Reply #27

In the discussion thread: Iran vows to hit any country that stages attack [View all]

Sun Feb 5, 2012, 02:31 PM

27. Iran is an up and running North Korea--The Mouse that Roared..

Last edited Sun Feb 5, 2012, 02:34 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

--a bit louder than nuclear titmouse, North Korea. Iran (and Israel) will tone down their rhetoric if China and the Russian Federation finally join the rest of the UN members in the economic sanctions. If that doesn't happen soon though, we might see some nuclear fireworks.....and the Middle East will never be the same.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

120 replies	Author	Time	Post
Iran vows to hit any country that stages attack [View all]	maddezmom	Feb 2012	OP
Makes sense, US did at least partially in Afghanistan and Iraq but not Saudi Arabia. nt	jody	Feb 2012	#1
Makes sense?	oberliner	Feb 2012	#11
He's threatening to counter-attack US bases in Afghan & Iraq, and other places in the region.	leveymg	Feb 2012	#15
It makes even less sense from a purely military perspective	oberliner	Feb 2012	#21
From a purely military perspective, gaining deterrent power is very important.	David__77	Feb 2012	#22
No one was threatening Iran until they started to pursue nuclear weapons.	oberliner	Feb 2012	#35
LOL. Until then we had excellent relations... n/t	kirby	Feb 2012	#40
I wouldn't say that	oberliner	Feb 2012	#46
They used to be	MrBig	Feb 2012	#53
Hehe... exactly. They were obviously very pleased that we sold nerve gas to Iraq for use in the war.	LooseWilly	Feb 2012	#52
Fact: Iran hasn't invaded another country in 300 yrs. US only country to Nuke another country	WillYourVoteBCounted	Feb 2012	#75
Since we are discussing Irans history perhaps you could clarify something for me please.	cstanleytech	Feb 2012	#82
Since we are discussing Iran's history perhaps you could clarify something for ME please?	U4ikLefty	Feb 2012	#83
Yes. Your turn unless of course you are one of the ones who	cstanleytech	Feb 2012	#90
They had to get rid of the CIA's base of operations, somehow. n/t	ronnie624	Feb 2012	#94
Just like noone was threatening Iraq untill they started to persue WMD?	quakerboy	Feb 2012	#85
Do you have any facts to backup that opinion of yours by any chance?	cstanleytech	Feb 2012	#91
Other than observing the attitudes of our political leaders, no	quakerboy	Feb 2012	#97
The north korea one is why we wont invade Iran to.	cstanleytech	Feb 2012	#108
O I L	WordsCanBeTraps	Feb 2012	#102
And the links proving a potential invasion based on stealing the oil is where?	cstanleytech	Feb 2012	#109
Why don't you learn some history	WordsCanBeTraps	Feb 2012	#101
The Iran - Iraq war ended in 1988 which was 24 years ago more or less.	cstanleytech	Feb 2012	#115
looking at it from the Arab point of view. It's quite important to have nukes. If Iraq had had	Katashi_itto	Feb 2012	#64
Except then Bush might well have been able to push through a glass them	cstanleytech	Feb 2012	#116
The assumption is that the Iranian military is a rational actor.	leveymg	Feb 2012	#56
It makes perfect sense for Iran to renounce its program	oberliner	Feb 2012	#62
You honestly believe that? If it was't a uke program we would be going after Iran for something	Katashi_itto	Feb 2012	#65
The nuke program makes things worse not better	oberliner	Feb 2012	#68
aside from the fact that Iran has every right to nuclear power despite the complaints from some n/t	Bodhi BloodWave	Feb 2012	#69
Absolutely	oberliner	Feb 2012	#73
A smart military move for the USA as well. In the long run.	WHEN CRABS ROAR	Feb 2012	#59
Sigh. I am afraid to read posts like this. Have we not had enough war?	Paper Roses	Feb 2012	#2
+1000 +++ n/t	RKP5637	Feb 2012	#3
Had enough war? NEVER! Peace is not profitable... at least for US war profiteers.	Raster	Feb 2012	#17
I couldn't have put it better myself.War is for uncivilized, uncaring, unfeeling and usually greedy	judesedit	Feb 2012	#18
It has always been this way (since History is known).	Amonester	Feb 2012	#20
I'm with you entirely on this!	LongTomH	Feb 2012	#23
I am with you as well.	WHEN CRABS ROAR	Feb 2012	#60
I hear you Paper Roses	Skittles	Feb 2012	#100
Before I clicked on the thread I asked myself "is this an AP article?"	Jazzgirl	Feb 2012	#4
here is another source	maddezmom	Feb 2012	#5
Why does that matter	DUIC	Feb 2012	#8
This message was self-deleted by its author	Tesha	Feb 2012	#6
Attacking countries is not sensible	oberliner	Feb 2012	#12
This message was self-deleted by its author	Tesha	Feb 2012	#28
No it isn't - in fact, it's lunacy	oberliner	Feb 2012	#34
The idea of Muslims shooting back really offends you, doesn't it?	Scootaloo	Feb 2012	#42
What the heck?	oberliner	Feb 2012	#44
This post was hidden by jury decision.	Scootaloo	Feb 2012	#49
There is not one post I have ever made that suggests anything like you are describing	oberliner	Feb 2012	#54
Wow	MrBig	Feb 2012	#55
what is lunacy is sitting back and doing nothing.	bowens43	Feb 2012	#71
The best defense would be to not puruse nuclear weapons	oberliner	Feb 2012	#74
Then when US, Israel, Pakistan, India and others give up their nukes	WillYourVoteBCounted	Feb 2012	#76
Nuclear non-proliferation is a noble cause	oberliner	Feb 2012	#77
Then what is your position on Israel possessing nukes & not signing the NNPT?	U4ikLefty	Feb 2012	#84
This message was self-deleted by its author	Tesha	Feb 2012	#79
I doubt it	oberliner	Feb 2012	#80
striking back when attacked is very sensible.	bowens43	Feb 2012	#67
No it isn't - it's lunacy	oberliner	Feb 2012	#70
I agree	and-justice-for-all	Feb 2012	#81
The war drums are sounding	Gringostan	Feb 2012	#7
That's kind of a non statement statement.	bluedigger	Feb 2012	#9
The statement warns not only about retaliation against attackers, but also use of territory for it..	LooseWilly	Feb 2012	#58
Well, of course. Wouldn't any country? An attack would be an act of war. nt	Poll_Blind	Feb 2012	#10
Of course?	oberliner	Feb 2012	#13
Most people on DU are pacifists? Really?	Crunchy Frog	Feb 2012	#24
Anti-war generally	oberliner	Feb 2012	#36
Preemtive attacks are one thing. Retaliation against attackers is another.	Scootaloo	Feb 2012	#50
Can't one oppose both?	oberliner	Feb 2012	#63
I suppose one could, and some certainly do.	Crunchy Frog	Feb 2012	#89
This message was self-deleted by its author	Tesha	Feb 2012	#29
There are very, very few true pacifists on Earth. So why are you surprised? nt	Poll_Blind	Feb 2012	#30
Lots of anti-war protestors here on DU and in the progressive community generally	oberliner	Feb 2012	#37
I'm not cheering on any attacks against any country but I don't find this statement	maddezmom	Feb 2012	#38
Yes I agree	oberliner	Feb 2012	#48
When it comes to actual attacks happening	quakerboy	Feb 2012	#86
They were all killed	throneoflunacy	Feb 2012	#32
You only want selective pacifism, Oberliner	Scootaloo	Feb 2012	#43
What the heck are you talking about?	oberliner	Feb 2012	#45
Do you really?	Scootaloo	Feb 2012	#51
Iraq and Afghanistant weren't able to defend against US attacks	WillYourVoteBCounted	Feb 2012	#78
Fuck Iran. Everyone should just ignore it.	slackmaster	Feb 2012	#14
Their propaganda machine is worse than N. Korea or Iraq	bathroommonkey76	Feb 2012	#26
Is anyone using their brain?	WordsCanBeTraps	Feb 2012	#103
Ignore the fact that Israel has been threating to attack Iran?	bowens43	Feb 2012	#72
You honestly believe that the Iranians are "good"?	bathroommonkey76	Feb 2012	#88
Their nuclear program is weeks away from extinction.	alphafemale	Feb 2012	#95
Question- What happens when you drop a bomb on tons of enriched uranium?	WordsCanBeTraps	Feb 2012	#104
TONS of enriched Uranium	alphafemale	Feb 2012	#107
You get a big fucking toxic, radioactive mess.	slackmaster	Feb 2012	#111
They made their bed. Now they can shit in it, if you'll pardon the mixed metaphors.	slackmaster	Feb 2012	#110
Iran has multiple sites protected by North Korean style deep earth bunkers - it is highly unlikely	Douglas Carpenter	Feb 2012	#117
It's the Iranian version of the Bush doctrine. n/t	Gore1FL	Feb 2012	#16
Really? I thought that the Bush doctrine was to strike a country	Crunchy Frog	Feb 2012	#25
Make no distinction between terrorists and the nations that harbor them--and hold both to account.	Gore1FL	Feb 2012	#31
Since when are military strikes the exact same as terrorism?	Humanist_Activist	Feb 2012	#39
I am not arguing on behalf of Iran.	Gore1FL	Feb 2012	#93
Well, except for one crucial difference	Scootaloo	Feb 2012	#47
My point is that to the Iranian point of view an attack is an attack	Gore1FL	Feb 2012	#92
Guns of August in February.	gordianot	Feb 2012	#19
Whatever the Ayatollah	throneoflunacy	Feb 2012	#33
No they are most likely to consider the oft rumored air strike	Warren Stupidity	Feb 2012	#61
I see it as winds of war.	amandabeech	Feb 2012	#112
I agree.	gordianot	Feb 2012	#113
There is a post in the I/P forum from a couple of days ago linking to a Haaretz story	amandabeech	Feb 2012	#119
Iran is an up and running North Korea--The Mouse that Roared..	solarman350	Feb 2012	#27
OMG! Tehran is just a two-day drive from Harlingen, Texas!! n/t	RufusTFirefly	Feb 2012	#41
I've made it in a day and a half n/t	MrBig	Feb 2012	#57
As they should.	bowens43	Feb 2012	#66
That'd be rubble.	alphafemale	Feb 2012	#96
If you want peace, work for justice. If you want justice, prepare for war.	saras	Feb 2012	#87
Hit with what?	alphafemale	Feb 2012	#98
oh you are so funny alpha	WordsCanBeTraps	Feb 2012	#105
Nope precision strike to that nuke plant.	alphafemale	Feb 2012	#106
Outside of possible fallout(that can drift to other countries) that will lead to thousands...	Humanist_Activist	Feb 2012	#120
It's not that hard to figure out...	Tripod	Feb 2012	#99
Iranian's may say that but...	EX500rider	Feb 2012	#114
they can't win the war but they can cause a lot of damage and they will	Douglas Carpenter	Feb 2012	#118

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.