Comments on: Iran military chief insists it will retain the goal of destroying Israel

By: PeterF

PeterF — Fri, 03 Apr 2015 21:38:59 +0000

In reply to David M. Cook. Too bad your not the Commander in Chief. Until the current one is gone, I guess we're relegated to stamping our feet.

By: Cotour

Cotour — Tue, 31 Mar 2015 22:56:46 +0000

In reply to David M. Cook. Your point is well taken, total destruction should be a universal understood concept. To be honest with you and I am sure you will agree with me I have absolutely no confidence that Obama would counter and attack of that nature. The man with the codes to launch IMO would be happy to not do so. And that makes the world a very dangerous place to be these days.

By: David M. Cook

David M. Cook — Tue, 31 Mar 2015 21:56:19 +0000

Perhaps the US should adopt a policy of the complete destruction of the nation of Iran if their military launches any type of attack on either the US or Israel. I would send their entire population the message that we will use as many H-bombs as it takes to wipe any and all Iranian cities off the map if they dare to use nukes for genocide against Jews or any Western nation. The threat of complete annihilation may prompt changes to the Iranian government. If not, nuke ’em till they glow! We did it to Japan to prevent the use of suicide attacks and we should make it clear we are ready to drop another batch of bombs if they give us a reason. The only thing a bully respects is power directed at him!

By: D.K. Williams

D.K. Williams — Tue, 31 Mar 2015 21:40:48 +0000

So, the deadline was extended to April Fool’s Day. No further comment needed.

By: Frank

Frank — Tue, 31 Mar 2015 20:09:31 +0000

Every day that passes Iran becomes stronger by our enabling. We had a opportunity to support the “greens” when the cost to us was low, but we turned our backs on those who sought freedom from this oppressive regime.

By: Cotour

Cotour — Tue, 31 Mar 2015 19:32:36 +0000

In reply to PeterF.

I totally agree, this Indiana law is a strategic political attempt to garner conservative votes. But only if it is well thought out and when the heat comes you stick to your guns and power through it.

In his interview with Stephanopolis he had the opportunity to deflect the spot light directly onto Stephanopolis himself and his patron Clinton but allowed the “journalist” (read political operative) to dominate him. Now Pence is backing up and proposing that a clarification be produced. Weak, weak, weak. What is it the Arabs say, “the people follow the strong horse”. Republicans are following Jackasses.

The republicans I suppose thought that because Clinton and Obama signed or supported similar laws they were safe to again bring it to the front of their agenda. Two things that republicans / conservatives should either avoid or not talk publicly about until they become empowered 1. Gay marriage and 2. anything having to do with reproduction.

What is going on right now in the American media? Talking points are being crafted and imagery is being painted, all to be accessed at will by the media, mostly to the detriment of the Republicans and Conservative minded. This must change!

By: PeterF

PeterF — Tue, 31 Mar 2015 18:37:47 +0000

In reply to Robert Zimmerman. Thence the reason I follow your blog. Thank you

By: Robert Zimmerman

Robert Zimmerman — Tue, 31 Mar 2015 18:26:42 +0000

In reply to PeterF. You will notice that I have not posted anything here about the Indiana religious freedom law. I prefer to stay focused on the real news.

By: PeterF

PeterF — Tue, 31 Mar 2015 18:16:13 +0000

I would just like to point out that “all the oxygen has been sucked from the room” in the national debate about this subject by the “Earth shattering” Indiana religious freedom law. I feel that the controversy over the law has been held in abeyance until it could be used to mask real news; like the incredibly ignorant nuclear arms deal with Iran. As an aside, the left is saying that Mike Pence is unsuitable for the presidency because he signed the law… I say he’s unsuitable because after 17 months of debating the law, as soon as he feels criticism from the left he backs down. (we don’t need another spineless twit for a candidate!)
My apologies for the non-sequiter comments.
On the subject of Iranian nuclear weapons;
I feel that we should hit them sooner rather than later – with anything that will destroy their capabilities.
considering the popularity of the green revolution that may only require targeting the leadership with small arms…

By: Cotour

Cotour — Tue, 31 Mar 2015 17:38:33 +0000

Well that settles it, now America, under this administration anyway, must ensure that Iran gets nuclear weapons.

You can make an argument that Obama is strategically forcing the Arabs to come together and form a diverse military force in order to 1. relieve Americans from the danger and cost and (although real American involvement and force is how things actually get done) 2. defeat these radical zealots who would destroy the entire world in order to fulfill their twisted religious beliefs (so much for attempting to define the limits of an individuals rights to religion)

But even if you could make that argument the overt drive to allow the Iranians to arm themselves with nukes by this administration does not follow reasonable logic related to American security and world stability, not mention the people who would pay directly with their own blood, the Israelis.

When do we use the word “treason” related to these activities? 21 months to go.