Iranian leader WANTS to bring about the end of times?

[crazy_scar_man]

I like how the article came from:
FROM JOSEPH FARAH'S G2 BULLETIN

That is a very reputable source. I'm sure he had editor after editor fact checking his piece.

[run_to_win]

OK, well the radio guys contradict the article, then.  Who's right, and who's wrong?

Is that a rhetorical question or are you really asking me? 

I have no idea.  I just thought it was an interesting article.

[Brian Fein]

totally rhetorical..  I don't expect you to know, you're just relaying what you heard.  I'm calling out the radio guys as not clearly representing the article.

[MaineDolFan]

There are also such things as dirty bombs that do not require a long range ballistic missile to deliver them. When you consider that, they very well could indeed be a direct threat.

Dirty bombs have been a threat since the cold war and some believe that there are still Russian nationals in country now with those.  You don't make an initial move on a country due to the threat of a dirty bomb.  And the difference between the nuclear experience of a dirty bomb versus one deployed via missle is huge.  A well constructed dirty bomb would endanger a large majority of a decent sized city.  One small warhead, deployed ballistically, would destroy that entire city and outlining areas.

There will always be threats to our nation, that doesn't green light us into rolling into to each one.  It would be counter productive to begin anything with Iran - our ground troop levels couldn't support it.

[MaineDolFan]

I have no idea. I just thought it was an interesting article.

I think that it's a VERY interesting article and quite unnerving. 

[run_to_win]

Nope, I didn't find it funny and I don't think it was intended to be that way.

Right, because I really believe that ALL democrats ARE against the current war ONLY because a Republican is in office.

And I also take your cutting and pasting my entire statement as trying to pick a fight.

I never intentionally pick fights - I just don't back down either.  That's been my problem here from the start.  I thought we kind of covered this via PM?

I know how countries came to be (nuclear power, wise) and I realize who is a threat to whom.  Trust me, I know it better than you.

Then why the irrelevant information about India and Pakistan?  What is the threat inciting Iran to go nuclear?

You specifically said "nuke us."  Not our allies / interests.

My apologies for sloppy, imprecise speech.  I should have said "nuke Israel and pull us into the conflict."

I can play that game too.

What game?  

don't worry about it (1) and Iran CAN'T nuke us.

Is Iran totally above cooperating with terrorists?  As it would be difficult for a terrorist to smuggle a missile, would it be easier or more difficult for Iran to create a "suitcase" bomb or something similar?

[run_to_win]

I think the radio show you heard was simply trying to stir the friggin' pot (as apparently they have done here very nicely).

How do you figure?  Because I asked the question, "Does Iranian President Mahmoud's Ahmadinejad's intend to use nuclear weapons to bring about the end of the world?" and posted a related article?  Is it a requirement that we only post news that we endorse?

(End of the "world" was more sloppy speech on my part.  I should have said, "end of times".)

[run_to_win]

I like how the article came from:
FROM JOSEPH FARAH'S G2 BULLETIN

That is a very reputable source. I'm sure he had editor after editor fact checking his piece.

Is this sarcasm or the oldest liberal trick in the book (attacking the source instead of the content) ?

Are you familiar with Joseph Farar?  I am not. 

[MaineDolFan]

"Then why the irrelevant information about India and Pakistan?  What is the threat inciting Iran to go nuclear?"

It's not irrelevant what so ever, that directly speaks to your point.  "Should we get Iran before they get us, or an ally."  When India aquired nukes the same worries came about.  Religious beliefs aside, India is mostly a third world country and the fear at the same was that they would use them in strong arm tactics.  A conflict with Egypt comes directly to mind.  Pakistan was the same thing - if they obtained weapons they would use them.  

Fears, on both counts, were proven to be unfounded.  It's a direct statement to your point, I'm not sure how you could not see that.  It's not "irrelevant information" in any shape or form - nor a spin on words or facts.

Again - my point is very clear here:  Iran is not an immediate threat to deploy nuclear weapons upon the continental U.S.  They are a threat to our children, however.  Either way - our military is not built nor designed for proactive action.  The strain is showing now when it's used in that manner.  Iran, for now, is a situation that needs to play itself out a little.  Strength in numbers, when Europe becomes worried enough we should follow their lead.

Compare DSI to the current situation in Iraq, as an example.  If we had the inter-national support, troop wise, that we had in DSI right now the situation would be vastly different.

Wait and see is all we can do.  Sometimes the best actions are the non actions.