Iran Is Now A Top Threat To America

[GanjaFreebird]

He has absolutely no respect for life.

I do, but not when it comes to America's and Israel's enemies...destroying their weapons now would save lots of innocent Iranian civilians in the long run, believe me...you really don't want to know what could happen if they got nukes and decided to fuck with Israel...sure Israel (including the Palestinians) will suffer, but Iran would be completely destroyed then, make no mistake about it. Destroying their weapons now is actually a way of giving them another chance to join humanity, if anything.

[GanjaFreebird]

^Hitler Wannabe Alert

I agree with you about Ahmedinejad, indeed he is!

[86Dùde]

If they got nukes all the other cool kids would want nukes and then the good guys and the bad guys would have the same size sticks.

[hadit]

But Iran is such a tiny country, and it's no threat to us. The president said so.

[302Riz]

I do, but not when it comes to America's and Israel's enemies...destroying their weapons now would save lots of innocent Iranian civilians in the long run, believe me...you really don't want to know what could happen if they got nukes and decided to fuck with Israel...sure Israel (including the Palestinians) will suffer, but Iran would be completely destroyed then, make no mistake about it. Destroying their weapons now is actually a way of giving them another chance to join humanity, if anything.

So now you are capable of seeing into the future to supliment your God given gift of playing guitar hero? What has Iran done to America or isreal TODAY? Why do you think the lives of Americans - my friends and family are expendable to fight a silly war based on false flags and pretenses?

[GanjaFreebird]

So now you are capable of seeing into the future to supliment your God given gift of playing guitar hero?

Thanks for the kind words, and indeed, I thank God for my musical gifts that he blessed me with, but a "guitar hero" would be too strong of a word, I'm afraid that term rather applies to Hendrix and Clapton, while I'm just another talented musician.

What has Iran done to America or isreal TODAY?

Too much shit. And they can do EVEN WORSE shit if they got nukes.

Why do you think the lives of Americans - my friends and family are expendable to fight a silly war based on false flags and pretenses?

To protect America, of course.

[Šñøü†ê®]

...Ahmedinejad...

What did he ever say and do to make you hate him? The fact that he bases his politics on FACTS?

[GanjaFreebird]

What did he ever say and do to make you hate him?

Everything he said about Israel, the holocaust, fighting Israel through hezbullah and hamas, violating human rights in Iran worse than almost any other gov't and then claiming that gay people don't even exist in Iran...lots of stuff. But I will hate him EVEN MORE if he got to be more powerful, which is why it's a good thing to take him out now, while he still talks shit, as opposed to having the ability to act on his insane beliefs.

The fact that he bases his politics on FACTS?

You know it's bullshit, as the Nazis really did kill your grandma and other family members for being Jewish, and Freddie Mercurri (who was Persian by ethnicity) was definitely not a heterosexual.

[Šñøü†ê®]

What did he say that was not true? My guess is because he tells the truth and is not a puppet paid for by lobbyists, the lobbyists must have their main proxy entity mess up the country. Gangli, you support terrorist regimes who invade areas and claim it is their right, why doesn't Iran have a right to exist without worrying about paranoid psychotics bombing them?

[Guido]

Oh, don't worry, you will be wetting your pants once America and/or Israel takes care of Iran. Chavez has a serious form of cancer and hopefully he lives long enough to see Iran get its ass kicked, kinda like the last surviving bad guy in an action movie who gets REALLY angry and crazy right before his end.

And once Iran/Syria is no longer a problem, what the fuck do you think Hezbullah and Hamas will do? Cry to mommy? Who is going to protect them THEN? You?

One of these days [TERRORIST] I'm going to create a thread called [TERRORIST] "How to [TERRORIST] write a GanjaFreebird Post" [TERRORIST == smilie-- smoke a bowl, hung out with [insert name of washed up 'classic rock' musician], pARTY ON DUDE, SMILIE, HI MOMMY ITS ME IM IN HOLLYWOOD ], etc.

[Guido]

Noam Chomsky seems to disagree with Teller on Iran:

"In terms of Iran, prediction is difficult but we can try to understand what is happening. So, for example, in what is called the international community – which means the United States and whoever happens to be going along with it (usually a small minority of the world) – Iran is described as the main threat to peace and world order. But most of the people in the world don't agree with this at all. So the non-aligned countries – which make up the majority of the world population – strongly supported Iran's right to enrich uranium and develop nuclear power as a signer of the non-proliferation treaty. An interesting question, then, to ask ourselves is - why do they regard Iran as a threat? There happens to be an authoritative answer to that – namely, the answer provided by the Pentagon and US intelligence agencies in their submissions to congress on global security. They make it very clear – they say Iran is not a military threat; it has low military spending and practically no capacity to deploy force outside its territory. Its military strategies, they say, are defensive and designed to deter invasion long enough for diplomacy to set in; and they say that if Iran is developing a nuclear strategy, it would be part of a deterrent. Nevertheless, they conclude that the country is the worst possible threat. To states that feel that they have a right to use force at will anywhere – then a deterrent is, of course, a threat. The analysis goes on to say that Iran is destabilising the region near its territory. What exactly does that mean? Are we destabilising Central America when we extend our influence there?"

But the reasons given by the international community are that a nuclear-armed Iran, which has already destabilised Iraq and Afghanistan without having the bomb, would be a major threat to Israel as well as destabilising the region further in that all nearby countries – including Saudi Arabia – would then want the bomb?

"The assumption is that when we invade and destroy countries on Iran's border, that is stabilising them – and when Iran extends its influence on countries near its border, then that is destabilising them. That tells us a lot about ourselves. I doubt that Saudi Arabia would want a nuclear weapon unless it was for prestige, as it is already under a US nuclear umbrella anyway. The idea that Iran would ever use a nuclear weapon is so ludicrous that I don't think there is a military analyst in the world who believes it is even a conceivable possibility. If they so much as armed a missile, the country would probably be vapourised. The only case of an Iranian invasion in the last century was under the Shah, with US support, when it conquered a couple of Arab islands in the Gulf. That's it. On the other hand, Israel has invaded its northern neighbour Lebanon five times and it is carrying out illegal settlement activities in occupied territories – and it has hundreds of nuclear weapons. Now, who is threatening who here? It's not about perception; it's about the assumption that we own the world. If you withdraw that assumption, it looks ludicrous. Incidentally, it is not to say that Iran is not a threat. It's a terrible threat to its own population, for example, but it's hardly alone in that respect."

http://www.zcommunications.org/the-w...y-noam-chomsky

[Truth Teller]

Instead of responding to posts in his normal idiotic way, TT should save time by posting this pic -

Yawn.

He has absolutely no respect for life.

I could argue that you have no resecpt for the quailty of life considering the way that you (like Guido) ignore the human rights abuses committed by Iran.

Guys with your mindset did exist during the Hilter years,they were Charles Lindberg and Neville Chamberlain ,history has proven them to be wrong,just as history will prove you and your homeys to be wrong.

But Iran is such a tiny country, and it's no threat to us. The president said so.

When?

So now you are capable of seeing into the future

He's just learning the lessons taught by history,which is what you need to do.

What has Iran done to America or isreal TODAY?

Financed most terrorism, including 9-11.

[GanjaFreebird]

What did he say that was not true?

That the holocaust didn't happen and that gays don't exist in Iran...for starts.

My guess is because he tells the truth and is not a puppet paid for by lobbyists, the lobbyists must have their main proxy entity mess up the country. Gangli, you support terrorist regimes who invade areas and claim it is their right, why doesn't Iran have a right to exist without worrying about paranoid psychotics bombing them?

The better question is why Israel can't exist without worrying about paranoid psychotics bombing them? If Israel can't do that, then neither will Iran.

One of these days [TERRORIST] I'm going to create a thread called [TERRORIST] "How to [TERRORIST] write a GanjaFreebird Post" [TERRORIST == smilie-- smoke a bowl, hung out with [insert name of washed up 'classic rock' musician], pARTY ON DUDE, SMILIE, HI MOMMY ITS ME IM IN HOLLYWOOD ], etc.

WTF.

Noam Chomsky seems to disagree with Teller on Iran:

Sure, but who gives a shit about his opinion anyways.

The analysis goes on to say that Iran is destabilising the region near its territory. What exactly does that mean? Are we destabilising Central America when we extend our influence there?"

That's the point, we don't want Iran to get to be as powerful as America...it's bad enough that we have Russia and China, we sure don't need insane religious bigotted fanatics to have enough power to be politically respected.

But the reasons given by the international community are that a nuclear-armed Iran, which has already destabilised Iraq and Afghanistan without having the bomb, would be a major threat to Israel as well as destabilising the region further in that all nearby countries – including Saudi Arabia – would then want the bomb?

All of the above is true.

"The assumption is that when we invade and destroy countries on Iran's border, that is stabilising them – and when Iran extends its influence on countries near its border, then that is destabilising them. That tells us a lot about ourselves. I doubt that Saudi Arabia would want a nuclear weapon unless it was for prestige, as it is already under a US nuclear umbrella anyway. The idea that Iran would ever use a nuclear weapon is so ludicrous that I don't think there is a military analyst in the world who believes it is even a conceivable possibility.

Russian never used nukes either, and yet they have been a problem for America and still are. Iran will be much worse if they ever got such power.

[86Dùde]

<yawn>

[Truth Teller]

Noam Chomsky seems to disagree

No one gives a shit.

[jwreck]

Financed most terrorism, including 9-11.

Ahh yes. Good ol 9-11. Justification for anything we want to do ever since, wether there's an actual connection or not.

[86Dùde]

When in doubt 911 it.

[Truth Teller]

Are you saying Iran does not finance most terrorism?

Are you saying Iran did not help fianance 9-11?

[86Dùde]

It's a little shaky. They said the same thing about Iraq. Just proves that partisan brains will believe what they want to believe. Same shit, different administration.

[Guido]

The growing Iranian military behemoth
By Glenn Greenwald

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/04/the_...oth/singleton/

The tranquility of my Saturday morning was disrupted — and that’s putting it mildly — when I read on Glenn Reynolds’ popular right-wing “Instapundit” blog that we can learn important “Lessons About Iran From Hitler.” To know that we have yet another New Hitler in our midst is alarming indeed. Reynolds’ link takes one to an even more jarring warning about the Persian menace, by David Goldman, that extensively compares the fallen Nazi leader to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and argues that because both figures are maniacal monsters presiding over a dying nation, only a full-scale military attack can stop them. ”However much it costs in Iranian blood and well-being, it’s still worth it,” Goldman casually decrees.

Sociopathic calls for aggressive attacks on other nations and cheap invocations of Hitler are not worth commenting on: neocons churn those out reflexively. But what is worth noting is the event Goldman is flagging as proof of Iran’s aggressive intentions: “Iran is planning to double its defense budget even though its currency is collapsing,” he warns. A doubling of its defense budget! Who among us can remain calm in the face of such naked militarism?

That Ahmadinejad claims that Iran will increase its military budget for next year by 127% was widely reported this week. For a variety of reasons relating to Iran’s economic difficulties, that plan is quite infeasible — typical Ahmadinejad blustering — but let’s assume for the moment that it will actually happen. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) Military Expenditure Database, Iran’s total annual military spending is $7 billion; an increase of 127% would take it to $15.8 billion — also known as: less than 2% of total U.S. military spending (which was $698 billion for fiscal year 2010). According to Defense News, Iran’s official military budget for 2011 is actually $12 billion; an increase of 127% would bring it to $27.2 billion, also known as: less than 4% of U.S. military spending. Taking the largest number possible for Iranian military spending (the one provided by Defense News), behold the frightening, Nazi-like military threat Iran poses:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1hWLUAkQnn...1600/graph.png

These kinds of scary claims about Iran’s military might have been issuing for years. Back in 2006, Gen. John Abizaid, chief of the U.S. Central Command, announced that Iran has the most powerful military in the Middle East, even though Israel has a large stockpile of nuclear weapons, as many as 200, while Saudi Arabia annually spends almost $60 billion on its military (more than 5 times Iran’s current spending) or “10% of GDP on defence, more than double the proportion spent by America.” Both of those Iranian rivals (Israel and Saudi Arabia), and many others in that region, are recipients of vast amounts of sophisticated military weaponry from the U.S. Here is a list of 11 extremely sophisticated weapons that the U.S. — and it alone in the world — possesses. And then there’s the fact that the U.S. basically has Iran completely encircled, as demonstrated by this graph from Juan Cole’s blog, showing U.S. military bases near Iran:

http://www.juancole.com/2011/12/iran...all-right.html

As Cole put it: “Each star is a US base. But just to be clear, Iran is the one that is threatening us.” Indeed: imagine if the blue in that map were the U.S. (rather than Iran), and the large red areas were Mexico and Canada (rather than Iran’s neighbors), and the stars represented Iranian military bases. Then further imagine that Iranian political leaders and media figures routinely told their population that it was the U.S. that was an aggressive, threatening power that had to be stopped: the mocking condemnations of that level of propaganda would be endless. Yet American political officials and commentators feel free to insist, with a straight face, that Iran is an aggressor nation posing a serious threat to the U.S.: such a serious threat, in fact, that war may be necessary to stop it. And there is, tragically, little doubt that if there is an attack on Iran by Israel — with direct U.S. involvement or, more likely, U.S. support and approval — there will be little opposition in either American political party, and even less challenge to the ludicrous claims about the Grave Iranian Threat that will be invoked to justify it.