their ankle biting cohorts would get stomped too, and then there's nobody to put against eat other in that pert of the world. That is bad news for the haves...

Why is the USA allow to have nukes?

We used nukes already on another country. We invaded two countries that did not do anything to us.

So why?

Because we're number one, bitch! USA USA USA USA!!!!

We write the rules. Love it or leave it, long-haired doper!