Comments on: Iran sanctions and wishful thinking

By: M Deacon

M Deacon — Mon, 18 May 2009 07:55:48 +0000

Any proposals of sanctions against Iran and the issue would immediately become religious not politicial. The implication then spreads to all countries around the world with a substantial muslim population.

Politicians around the world would have to wake up to the religious ideaology and have to decide on where they stand, normally they prefer not too and remain silent.

I am surprised the media even raises this issue as like a politician it remains conveniently silent.

By: Edward M. Blake

Edward M. Blake — Fri, 15 May 2009 12:12:18 +0000

May 15th, 2009 4:22 am GMT – Posted by Raad

Edward M Blake …methinks you are protesting too much: are you wriggling at the end of a skewer?

That’s the best you can do? Ask I suspected, nothing but the same sad nonsense. I understand you’ve got nothing to say but America is the Great Satan, so I won’t hold it against you. I wonder if all these folks who fall for the Iranian line will come out and say they were wrong when they detonate their first test bomb, I doubt it, most likely just say they needed it to protect themselves for the big bad Americans or to balance the Israeli arsenal. No answer to that religious issue either I see, tough to argue that one rationally huh?

By: Peter H

Peter H — Fri, 15 May 2009 10:37:48 +0000

The Lord is my shepherd I shall not want.
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemes; thou annointest my headwith oil; my cup runneth over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life. and I will dwell in the house of The Lord forever.
Amen.

By: Raad

Raad — Fri, 15 May 2009 09:22:58 +0000

Edward M Blake …methinks you are protesting too much: are you wriggling at the end of a skewer?

By: Anon.

Anon. — Fri, 15 May 2009 08:01:23 +0000

You want the truth, Mr Ham?

Obama has three main differences to Bush.

1. His speech gaffes are not widely publicised.
2. He says ‘hope’ a lot. Or at least he did.
3. His administration is based on the swirling hate held for the previous administration.

Obama still supports the missile shield in Europe. He still understands the need to win in Afganistan and Iraq. He understands the need to maintain American interests as the main superpower in the world. He is still ready to support Israel, even when it needs to take hard (and possibly harsh) action.

And he will not allow Iran to get a nuclear bomb.

Obama is only biding his time. He wants to get to the end of his first term without war, and possibly pull out of Iraq first.

But when push comes to shove, you better believe that Obama will be ready for war. Iran refuses to negotiate at it’s peril.

I do not live in America. You could consider me to be a very right-wing person in my political views. And I believe that Obama used his speaking skills to manipulate public opinion.

But that aside, I am confident that Obama will do what needs to be done. His supporters might not be happy with the result, though.

By: Frank Castle

Frank Castle — Fri, 15 May 2009 00:47:15 +0000

Hey wait a minute, Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, and if you don’t believe that they’ll cut off your head or stone you for disagreeing.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 14 May 2009 23:08:23 +0000

REMIND!!! He IS a Muslim. Why do you DENY!

Not only that he is DANGEROUS for FREEDOM!

By: Edward M. Blake

Edward M. Blake — Thu, 14 May 2009 22:35:37 +0000

Where did I indicate violence was the solution? Another supossedly well informed poster who doesn’t even read my post. Sort of makes it clear that your information isn’t very well researched. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised but I still am when people trust a theocracy’s word for anything. The very basis of their government and religion is utterly irrational. I have never said Iran doesn’t have the right to a nuclear weapon either, although I certainly don’t think it’s a good idea. All I ever do is try to bring some balance to the constant America and Israel bashing that goes on whenever this subject is broached. I just want some honesty, I mean other than gullible people, everyone knows that the Iranians are seeking nuclear weapons. By your logic show me an Israeli nuclear weapon or you are crying wolf. I know the Israeli’s have nukes as solidly as I know Iran seeks nuclear arms.
You can try to demonize into something I’m not and if that makes you feel better than good for you. I simply don’t accept the conventional wisdom that America and Israel are always nefarious. I know that must mess with your whole sad world view, but too bad. All you haters can gather and back slap each other about how evil America and Israel are, but how does that advance any real issues other than blind hatred. I don’t hate the Iranians, I don’t think they are evil and out to wreak havoc, I do think they are a repressive fanatical illogical regime that seeks nuclear arms to protect themselves from regime change and seeks to expand their power in the region. Much like America and Israel, I just don’t let blind hatred and ideology warp my vision. Read what I actually posted, not what you want to attribute to me to weaken my real points.
You believe what you like and you get your news from your “trustworthy” sources that have no bias, LOL.. I will get use my own intellect to judge based on a broad reading rather than rely on the ideologues you let twist your opinions.
I know people don’t like to admit that they are only getting one side of the story, but you are. You choose who to believe, I’ll actually get multiple sources, because it’s always good to have perspective, unless you don’t want to ever have to think for yourself.

By: Raad

Raad — Thu, 14 May 2009 21:42:52 +0000

Edward M Blake @13th May …. several things would explain why you do not understand the Iranian angst and why they are so far apart from your view point: (1) there is a very robust economic rational for developing nuclear energy in Iran that never gets a hearing in the West (2) Iran has been threatened by Israeli nuclear subs from the Gulf of Oman since 2000, so if they react to Israel, there is a pretty sound reason for that, (3) Iranians are dealing with their internal issues, but of course what you get on Western media is a vision of a country and leadership obsessed with annihilation of the other…why this deliberate distortion? (4) it is a delicious irony that you call Iranian leadership fanatic – irrational because they are religious and have a faith-based approach to the world; well you have exactly the same factless, faith-based approach towards Iranian nuclear issue and intentions and advocate violence on the back of it. It is a shame you have not learnt the lesson of stumbling into Iraq quagmire and > 100k dead, not to rely on just gut-feeling. The day you can show me an Iranian nuclear weapons program, I will believe you, until then you are crying wolf. And that tells more about you, than it says anything about the Iranian’s intention.

By: Michael Ham

Michael Ham — Thu, 14 May 2009 19:24:13 +0000

Anonymous i know why 99% of Republicans say BHO, it’s to emphasize their point of view that he’s muslim and scary and they want everyone to be reminded of his middle name. That’s unnecessary, just remind everyone of all his policies and his budget, that’s plenty scary enough. If you’re part of the 1% who actually says it just in reference to him than my apologies.