PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security Intel Official: Iranian Missiles Could Hit Nearby U.S. Targets, Europe


Donger
02-17-2012, 09:28 AM
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/dotmil/2012/02/16/intel-official-iranian-missiles-could-hit-nearby-us-targets-europe

Iran has the ability to fire missiles at U.S. targets in the Middle East and "temporarily" close a key sea transit route, a senior intelligence official said Thursday.

Tehran has a missile arsenal capable of reaching "targets throughout the region and into Eastern Europe," Lt. Gen. Ronald Burgess, Defense Intelligence Agency director, told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"Iran has … threatened to launch missiles against the United States and our allies in the region in response to an attack" on its nuclear facilities or other targets, he said.

What's more, Iran "could also employ its terrorist surrogates worldwide," Burgess said. He also noted that "Iran can close the Strait of Hormuz," the key sea lane used to move oil and other goods to destinations around the globe. The U.S. intelligence community believes Iran "is unlikely to initiate or intentionally provoke a conflict or launch a preemptive attack," Burgess told the panel.

The blunt assessment of Iranian intentions and offensive capabilities comes amid increasing tensions between Tehran, Israel and the United States over Iran's nuclear weapons program.

Alireza Nader, an analyst at the RAND Corporation, said the DIA chief's assessment of Iran's naval and missile capabilities sounds accurate.

"Iran does have missiles capable of hitting U.S. facilities in the Persian Gulf, and notably, in Afghanistan," Nader said. "And it is known to be in development of long-range missiles that could reach Eastern Europe. It has a pretty robust missile program."

Under a scenario where Iranian leaders ordered a missile strike, U.S. officials and analysts question whether any would hit their intended targets.

"Iran's missiles are strategic weapons, not tactical weapons," said Nader. That's because they lack the kinds of precision guidance systems fitted on U.S. ballistic missiles.

"Still, if Tehran fired several hundred missiles, it likely would get at least a few past" missile defense systems in the region operated by the U.S. military and its allies, Nader said.

The RAND analyst said the Iranian Navy could employ a number of tools to temporarily shut down the Strait of Hormuz, and frustrate the U.S. Navy. That list includes "hundreds of small boats equipped with relatively sophisticated anti-ship weaponry" and mines on the sea floor, Nader said.

Should tensions over Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions escalate into a military conflict, Nader said, "Iran is looking for an asymmetric war, mostly at sea." That means the conflict would feature those small boats and mines instead of war ships firing on one another.

Amnorix
02-17-2012, 09:37 AM
Not sure this is newsworthy. Of course they can do that, at which point we blow them off the map.

Donger
02-17-2012, 09:45 AM
Not sure this is newsworthy. Of course they can do that, at which point we blow them off the map.

I actually posted the wrong article, darn it. I meant to post one which states that we've apparently concluded that Iran has the means with its existing ballistic missiles to launch a physics package, with range adequate to hit targets in Israel and Afghanistan.

BucEyedPea
02-17-2012, 12:43 PM
It's a conspiracy. The Donger conspiracy propaganda machine continues.

Donger
02-17-2012, 02:58 PM
It's a conspiracy. The Donger conspiracy propaganda machine continues.

No, it's just an intelligence report.

Chocolate Hog
02-17-2012, 02:59 PM
Donger is one of those guys who locks his doors when he sees black people.

Donger
02-17-2012, 03:03 PM
Donger is one of those guys who locks his doors when he sees black people.

We don't have Black people here. But, I am curious why you would read this article and attempt to make such a comparison.

Chocolate Hog
02-17-2012, 03:07 PM
We don't have Black people here. But, I am curious why you would read this article and attempt to make such a comparison.

Because you are paranoid.

BucEyedPea
02-17-2012, 03:10 PM
Because you are paranoid.

He'd probably hyper-ventilate in a Persian rug showroom.

Donger
02-17-2012, 03:11 PM
Because you are paranoid.

Okay. You are willing to believe and trust that the Iranian nuclear enrichment is purely for peaceful purposes? Do you care if they eventually become nuclear-armed?

Bowser
02-17-2012, 03:12 PM
Somebody needs to start an ***OFFICIAL Countdown to Armed Conflict with Iran Thread***

BucEyedPea
02-17-2012, 03:13 PM
<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KkC5asLWbeM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Chocolate Hog
02-17-2012, 03:18 PM
Okay. You are willing to believe and trust that the Iranian nuclear enrichment is purely for peaceful purposes? Do you care if they eventually become nuclear-armed?

1. I do believe Iran needs nuclear energy. Their infrastructure sucks.

2. Why would they comply? Ghaddifi did and he's dead now. Saddam didn't have any nukes and he was overthrown. There's no reason to comply.

3. I don't want anyone to have nukes but it's not realistic. Why are you concerned with Iran having nukes and not Pakistan who hid the worlds biggest terrorist in a military village?

4. We don't have the money or resources for a long war with Iran. Going after Iran won't be like going after Iraq. If we go after Iran we'll see more terrorist activity in the United States.

BucEyedPea
02-17-2012, 03:19 PM
1. I do believe Iran needs nuclear energy. Their infrastructure sucks.

2. Why would they comply? Ghaddifi did and he's dead now. Saddam didn't have any nukes and he was overthrown. There's no reason to comply.

3. I don't want anyone to have nukes but it's not realistic. Why are you concerned with Iran having nukes and not Pakistan who hid the worlds biggest terrorist in a military village?

4. We don't have the money or resources for a long war with Iran. Going after Iran won't be like going after Iraq. If we go after Iran we'll see more terrorist activity in the United States.

Excellent but bried summary of why it's a mistake! :thumb:

Donger
02-17-2012, 03:23 PM
1. I do believe Iran needs nuclear energy. Their infrastructure sucks.

Actually, Iran is a net exporter of electricity. They have a surplus. They don't need nuclear power for generation.

2. Why would they comply? Ghaddifi did and he's dead now. Saddam didn't have any nukes and he was overthrown. There's no reason to comply.

Because they are signatories of the NPT. A major part of that treaty is that they must prove that there intentions are peaceful. They haven't done that.

3. I don't want anyone to have nukes but it's not realistic. Why are you concerned with Iran having nukes and not Pakistan who hid the worlds biggest terrorist in a military village?

Because Iran is openly hostile to us. I also don't want the ME to become the stage for a nuclear-arms race (which will happen).

4. We don't have the money or resources for a long war with Iran. Going after Iran won't be like going after Iraq. If we go after Iran we'll see more terrorist activity in the United States.

I realize that. That is why I hope that diplomacy will work.

mikey23545
02-17-2012, 03:25 PM
1. I do believe Iran needs nuclear energy. Their infrastructure sucks.

2. Why would they comply? Ghaddifi did and he's dead now. Saddam didn't have any nukes and he was overthrown. There's no reason to comply.

3. I don't want anyone to have nukes but it's not realistic. Why are you concerned with Iran having nukes and not Pakistan who hid the worlds biggest terrorist in a military village?

4. We don't have the money or resources for a long war with Iran. Going after Iran won't be like going after Iraq. If we go after Iran we'll see more terrorist activity in the United States.

Oil reserves in Iran, according to its government, rank third largest in the world at approximately 150 billion barrels as of 2007...And they need nuclear reactors for energy?!!?

ROFL

mikey23545
02-17-2012, 03:26 PM
Donger is one of those guys who locks his doors when he sees black people.

OMG...Is everyone who thumps your ass in an argument a racist?

LMAO

Stewie
02-17-2012, 03:30 PM
U.S. targets in the middle east? Iran has gone full bull sack.

BucEyedPea
02-17-2012, 03:44 PM
Oil reserves in Iran, according to its government, rank third largest in the world at approximately 150 billion barrels as of 2007...And they need nuclear reactors for energy?!!?

ROFL

This just shows how poorly read you are about their energy situation. Just because they do have an energy crisis.

They shouldn't but due to their socialism they have had structural problems, as all socialisms do. They're not exactly a free-market economy. They lack refineries and import refined petroleum. They actually have rationing of petrol over there, despite being oil rich. Their energy sector is in crisis.

This a bit out-of-date but I doubt their situation has changed much.
http://www.moneyweek.com/news-and-ch...-energy-crisis

Chocolate Hog
02-17-2012, 03:46 PM
[


"Actually, Iran is a net exporter of electricity. They have a surplus. They don't need nuclear power for generation."

They couldn't even meet OPEC's quota for production levels. Their production of oil is less than 70% revolutionary level. They have oil fields apporaching depletion and they didn't invest in any oil production infrastructure for over 20 years.

The nuclear enrichment program would help them free up natural gas to export.

Let's be honest it's not the threat of nuclear weapons that scares the powers to be it's the threat of Iran being the worlds biggest power in energy that scares the United States and rightfully so after the numerous embargo's and sanctions they've placed on Iran that haven't worked this put us at a disadvantage.


"Because they are signatories of the NPT. A major part of that treaty is that they must prove that there intentions are peaceful. They haven't done that."

Where is the proof that they intend to use nuclear weapons?


"Because Iran is openly hostile to us. I also don't want the ME to become the stage for a nuclear-arms race (which will happen)."

We've invaded their 2 neighboring countries and overthrown 2 governments that disarmed their nuclear programs. Why wouldn't they be hostile?


"I realize that. That is why I hope that diplomacy will work".

I'm for diplomacy but it seems the majority of Republicans support cowboy diplomacy that won't work. Honestly I believe our saber rattling is what's prevented the current regime from being overthrown.

HonestChieffan
02-17-2012, 03:51 PM
If Iran has a nuclear bomb the country will suddenly have power lines, broadband and the autobahn

Nuclear Iran will rock with new infrastructure. Night stoning! Hate the Jew rallies!

Chocolate Hog
02-17-2012, 03:53 PM
If Iran has a nuclear bomb the country will suddenly have power lines, broadband and the autobahn

Nuclear Iran will rock with new infrastructure. Night stoning! Hate the Jew rallies!

Yeah the country with the largest jewish population out of any muslim country can hold anti jew rallies.

Donger
02-17-2012, 03:55 PM
They couldn't even meet OPEC's quota for production levels. Their production of oil is less than 70% revolutionary level. They have oil fields apporaching depletion and they didn't invest in any oil production infrastructure for over 20 years.

The nuclear enrichment program would help them free up natural gas to export.

Let's be honest it's not the threat of nuclear weapons that scares the powers to be it's the threat of Iran being the worlds biggest power in energy that scares the United States and rightfully so after the numerous embargo's and sanctions they've placed on Iran that haven't worked this put us at a disadvantage.

The point is that they don't have an energy crisis and they certainly don't need nuclear-generation, which is what some people say they do. The vast majority of their electricity is generated by NG, and they have the second largest reserve of that in the world.


Where is the proof that they intend to use nuclear weapons?

Are you serious?

We've invaded their 2 neighboring countries and overthrown 2 governments that disarmed their nuclear programs. Why wouldn't they be hostile?

I was merely answering your question about the difference between Iran and Pakistan.

I'm for diplomacy but it seems the majority of Republicans support cowboy diplomacy that won't work. Honestly I believe our saber rattling is what's prevented the current regime from being overthrown.

Well, there was some indication today that diplomacy is working. Apparently, Iran claims to be open to talks. I guess we'll see if it's honest or just another delay tactic.

Chocolate Hog
02-17-2012, 04:01 PM
"The point is that they don't have an energy crisis and they certainly don't need nuclear-generation, which is what some people say they do. The vast majority of their electricity is generated by NG, and they have the second largest reserve of that in the world."

Their infrastructure is shit.




"Are you serious?"

Yes. Wheres the proof they want to get nuclear weapons to use them?




"Well, there was some indication today that diplomacy is working. Apparently, Iran claims to be open to talks. I guess we'll see if it's honest or just another delay tactic."

Good sanctions weren't working.

BucEyedPea
02-17-2012, 04:06 PM
The point is that they don't have an energy crisis and they certainly don't need nuclear-generation, which is what some people say they do. The vast majority of their electricity is generated by NG, and they have the second largest reserve of that in the world.
Wrong they do. In fact several years back when I mentioned this you said they had the same problem we had—that they lacked refineries.

Donger
02-17-2012, 04:06 PM
Their infrastructure is shit.

Again, Iran is saying that they need nuclear generation. They don't. And, that has nothing to do with their grid structure being "shit."

Yes. Wheres the proof they want to get nuclear weapons to use them?

:spock:

Good sanctions weren't working.

Well, considering that this is the first time they've apparently asked for talks without pre-conditions, I think one could argue that sanctions ARE working.

Donger
02-17-2012, 04:10 PM
Wrong they do. In fact several years back when I mentioned this you said they had the same problem we had—that they lacked refineries.

Yes, they lack refining capacity because they are stupid. They COULD refine more than they need but they chose not to. That isn't an energy crisis.

And, this has nothing to do with nuclear power.

Chocolate Hog
02-17-2012, 04:11 PM
Again, Iran is saying that they need nuclear generation. They don't. And, that has nothing to do with their grid structure being "shit."



:spock:



Well, considering that this is the first time they've apparently asked for talks without pre-conditions, I think one could argue that sanctions ARE working.

Their oil out put has declined for years. You continue to ignore this.

:spock:

Nice rebuttal.

Netanyahu disagrees.

Chocolate Hog
02-17-2012, 04:12 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/opinion/08iht-edstern.4136795.html

"Most Iranian electric power generation is by oil or gas. Cheaper power from Iran's new Russian reactor will leave more oil for export. Rebuilding Iran's aging gas-powered generators may not be much cheaper than building a new nuclear reactor. But Russia sells reactors to Iran on the cheap in an indirect subsidy to the regime."



"The mullahs are doing a good job of destroying Iran's economy. They should be left alone to complete their work. Attacking Iran would allow the regime to escape responsibility for the economic disaster it created. Worse, an attack could unite Iran behind the clerical terror-sponsors whose grasp on power may be slipping. For these reasons, the best policy towards Iran may be to do nothing at all."

Donger
02-17-2012, 04:13 PM
Their oil out put has declined for years. You continue to ignore this.

:spock:

Nice rebuttal.

Netanyahu disagrees.

I'm not ignoring it. The vast majority of their electricity generation is done by burning natural gas, NOT oil. They don't need to generate by nuclear.

I did the spock because it's a silly question. I don't want them to become a nuclear power, whether they say, "Yeah, we're going to use it, too!" or not.

Donger
02-17-2012, 04:14 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/opinion/08iht-edstern.4136795.html

"Most Iranian electric power generation is by oil or gas. Cheaper power from Iran's new Russian reactor will leave more oil for export. Rebuilding Iran's aging gas-powered generators may not be much cheaper than building a new nuclear reactor. But Russia sells reactors to Iran on the cheap in an indirect subsidy to the regime."



"The mullahs are doing a good job of destroying Iran's economy. They should be left alone to complete their work. Attacking Iran would allow the regime to escape responsibility for the economic disaster it created. Worse, an attack could unite Iran behind the clerical terror-sponsors whose grasp on power may be slipping. For these reasons, the best policy towards Iran may be to do nothing at all."

They generate about 75% from natural gas and 10% from oil. They don't NEED to add nuclear. They may want to, sure, but they don't need to.

Chocolate Hog
02-17-2012, 04:16 PM
I did the spock because it's a silly question. I don't want them to become a nuclear power, whether they say, "Yeah, we're going to use it, too!" or not.

You can make that argument with any country. I don't get why you have more faith in China or Pakistan.

Donger
02-17-2012, 04:21 PM
You can make that argument with any country. I don't get why you have more faith in China or Pakistan.

I already answered that: because they aren't openly hostile to us. Neither are they threatening to close the Strait.

BucEyedPea
02-17-2012, 04:21 PM
You can make that argument with any country. I don't get why you have more faith in China or Pakistan.

It's because British Petroleum was kicked out years ago. It's revenge.

BucEyedPea
02-17-2012, 04:30 PM
They generate about 75% from natural gas and 10% from oil. They don't NEED to add nuclear. They may want to, sure, but they don't need to.

It's none of your business to tell them what they need.

Their gas exploitation is also inefficient while their government is creating circumstances that are harming the economy and leading Iran toward energy dependence. They're not a free enterprise system. That's at the root of their energy problems.

LiveSteam
02-17-2012, 04:36 PM
This thread is full of yeast infection

BucEyedPea
02-17-2012, 04:38 PM
This thread is full of yeast infection

That's because you have a vagina.

LiveSteam
02-17-2012, 04:39 PM
That's because you have a vagina.

LMAOLMAOLMAO

Donger
02-17-2012, 04:41 PM
It's none of your business to tell them what they need.

Their gas exploitation is also inefficient while their government is creating circumstances that are harming the economy and leading Iran toward energy dependence. They're not a free enterprise system. That's at the root of their energy problems.

Sure it is. It's the foundation of what they are saying they need nuclear reactors for, and it isn't true.

Again, they don't have an energy problem. They have a dipshit-leadership problem.

HonestChieffan
02-17-2012, 04:45 PM
Sure it is. It's the foundation of what they are saying they need nuclear reactors for, and it isn't true.

Again, they don't have an energy problem. They have a dipshit-leadership problem.

We have something in common with Iran then

BucEyedPea
02-17-2012, 04:46 PM
Sure it is. It's the foundation of what they are saying they need nuclear reactors for, and it isn't true.

Wha'? That it need not be true is not the same as it not being true in currently in reality.
I thought you were big on operating on reality?

Again, they don't have an energy problem. They have a dipshit-leadership problem.

....which leads to an energy problem. Just like we had in the 70's due to our own politician's policies.

BucEyedPea
02-17-2012, 04:47 PM
We have something in common with Iran then

Yup! I almost said the same thing...and did for the 70's.

Donger
02-17-2012, 04:51 PM
Wha'? That it need not be true is not the same as it not being true in currently in reality.
I thought you were big on operating on reality?

The reality is that they have the second largest reserve of NG in the world.

The reality is that they generate the vast amount of their electricity by burning NG.

Therefore, the claim that they need nuclear generation is not accurate.

BucEyedPea
02-17-2012, 05:00 PM
The reality is that they have the second largest reserve of NG in the world.

The reality is that they generate the vast amount of their electricity by burning NG.

Therefore, the claim that they need nuclear generation is not accurate.

I said they have an energy crisis.

I don't give a rats ass whether they need nuclear generation or not. I they want that then it's their right and per the treaty they signed it is allowed.

Donger
02-17-2012, 05:03 PM
I said they have an energy crisis.

Yes, and you're wrong.

I don't give a rats ass whether they need nuclear generation or not. I they want that then it's their right and per the treaty they signed it is allowed.

Yes, it is. As long as they also prove their peaceful-only intentions.

BucEyedPea
02-17-2012, 05:28 PM
You must have Type A personality. The angry man says " You're wrong." like this.

Yes, and you're wrong.
No you're wrong. I said why which earlier you seemed to agree with.
Do they need to have an energy crisis? No.
Do they have one? Yes.

I said why. It's their socialism. Socialism just does not provide.

Yes, it is. As long as they also prove their peaceful-only intentions.

They've allowed inspectors in. The inspections aren't allowed to go as far as you'd like for "proof."
So you're argument is conjecture at this point.

Donger
02-17-2012, 05:33 PM
No you're wrong. I said why which earlier you seemed to agree with.
Do they need to have an energy crisis? No.
Do they have one? Yes.

I've said nothing of the kind.

They've allowed inspectors in. The inspections aren't allowed to go as far as you'd like for "proof."
So you're argument is conjecture at this point.

It's not me, honey. The IAEA also wants proof, per treaty.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-17-2012, 10:12 PM
Intelligence sources = Santorum

Hog Farmer
02-18-2012, 04:58 AM
1. I do believe Iran needs nuclear energy. Their infrastructure sucks.

Probably right on that.

2. Why would they comply? Ghaddifi did and he's dead now. Saddam didn't have any nukes and he was overthrown. There's no reason to comply.

Good Point!

3. I don't want anyone to have nukes but it's not realistic. Why are you concerned with Iran having nukes and not Pakistan who hid the worlds biggest terrorist in a military village?

I'm sure nobody except the Pakistanis are happy about Pakistan having nukes. Iran having nukes creates a doomsday scenerio because they are apocolyptic.

4. We don't have the money or resources for a long war with Iran. Going after Iran won't be like going after Iraq. If we go after Iran we'll see more terrorist activity in the United States.

WRONG ! So when has a lack of money EVER stopped us from war. The American philosiphy has always been that when someone needs there ass kicked we're the country for the job. Iran fought with Iraq for 13 years . We took down Iraq in 72 hours. Any terrorist activity in the U.S. would be squashed rather quickly. We have people listening to everybody that communicates in any way or fashion. A LONG WAR WITH IRAN ! ROFL

mikey23545
02-18-2012, 06:07 AM
Intelligence sources = Santorum

Head in the Sand=Paul

mikey23545
02-18-2012, 06:16 AM
I said they have an energy crisis.


I see. So they have an energy crisis (pure fabrication) which they're going to solve by ignoring a couple of the cheapest ways to generate energy known to man (NG and oil) and which they are sitting on top of reserves big enough to run their country for thousands of years, and instead develop nuclear power which is one of the most expensive and technically difficult ways to generate power (and of course they have no uranium deposits in their country)...

But they're only interested in utilizing nuclear power for "peaceful" purposes...

You are the Iranian equivalent of Baghdad Bob...

BucEyedPea
02-18-2012, 07:17 AM
I see. So they have an energy crisis (pure fabrication) which they're going to solve by ignoring a couple of the cheapest ways to generate energy known to man (NG and oil) and which they are sitting on top of reserves big enough to run their country for thousands of years, and instead develop nuclear power which is one of the most expensive and technically difficult ways to generate power (and of course they have no uranium deposits in their country)...

But they're only interested in utilizing nuclear power for "peaceful" purposes...

You are the Iranian equivalent of Baghdad Bob...

Yup, they do and it's been reported in the press. However, I first saw mention of this at our own National Institute of Science circa 2007.

Keep your head in that Mid East sand you love so much. It's filling up that vagina of yours.

Hog Farmer
02-18-2012, 07:34 AM
Yup, they do and it's been reported in the press. However, I first saw mention of this at our own National Institute of Science circa 2007.

Keep your head in that Mid East sand you love so much. It's filling up that vagina of yours.

I love it when you say Vagina !

mikey23545
02-18-2012, 08:07 AM
Yup, they do and it's been reported in the press. However, I first saw mention of this at our own National Institute of Science circa 2007.

Keep your head in that Mid East sand you love so much. It's filling up that vagina of yours.

Incredible, Bob...You simply ignored every point I made, answered with a complete non sequitur, toss in some meaningless insult, and slink away proclaiming victory...LMAO

You are really going over the deep end, aren't you?

Donger
02-18-2012, 08:18 AM
Incredible, Bob...You simply ignored every point I made, answered with a complete non sequitur, toss in some meaningless insult, and slink away proclaiming victory...LMAO

You are really going over the deep end, aren't you?

I've noticed that it's a common symptom of Paul followers (and Paul himself):

They have a worldview (strategic or tactical) and then desperately attempt to make the facts fit into their worldview, instead of the opposite way around. While silly, I must admit that it is rather amusing.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-18-2012, 08:27 AM
Head in the Sand=Paul

Head in the Game = Paul
Head up yer collective asses = The rest.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-18-2012, 08:29 AM
We gots us a terrorororists in DC, lets start us sum wers... /derpy fucking dipshits

Donger
02-18-2012, 08:30 AM
We gots us a terrorororists in DC, lets start us sum wers... /derpy ****ing dipshits

Who is suggesting doing that in response to some illegal, Islamist nutjob? Or, is this just another example of what I wrote above?

go bowe
02-18-2012, 11:25 AM
i think we should attack canada and take their oil producing areas, that will solve our energy problems for a few weeks at least...

Stewie
02-18-2012, 12:54 PM
It's economic warfare for starters. As of yesterday Iran has been dropped from the Swift system which means they can neither send or receive bank transfers. Pretty much a slam dunk gurgle on their economy.

BucEyedPea
02-18-2012, 12:59 PM
I've noticed that it's a common symptom of Paul followers (and Paul himself):

They have a worldview (strategic or tactical) and then desperately attempt to make the facts fit into their worldview, instead of the opposite way around. While silly, I must admit that it is rather amusing.
Yet, you are doing the same thing—just from an imperialist point of view. I think the word you're looking for is confirmation bias.

Drudge and WND are the leaders in spreading lies on this issue.

Bill Parcells
02-18-2012, 01:10 PM
Anybody else notice that BEP only jumps on her favorites when they're already involved with another poster?

Bo Pellini should audition for Alice in wonderland

ROFL

Donger
02-18-2012, 01:26 PM
Yet, you are doing the same thing—just from an imperialist point of view. I think the word you're looking for is confirmation bias.

Drudge and WND are the leaders in spreading lies on this issue.

No, I'm really not, unless of course you think the IAEA is an imperialist outfit (which you probably do).

I take the facts, analyze them and reach the most likely conclusion. You people start with what you want to believe ("Iran isn't interested in developing nuclear weapons ((oh, and even if they are, so what!!!!!!1111")) and then try to make the facts fit that conclusion.

ForeverChiefs58
02-18-2012, 01:33 PM
Amazing how Bo, BEP and some others just plain ignore facts and instead choose to believe anything anti American.

Out of every country in the entire world, Iran is the world's largest supporter of terrorists and terrorists organizations.

They are a hostile nation to the US and our allies.

They constantly hold demonstrations inciting terrorism chanting death to America and death to our allies and have threatened to wipe them off the earth.

How do you think they would achieve wiping someone off the earth? No need to answer, it is a rhetorical question since if you don't get it by now, you never will.

CUCUMBER
02-18-2012, 01:42 PM
Amazing how Bo, BEP and some others just plain ignore facts and instead choose to believe anything anti American.

Out of every country in the entire world, Iran is the world's largest supporter of terrorists and terrorists organizations.

They are a hostile nation to the US and our allies.

They constantly hold demonstrations inciting terrorism chanting death to America and death to our allies and have threatened to wipe them off the earth.

How do you think they would achieve wiping someone off the earth? No need to answer, it is a rhetorical question since if you don't get it by now, you never will.

terrorism: The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

title of world's largest terrorists would belong to the USA

go bowe
02-19-2012, 12:24 PM
Amazing how Bo, BEP and some others just plain ignore facts and instead choose to believe anything anti American.

Out of every country in the entire world, Iran is the world's largest supporter of terrorists and terrorists organizations.

They are a hostile nation to the US and our allies.

They constantly hold demonstrations inciting terrorism chanting death to America and death to our allies and have threatened to wipe them off the earth.

How do you think they would achieve wiping someone off the earth? No need to answer, it is a rhetorical question since if you don't get it by now, you never will.
charmin?

lots and lots of charmin...

demonhero
02-19-2012, 12:43 PM
Its about time our Navy boys see some action at sea anyways.. imo.