"Here we go again. A radical Mideastern country run by a mad man threatens to use weapons of mass destruction against another country and the U.N. cannot decide to do anything about it."

a) Why do you say "again"?
Please present a quote of Saddam making such threats before the Iraq war and a quote of Ahmadinejad making such a threat now.

I am sure you will attack me or changing the subject rather than substantiating your statement.

b) Regarding the "mad man", which is singular:
"Memo to the editors of America: Mahmoud Ahmedinajad does not, repeat NOT, rule Iran. Executive power in the Islamic Republic, and particularly control over foreign policy and security issues, is ultimately in the hands of unelected clerics -- and Ahmedinajad is not one of them. While the U.S. news media seemed well apprised of this fact during the presidency of the reformist Mohammed Khatami, for some reason it has been forgotten now that Iran is ruled by a conservative populist who loves making wild threats, particularly where Israel is concerned."

Enjoy your fear!

If you don't like the UN, you should just cancel your membership rather than constantly whine about it.

Posted by Wilbur Larch at May 3, 2006 03:02 AM

I tried to cancel my membership in the UN but when I called the 800 number I was put on hold so long I had to hang up or be late for work.

President Bush is now following the line of action his opponents said they wanted in Iraq: diplomacy first and force only if diplomacy fails. Unfortunately we will only know that diplomacy has failed when the mushroom cloud rises over Israel. For another example of the efficacy of diplomacy see: 1994 nuclear accord w/N. Korea.

But, then, I'm just a war-mongering conservative cretin that believes every problem is solved best with a military response.

Posted by too many steves at May 3, 2006 03:58 AM

"President Bush is now following the line of action his opponents said they wanted in Iraq: diplomacy first"

If that is the case, why does he refuse to negotiate with the Iranians? Read this: U.S. government is urged to talk to Iran

Posted by Wilbur Larch at May 3, 2006 05:07 AM

Wilbur, what planet do you commute from to make such ridiculous statements?

Who DIDN'T Saddam threaten?

And Ahmadinejad is the defacto spokesman for the mullahs at the very least. He's the damn president of the country and sets the tone for all who deal with Iran. If you want to pick nits that's one thing, but at least make it something important. My God, you sound like you're apologizing for him.

How many times does the guy have to say Israel should be wiped from the map, how much moral and financial support must he give to Hamas before you consider it a threat? The guy's a paranoid schitzophrenic and he's doing far too much posturing and issuing far too many thinly veiled threats to be ignored.

In essence, what he's saying is, "If you hit me, I'll beat up your little brother."

I won't even address your UN comment.

Posted by Oyster at May 3, 2006 05:49 AM

"If you don't like the UN, you should just cancel your membership rather than constantly whine about it."

In that case, why don't you go talk to Iran rather than whine about it?

Posted by Oyster at May 3, 2006 05:53 AM

Do you have the IQ of an Oyster?

"Wilbur, what planet do you commute from to make such ridiculous statements?"

The reality based planet.

All I am asking is for Woody to substantiate his claim "a mad man threatens to use weapons of mass destruction against another country"

I know you guys are not interested in the truth, but only in truthyness.

Saddam used them in the past, but he was not a threat before the latest Iraq war.
Ahmadinejad called for the destruction of Israel, but he did not make the kind of threat Woody thinks he did.

You conservatives don't see the difference. You are not interested in truth but truthiness. You listen to your gut, but not your brain. That's why I guess we will soon have another unnecessary war.

You negotiated with the Chinese, when they were arming Vietkong, you negotirated with reagan evil empire, but you refuse to negotiate with Iran.

http://atlanticreview.org/archives/308-U.S.-government-is-urged-to-talk-to-Iran.html

We have been negotiating with Iran, but you did not authorize us to offer Iran a US security guarantee, which is what the Iranians want.

Now, go ahead beat the war drum. Send your kids to another war. Blame the Europeans. And feel good about yourself.

Posted by Wilbur Larch at May 3, 2006 10:56 AM

"Ahmadinejad is the defacto spokesman for the mullahs at the very least."

You don't know shit!
Go educate yourself

"I won't even address your UN comment."

So why did you write another comment about it then?

Posted by Wilbur Larch at May 3, 2006 10:59 AM

YAWN! You really are in deep are you not?

Hey.. I heard they were offering counseling sessions to delusional moonbats like you who just cannot understand why the American people don't swallow your snake oil gladly.

I advise you seek some counseling to help rid yourself of the delusional demons which so evidently plague you daily.

I'm just trying to help!

Posted by Mike's America at May 3, 2006 01:44 PM

Wilbur...

Ahmadinejad REALLY is a nutjob, BUT...
he REALLY is the leader of Iran.

he is not the absolute ruler, yet niether is Bush the absolute ruler of America.

If anybody runs the country, it is Ahmadinejad. Sure, the clerics have lots of power, but they aren't out in front, setting the tone, etc.

You claim that Ahmadinejad is hardly in charge, but you are wrong. You're just looking for an argument and you obviously don't have too much to run with.

As per Saddam and chemical weapons, whether or not he threatened to use them is immaterial. He USED THEM ALREADY IN THE PAST.

Surely enough you cannot juggle words, twist logic, and misconstrue reality enough to apologize that away, can you, Wilbur?

So, yes, in essence here we are AGAIN with a maniacal nutjob in charge of a Middle Eastern country, with weapons of mass destruction (or busy acquiring them), and which is seemingly hell-bent on pushing buttons and starting a war.

Sure, the US could simply let Iran do as it pleases and have nukes. Then there wouldn't be a war...today. But maybe there would be a nuclear war - a holocaust, if you will...tomorrow.

I'm sure you would be done apologing then, no?

AND, as per the US being urged to negotiate with Iran...that would be negotiating with terrorists. Kidnappers, bombers...terrorists.

Why don't we just call Hezbollah on the phone and ask them if they are ready to sign a truce with Israel, heh?

It is US government policy NOT to negotiate with terrorists. And, beyond that, what kind of concessions do you think they are looking for with negotiations, if they would ever even agree to give up the nuke program?

And if they did agree to stop developing nuclear weapons grade-material...WOULD YOU TRUST THEM?

You have lots of questions, Wilbur, howzabout some answers?

Posted by QuickRob at May 3, 2006 04:59 PM

Wilbur, (why am I suddenly thinking of Mr. Ed, the talking horse?) it's such a waste of time discussing issues with any liberal who appears totally convinced that he has all the answers to the world's problems and trolls around the internet to display his "wisdom." A radical Arab country (led by a nutso president who was likely one of the "students" (hah!) who held our embassy diplomats hostage in Iran) has nuclear weapons capability and calls for the destruction of other lands, and you're more concerned with what amounts to a grammar issue in life.

Quickly, here goes:

a) Why do you say "again"? Please present a quote of Saddam making such threats before the Iraq war and a quote of Ahmadinejad making such a threat now.
**Willllburrrr, think back on your day's in grammar school. If a bully had a rock in his hand and was looking right at you and you knew that he had thrown rocks at other kids, would you think that maybe you're next and say that he threatened you? A threat does not have to be specifically stated (even the terminology doesn't require that), but it can clearly be inferred from previous actions and clearly identified intent.

I am sure you will attack me or changing the subject rather than substantiating your statement.
**Well, you're partly right. I hadn't considered it until you mentioned it, but you're an idiot. (I didn't want to disappoint you.)

b) Regarding the "mad man", which is singular: "Memo to the editors of America: Mahmoud Ahmedinajad does not, repeat NOT, rule Iran.
**Fine. And Bush does not rule the U.S. Everyone on both sides can relax. Now, let's focus on ManBearPig.

Saddam used them in the past, but he was not a threat before the latest Iraq war. Ahmadinejad called for the destruction of Israel, but he did not make the kind of threat Woody thinks he did.
**My mistake. "I thought the guy was going to shoot me, but he only pulled out his knife and cut me up, so I overreacted to his intent."

Now, go ahead beat the war drum. Send your kids to another war. Blame the Europeans. And feel good about yourself.
**Willlburrrrr, burying you head in the sand will result in more wars and more deaths than dealing with threats early before they become greater problems. Pacifism is folly in face of someone aiming his artillery at you. But, maybe you're one of those guys who will negotiate with a burglar instead of shooting him. Oh yeah, I'm tired of bailing out the wussy Euroweenies.

If you don't like the UN, you should just cancel your membership rather than constantly whine about it.
**I, (state your name), do hereby renounce my memberships in the United Nations (U.N.), both real and implied, and sever all ties with the organization and proclaim myself a free individual--completely independent of the U.N.'s jurisdiction, authority, and any and all other control and influence that the organization claims. I demand an immediate refund of all dues paid to the U.N., as the organization has refused to perfom its advertised duties and obligations and, rather, has caused severe and irreparable harm to those whom it was charged to help. In addition, I hereby reclaim the acres on the bank of the East River in the name of the United States of America and give notice to the U.N., that the organization and all of its diplomats, staff, corrupt officials, and spies must vacate the premises on that site within thirty days. This, I pledge "with liberty and fraternity for all. Amen."

There. I feel better. This has been a cleansing and freeing experience. Thank you for coming by, Wilbur. From now on...your name is Flounder.

Posted by Woody at May 3, 2006 05:39 PM

Wiilllllllburrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where'd ya go?!

Posted by QuickRob at May 3, 2006 07:56 PM

Iran would be ill-advised to screw around with Israel, including idle threats. I have no doubt but that the Israeli government is already putting the final touches on a war plan should Iran launch just one missle at Israel.

How would such an engagement turn out? Simple: Iran will be removed from the face of the earth.

Posted by Mustang at May 4, 2006 07:30 AM

I'm confident that Israel has an arsenal of nuclear weapons. When Iraq tried to produce plutonium in the past, Israel bombed the production facility into sand.

Posted by Woody at May 4, 2006 07:55 AM

A quick google brings this. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/iraq/sadquots.htm

More if you need it.

Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at May 4, 2006 06:00 PM

I guess that Willlllllburrr left thinking that he was too sophisticated for us. Too bad. His education really stopped when he logged off. Maybe we're too harsh on lefties who come here to pick fights. Maybe we should hold an open house for them, instead.

Posted by Woody at May 4, 2006 06:55 PM

Iran has sponsered terrorist organizations for over 25 years, and not only have they attacked the US, but also Israel, several times. Israel much more.
They threaten to wipe Israel off the map. and have been attacking them and us for years, through terrorists.
Now, if someone threatens to kill me, and the have been attacking me for several years, well, golly-gee! Maybe I should take them seriously! You think?
Israel is more than justified to strike back at Iran.
For that matter, so are we.

Posted by Ben USN (Ret) at May 4, 2006 09:47 PM

AVI, that was a good link of Hussein's comments. However, Flounder wanted a link where Hussein specifically said "I threaten you." To Flounder, words to the effect that Hussein is going to chase us and blow us all up are words that must be very broadly interpreted to be a threat. And, liberals wonder why the American people don't trust them with foreign policy and our defense.

Posted by Woody at May 5, 2006 07:10 AM

Forgot to add part of the title to the 12 years of paper resolutions - while perfecting a flawless weapon system without threat of interruption

Posted by chrys at May 18, 2006 10:50 PM