digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Just In: Iran Considering Suspending Nuclear Program

miamiherald.com — UNITED NATIONS --Story developing Iran's senior diplomat said Tuesday that Tehran was seriously considering a new offer from six world powers to resolve the dispute over its nuclear program, and he praised the package as `constructive.'' The unusually positive remarks by Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki to a small group of reporters raised hope.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • mecanofan, on 07/02/2008, -21/+49This is great! One least reason for Bush to go and bomb their country. We'll see if the White House continues to instigate.
    • elamr, on 07/03/2008, -17/+18Reminds me of when Suddam started backing down in 2003... but it was too late. The Bush admin continued to accuse them of having WMD's. The U.N. sent in inspectors and confirmed what the Bath party was saying. None of that matter to the Bush Admin.
      • jull1234, on 07/03/2008, -12/+12oh come on, Saddam was playing a ***** dumbass game acting like he had the weapons, but saying he didn't.
      • AchaIemoipas, on 07/03/2008, -7/+8How do you act like you have weapons by saying you don't exactly?
      • stizz, on 07/03/2008, -2/+8He had to pretend like he had the weapons. His imaginary WMD's were all that was keeping Iran at bay. I don't condone Saddam, but his actions were predictable to say the least.
      • AchaIemoipas, on 07/03/2008, -3/+11"He had to pretend like he had the weapons."

        What are you people insane? This happened 5 years ago, not decades ago. How ***** short are your memories? I feel like I'm in a zombie movie ffs.

        Nobody, aside from the US, pretended that Iraq had WMDs.
        The UN said Iraq didn't have WMDs, everybody was asking for any type of conclusive evidence, which the US was never able to produce and the evidence they did have was found to be entirely fabricated.

        You people are ***** insane.
      • bdiggitty, on 07/03/2008, -5/+4Actually Achalemoipas, Saddam continuously kicked out UN inspectors, and appeared suspiciously to the world. Sure Bush's intelligence was wrong, and the war is a terrible mistake, but Saddam did act like he was guilty. In hindsight, people have speculated that he did this because of the threat of Iran, and the threat that his people would overthrow him. This was something that Saddam was terrified of, so he kept up the facade. Sorry. I think your memories are a bit shorter than those that you criticize.
      • AchaIemoipas, on 07/03/2008, -2/+9"Saddam continuously kicked out UN inspectors"

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvDe7Z-ykDo
        http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1123
        http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2006/03/31/bu ...

        You are a trained sheep.
      • ianam, on 07/03/2008, -0/+12"Saddam continuously kicked out UN inspectors"

        It's amazing that there are morons who still believe the Bush lies. The inspectors were never kicked out, they were withdrawn prior to the impending invasion -- this is simply a historical fact. And it's because of the inspectors that there were no WMDs -- the inspectors had found the remaining hidden caches and forced the Iraqis to dismantle them years earlier. No, Iraq was invaded because the neocons wanted to invade it, and nothing Saddam did was going to stop them.
      • ianam, on 07/03/2008, -0/+7"How do you act like you have weapons by saying you don't exactly?"

        This is a crackpot idea invented by right wingers after no WMDs were found, to try to explain why Bush had claimed there were some. But the truth was simpler -- Bush lied. Just ask Colin Powell, who knew damn well that his UN speech was fraudulent.
      • vinod1978, on 07/03/2008, -2/+4@ianam & AchaIemoipas - Actually, Saddam pretended he had weapons because of what stizz & bdiggitty said - they are accurate. The UN officials said there were no trace of WMDs from any of the places they searched, nor was there any documents or any other evidence to support the claims from the White House. Saddam did NOT expect the Americans to come in like they did. If anything he expected a short military action, and expected that he would be able to continue doing what he was doing for years. In fact the US made it difficult for Saddam to do anything else then he did. Remember he was keeping 3 different sects from fighting (like they are now) while trying to stop Iranian involvement. If he bowed down to any demands he would have all 3 sects try to over throw the government.

        This information wasn't just some right wing theory - if it was I wouldn't believe it. It was reported by the NY Times, the Telegraph (UK), the BBC, and even George Piro, the FBI interrogator when Saddam was captured said that he would not admit that he didn't have weapons. He still kept up his lie to the end. These are all facts that are easily checked through multiple international news organizations. Even though I'm a liberal I can differentiate what is a right wing lie and the truth.
      • AchaIemoipas, on 07/03/2008, -2/+4"Even though I'm a liberal I can differentiate what is a right wing lie and the truth."
        "It was reported by the NY Times, the Telegraph (UK), the BBC, and even George Piro"

        You completely discredited yourself. You name the MSM and an FBI agent on 60 minutes as a source of reliable information. The same damn place that pushed the WMD story and that always sides with Israel.

        "If he bowed down to any demands he would have all 3 sects try to over throw the government."

        The UN destroyed his missiles. See the video that was already posted.

        It's incredible how you are misinformed.
    • AchaIemoipas, on 07/03/2008, -15/+27Saddam offered to surrender, after the US refused his offer of full cooperation to investigate the so called WMD sites. He did everything he could to avoid the war.

      It wasn't really about WMD, just like Iran isn't really about their nuclear program.

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/nov/07/iraq.b ...
      • noahhoward, on 07/03/2008, -8/+1Saddam offered to surrender WITH CONDITIONS. There is a big difference.
      • AchaIemoipas, on 07/03/2008, -1/+11Yeah big difference.

        It would've cost you a few millions instead of many trillions, a million human lives, the loss of your integrity , your credibility and the hatred of the entire planet.
      • vinod1978, on 07/03/2008, -0/+5@noahhoward - No ***** - a conditional surrender is common when you try to avoid a war, or engaging in a seize fire - that wasn't the problem. The Administration wanted to find a reason to attack Iraq and they misrepresented the truth to the American public in order to do so. Maybe that is why KBR was in Iraq setting up installations SIX months before the resolution to use military action even passed. Bush put us in a box where either Saddam would have had Iran & all 3 sects trying to over throw his government if he completely surrendered and was viewed if he lost power, OR the US would have lost credibility if we gave up with his demands. This is not a crazy conspiracy - this is the reason why we had articles of impeachment announced.
    • captainslack, on 07/03/2008, -13/+14If this happens, I'd expect the standard response from the Bush Administration: "Iran's suspension of its nuclear program is further reason to remain vigilant in ensuring that Iran does not develop the technology to produce a nuclear weapon."

      Honestly, I don't know who the Press Secretary's head doesn't explode from having to say stuff like that!
      • vinod1978, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Because I'm sure they are being fed the same ***** that Fox News spits out to the rest of the right wing clan.
    • noahhoward, on 07/03/2008, -11/+19By Instigate do you mean 'persue diplomatic solution'? Because that's all that's been going on lately. The US and UN have been laying sanctions against Iran and warning them to open up or halt the program.
      • AchaIemoipas, on 07/03/2008, -13/+11Laying sanctions on a sovereign state isn't diplomacy.

        It's an act of war. Diplomacy means to negotiate, not to threaten and undermine.

        You guys did that to Iraq before invading it illegally too.
      • Tenbatsu404, on 07/03/2008, -5/+12Do you seriously think there isn't a proxy war already in progress?
      • antipoet, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4I've heard some saber rattling too. Though, perhaps you have to sometimes rattle it a little, just to grease the diplomatic cogs. Some people are just nervous that, as it was with Iraq, it's the diplomacy that's for show and the rumblings of war are what's real.
      • noahhoward, on 07/03/2008, -1/+5"Though, perhaps you have to sometimes rattle it a little, just to grease the diplomatic cogs."

        Correct, ultimatums aren't worth much if you can't answer the "Or else what?".
      • vinod1978, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2@AchaIemoipas - Sanctions are definitely a form of diplomacy, however it should not be the 1st act. First comes negotiations, second some sanctions, and 3rd is military action. The problem is that this Administration uses a cowboy mentality towards our enemies, instead of trying to see if there is a way we can solve them without causing harm to its people, however you can not sate that sanctions are not part of the diplomatic process. They are - but simple communication should also happen first.
    • JKAL, on 07/03/2008, -13/+12I'm sure if Bush and Co. want a war they will get it one way or another.
      Even if Iran Stop their Nuclear program, Bush will up the ante and come up with another set of ridiculous terms that need to be met by Iran or else.
      Hopefully I am wrong.
      • GassyTurd, on 07/03/2008, -10/+4Or some other "terrorist attack" will take place.
      • noahhoward, on 07/03/2008, -2/+4Yeah because that's what he's doing with Korea... oh wait. No it's not. North Korea just declared all aspects of their nuke program and Bush immediately removed them from the 'black list' and released some sanctions against them.

        They do not want a war and they never did.
      • vinod1978, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3Even McCllen stated that the Bush Administration wanted a reason to attack Iraq. Just ask yourself why we were preparing for war, by allowing KBR to build infrastructures 6 months in Iraq before the resolution to use military force against Iraq even passed. The Administration wanted to go in for many reasons, and they put Iraq and the US in a position where that was the only choice that was left.

        @noahhoward - And why is Bush not doing the same with North Korea? Maybe because they will be a good customer. In 2007 Bush authorized $25 million of oil shipped from the US. But of course that is not the only reason. Maybe it's because North Korea has one of the largest armies with ballistic missiles pointed at both South Korea and Japan, and any attack on North Korea would definately start a World War. With Iran the chance of starting a world war is not as big - however I don't want to take that chance and neither does any sane individual.
    • flink405, on 07/03/2008, -11/+16More time stalling tactics by the Iranians.
      For nearly 4 years the Europeans have been negotiating with Iran in regards to its nuclear plans.
      Iran stalled and stalled and stalled all under the guise of problems in negotiations, all the time building up its nuclear weapons program.

      Soon Iran will have missiles and nuclear weapons able to reach the middle of Europe.
      And Israel. Europe, the U.S. and other countries in the Middle East do not want tyrannical and terror-supporting Iran to have nuclear weapons.
      ---------------------
      And to all you whiners about Bush. Did he go to war with North Korea over their nuclear programs? No. He negotiated with 5 other countries and North Korea has given up its nuclear program.
      • AchaIemoipas, on 07/03/2008, -10/+8North Korea didn't give up its nuclear program. They test a kiloton nuclear bomb undergroud just two years ago. They have about 20 nuclear war heads now (Taepodong-1 and 2).

        Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program.
      • antipoet, on 07/03/2008, -6/+8I hadn't heard that there was any conclusive evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran.
      • AchaIemoipas, on 07/03/2008, -10/+10@antipoet

        That's because there isn't.
        http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/inde ...

        This is so weird. It's like déjà-vu from before Iraq. It's the same lie. Only difference is the name of the country. They're all believing this *****.

        Then in two years they'll blame the government for lying to them. Same government that already lied to them.

        "Fool me twice, and I'll vote for you"
      • noahhoward, on 07/03/2008, -0/+10"North Korea didn't give up its nuclear program."
        http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/news/stories/2008 ...

        North Korea has declared its nuclear assets and has began to dismantle their program.

        "I hadn't heard that there was any conclusive evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran."

        The issue is not whether they have anuclear weapons program it is the fact that they are not complying with inspections they are required to have in order to run a civilian program.
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/03/2008, -9/+5What allies? Israel does nothing but steal our tech and get us in hot water, and Saudi Arabia likes us like a drug dealer likes a junkie -- remember the oil cartel?

        I'm sort of glad that all the paid bloggers showed up on this thread today -- so I know who they are.
      • AchaIemoipas, on 07/03/2008, -6/+3"North Korea has declared its nuclear assets and has began to dismantle their program."

        Why did you post the link if you were going to lie about it?

        They just agreed to be monitored in exchange for money and food.
      • Draakan, on 07/03/2008, -6/+5North Korea does not have oil to steal so of course there was no war.
      • bdiggitty, on 07/03/2008, -3/+11@Achalemoipas

        I think your hatred for America is clouding any logical judgment. For one, most diggers aren't advocating war on Iran. I certainly am not. There is no question that they are enriching Uranium for what they say is their unalienable right to for energy. That is what we all KNOW. That is what all sides agree is the case. There is no evidence of nuclear weapons. But the world is in agreement that Iran is not the type of country who should have nuclear weapons as most of Europe and most certainly Israel would be under direct threat of being attacked. Primarily Iran is an Islamic theocracy, with Ahmadinejad as a figurehead. Therefore, something must happen in order to diplomatically resolve the situation. This is without question. I'm not sure if I understand the alternative. Are you suggesting that there is no threat, and therefore the world should not be involved in Iran period?
      • AchaIemoipas, on 07/03/2008, -0/+5"Therefore, something must happen in order to diplomatically resolve the situation."
        "Are you suggesting that there is no threat, and therefore the world should not be involved in Iran period?"
        "There is no evidence of nuclear weapons."

        You answered your own question.

        The only thing you are resolving is keeping a sovereign country from exploiting a source of energy by threatening it.

        "I think your hatred for America is clouding any logical judgment."
        Funny how you criticize my logical judgement with a logical fallacy.

        Threat: declaration of an intention or a determination to inflict harm on another.
      • vinod1978, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2@flink405 - He didn't go to war with North Korea because a) we have no more troops, and b) as I said in a reply to another comment - there are hundreds of missiles pointed directly at South Korea and Japan from North Korea. The immediate effects of an invasion would 100% lead to a world war, and c) not to mention that Bush actually authorized $25 million in oil to be sent to North Korea from the US as a show of good faith - customers are good. Iran is a threat because they can easily interfere with oil fields in Iraq, Kuwait amongst others. They are more of a threat to Israel then to the US, or Europe. Even crazy prime ministers know who they can attack, and trust me I'm sure he would like to, but even he is not that insane.
      • vinod1978, on 07/03/2008, -2/+1@AchaIemoipas - Do not believe his speeches where he states that Israel should not exist are not threats? Iran sponsors terrorist groups like Hezbollah that commit acts of violence on Israel continually. The fact that the same nation that supports terrorist may produce nuclear weapons is enough a threat for the international community to try to stop Iran by diplomatically resolving the situation. I believe that attack Iran would have unimaginable consequences not just for the region, but for the entire world, both in terms of security and economically - so attacking Iran is something I don't want to see. However, something must be done. I believe offering aid in the form of food, money, technology and trade is the way.

        Remember that Hitler was able to get so much popularity to hate Jews because the economy was so poor. That is actually what is happening in Iran right now. When they are successful economically that would reduce the amount of people that wish both Israel & the United States harm. People don't try to kill other people when they are happy, but when their lives suck they need to hold somebody accountable. I'm surprised more people don't come to this conclusion.
      • AchaIemoipas, on 07/03/2008, -3/+2I don't think Israel should exist either. That's in no way a threat to Israel. And I don't give a flying ***** about Israel. It's not a real American ally (they won't even help with Iraq) and they deserve everything that happens to them. I commend you for at least not repeating the lie that he said it should be wiped off the map.

        And the US sponsors despotic governments, like the Baath party, the Taliban, Israel and others. Iran hasn't attacked a country in over 20 years. The US kills people in sovereign countries every year. It's the only country to have used nuclear weapons against civilians. It's responsible for at least a million deaths in the new millenium. More than any other country on earth, congrats.

        You all like to think that you're the good guys, but remember, to the other 6,4 billion people on earth, YOU ARE THE BAD GUYS, not Iran, Iraq and certainly not the poor people of Palestine.

        And Iranians ask nothing of you. They don't have demands, they don't have objectives, they never fought with Israel even once.

        YOU HAVE DEMANDS, you threaten, you impose sanctions, you are the violent ones, yet again.

        "People don't try to kill other people when they are happy"
        Happy like Nazi Germany?

        You have no evidence of any weapons whatsoever, Iran never threatened you or your "ally". It's a new Iraq.

        And I'm sure you'll invade it just the same and spread more misery and hatred. It's what you do.
      • bdiggitty, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1@Achalemoipas
        Well I wish you had said this from the beginning. We wasted our time talking to someone with such warped rhetoric. With such extreme points of view you have to realize that you are part of the problem. Talk about logical fallacy, when everything that you advocate towards Israel in terms of everything they "deserve" when in the same breath you want "compassion" for the 6,4 billion people on earth. Its actually pretty funny. I guess everyone wants an opinion. Apparently they don't always make sense.
    • Duositex, on 07/03/2008, -10/+7You realize you just used "reason" and "Bush" in the same sentence right?
    • jabberwolf, on 07/03/2008, -5/+8WOW
      You mean that threatening ACTUAL action against IRAN, the Iranian public disapproving of their government and not wanting war....
      This actually WORKS?!!

      OMFG and leftists thought throwing flowers and saying PRETTY PLEASE would do the job!
      • AchaIemoipas, on 07/03/2008, -6/+3You haven't read the article.

        It's not a threat, it's a package deal with incentives.

        Oops. Turns out the leftists were right.
      • jabberwolf, on 07/03/2008, -3/+1AchaIemoipas
        Those little things in the gulf called aircraft carriers do have alot to do with the "incentive" package that's been on the table for 2 ***** YEARS now!!!
        Or did YOU not read the article?

        Oops. Leftists still remain retarded (take no blame and take all credit), thank you for the evidence of that!
    • Naieve, on 07/03/2008, -2/+2This from a nation that said the Holocaust didn't happen.

      I'd prefer to hear them say they are recognizing Israel's right to exist and actively going to clamp down on their terrorist proxies and attempt a peace accord.

      /cue the anti-semetic rants
      • AchaIemoipas, on 07/03/2008, -4/+4"/cue the anti-semetic rants"

        Anti-Israel rants you mean. Being opposed to a theocratic racist state that pretends to be the "homeland" of jews, doesn't make one anti-semitic. Only moral.
      • jabberwolf, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1AchaIemoipas

        He means, acknowledging Israel's right to exist as the UN of 150 other nations have.
        The few nations that have been attacking it along with the PLO have FINALLY acknowledged it's right to exist.
        So this "homeland" or WHATEVER excuse you want to make, still does not give you or others the right to try and destroy it. And those that have tried, have given nothing but grief, loss of life, loss of land, loss of everything in trying.

        But instead of having responsibility of knowing that attacking consistently and admitting that hate has given them nothing, they will blame everything on Israel. Lesson to learn, those that have decided to stop attacking Israel have prospered quite well when they decide to concentrate on themselves rather then destroy another.

        I guess there is some credence in the phrase "thou shalt not covet".
      • AchaIemoipas, on 07/03/2008, -2/+3You mean the same UN that filed over 200 resolutions against Israel since 1949, all of which have been ignored by Israel?

        Same UN that filed 47 sanctions against Israel for crimes against humanity, all vetoed by the US?

        You mean the same UN that allowed the creation of the ORIGINAL state of Israel that was one fifteenth what it is today?

        Israel has caused the return of fundamentalist Islam, and did more to promote acts of terrorism than anything that preceeds it.

        And they blame what Israel does on Israel.

        "I guess there is some credence in the phrase "thou shalt not covet"."

        Talking about the state that demolishes poor people's homes on another territory right? The ones that bomb civilian areas in other countries? The one that expanded tenfold over 50 years?

        "WHATEVER excuse you want to make, still does not give you or others the right to try and destroy it."

        Good. Iran is recognized by the UN, I guess they can have their nuclear power and you'll STFU about it, right? RIGHT?
      • Naieve, on 07/03/2008, -3/+1I'm telling, you by the time this thread is done someone will blame Israel for the Holocaust.

        It's a historically backed move, blame the Jews.

        Why blame the terrorists? It's all Israel's fault, I mean if they were smart enough to just up and die then no one could scapegoat them.

        As far as I am concerned, if Iran stops supporting terrorists, they can build as many nuclear weapons as they damn well please.
      • AchaIemoipas, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2I'm jewish.
    • BeefBaron, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2Too bad the Iranians will now have to choke to death on increased coal power generation pollution because your idiot government loves to threaten everyone.
  • mark076h, on 07/02/2008, -35/+37i don't believe them
    • didiman, on 07/03/2008, -17/+15typical liberal...what a moron
      • GassyTurd, on 07/03/2008, -13/+9Wow, looks like the neocon stormtroopers got here first. Give this thread time.
      • Duositex, on 07/03/2008, -11/+11Typical liberal? What? It's not the libs that want to attack Iran.
    • Rikety, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Iran is only likely to clim this 'suspension' to keep Israel from taking out hteir nuclear capability. This is exactly what North Korea did years ago, when they continued right on developing them so they could ship out the technology (to Syria, et.al.).

      Believing Iran on this is Ridiculous.
  • yuvi1, on 07/02/2008, -22/+16I will believe it when I see it, looks like just another way to buy time.
  • jazzguitar18, on 07/02/2008, -24/+58I can still see Bush bombing them.
    • Fishn2, on 07/02/2008, -19/+19It's OK, God told him to do it.
      • wonkavsn, on 07/03/2008, -2/+4I recall Vietnam being God's war as well.
        Problem is, if these WERE God's wars, they wouldn't have failed so badly.
    • nikitab, on 07/03/2008, -8/+23Good. Because if you see this, this means Iran might actually follow through for fear of consequences if they do not halt the nuclear program... and so there will be a political solution and US will successfully push Iran towards opening up as a society without bloodshed.
      • RAGEdemon, on 07/03/2008, -10/+5You are a brainwashed idiot.

        Try getting informed by other sources than American MSM.

        ***** Sheeple like you are the reason we are in this god damn mess.
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/03/2008, -8/+3Well, I guess everyone needs a pipe dream.

        >> I had the same deluded concept when BushCo invaded Iraq. That despite the obvious lies, getting them out from under Saddam might make it a Democracy.

        But BushCo trampled Liberty and hope for Iraqis on their way to the oil wells, and privatizing the country for Corporate sponsors.

        NOTHING that comes out of Bush is ever good. The ends don't justify the means because there is no end, and means is all that matters.
      • siali, on 07/03/2008, -0/+6Quite on the contrary, an agreement between Iran and US at this stage can actually mean worse human rights for Iranians. Iranian government is facing two obstacles, outside and inside pressures. If the outside pressure subsides they get more chance to take care of the inside one. For poor Iranians catch-22 is written all over the nuclear standoff.
    • noahhoward, on 07/03/2008, -2/+18Why? He's never said that was his intent. He just finished a tour of europe where his key focus was getting them to agree to sanctions and other diplomatic tools.
    • Zacktopia, on 07/03/2008, -3/+9Sweet Jesus, let it be so.
    • bentman78, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4And you have enough incite into the administration and it's foreign policy to make this conclusion?
    • vinod1978, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Iranians as well as our top leaders know that we don't have the troops, the money, or the public & international support to attack Iran militarily without concrete proof they they are planning an attack. The Administration has lost credibility. Iran is not responding to American pressure, but realizing that America has Israel's back and Israel wants to launch their own "preemptive strike". If they don't give Israel a reason, America or any other ally will not support Israel.
  • crxvfr, on 07/02/2008, -32/+27Remember that guy, .......the Iraq propaganda chief telling everybody they were kicking the butts of the US invasion? ...even as statues of Saddam were falling? This is the same. All they do is lie to buy some time and I can't believe anybody listens to the idiots at all. I don't believe them, at all.
    • Kizilbash, on 07/02/2008, -17/+15Remember the Iraqis not having any nuclear weapons?
    • kojaa, on 07/02/2008, -15/+12how is that the same,
      you should compare this to the "Iraq had all kinds of wmd"
    • bosssmiley, on 07/03/2008, -0/+15Comical Ali - that guy was a laugh*. You could tell he didn't even believe his own press releases by the last few days.

      "We are beating the infidel dogs back to the borders. Dogs shall eat their bellies. Iraq shall be victorious! Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm taking my accumulated holiday right now...all in one lump...with immediate effect...with a bag of Swiss Bank documentation as my carry-on luggage."

      * Serious: no, he wasn't. He was a murdering bastard and high up in Saddam's secret police.
  • Snuff99, on 07/02/2008, -22/+14They should just do it. It would totally take the steam out of the American(Bush Administration)/Israeli drive to war.
  • Conwaysb0718, on 07/02/2008, -14/+10Darn, and here i was, getting all ready for global anarchy...
    • Fishn2, on 07/02/2008, -8/+4What, that's not on now?

      Screw it, I'm still going for it anyway.
  • franklyzappa, on 07/02/2008, -20/+25I refuse to respect Iran until they have nuclear weapons.
    • caferrell, on 07/02/2008, -17/+4You must be with the government then.
    • LimeParrot, on 07/03/2008, -2/+5I think they didn't pick up the sarcasm.
  • ciaran036, on 07/03/2008, -16/+10It would be wise for them to suspend their nuclear energy program until the American people make sure their leaders totally rule out an attack. A few years down the line they should resume their peaceful nuclear program.
  • isparadiselost, on 07/03/2008, -25/+32I wonder if the US and Israel have decided to do the same? Iran has broken no international laws so I am at a loss to see why everyone is getting so worked up about this. Considering the nuclear arsenal of both the US and Israel, Iran knows full well if it were to launch a nuclear strike, it would be decimated within hours of doing so.

    This is a load of ***** meant to scare everyone and drive the price of oil higher. Iran is no more a threat to US sovereignty than was Iraq or Afghanistan. Lay off the Kool-Aid and look at reality.
    • nikitab, on 07/03/2008, -6/+26What people are afraid of is that Iran would make the technology available to groups like Hezbollah. The purpose in doing that would be to try to hurt Western economies (anonymously if possible), which would then significantly temporarily improve the Iranian government's position, which is basically resistance to decentralization and economic and social development.
      • mecharabbit, on 07/03/2008, -14/+6If Hezbollah were to get its hands on nuclear weapons, it would not be hard to guess where they came from. A nuclear strike by Hezbollah would result in the same consequences for Iran (one of Hezbollah's main supporters) that it would suffer if it carried out the attack itself.
      • neko6, on 07/03/2008, -0/+6@mecharabbit - if that was true, Iran would suffer the consequences of the hundreds of attacks Hezbollah performed in the past and the hundreds of Americans, French and Israelis who died in their hands.

        Fact is, nobody attributes these attacks to Iran even though they funded, trained and armed Hezbollah.
    • sn4ke666, on 07/03/2008, -3/+12It's not so much that Iran itself, as in the central elements of the government, would use nukes directly on Jerusalem, DC, or even give the nukes to terrorists. The danger lies in the same problem that occur ed when the Soviet Union fell apart: the government of Iran, for all its autocratic nature, might not be able to always control what goes on within its borders. Things go missing, and with all the fanatics there, you can't be guaranteed that something dangerous won't get into hands of some people who don't understand or care about mutually assured destruction.

      Now, this all does not mean a military incursion to attempt to prevent Iran from developing nukes should be the first option. Nor the second. The urge to use military force immediately in a situation like this comes from two sources: ignorance, and ulterior motives. Now something should be done, of course. It seems as though multilateral, sanction-based diplomacy is having some effect.
      • stizz, on 07/03/2008, -9/+3What about Pakistan? Is it because we have a puppet there? If the Shah was still running things in Iran, would we care if they had Nukes?
      • neko6, on 07/03/2008, -0/+8Pakistan never threatened to destroy another country...
      • wpi97, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4Pakistan having nukes is also very worrisome, especially given its instability, tensions with India, and the fundamentalist sentiment in the country. However, Pakistan, unlike Iran, is not a party to the non-proliferation treaty, which at least makes it legal for it to develop nuclear weapons. It is also not sitting on a huge oil reserve.

        But in the end, it does come down to interests, just like everything else in international politics. You certainly do not want an openly hostile regime to have nuclear weapons, while you may tolerate a friendly regime having them. The big question is how long will the friendly regime stay friendly. And an even bigger question is what are you prepared to do to prevent an unfriendly and dangerous regime from having nukes.
      • spongya77, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Things go missing... The last time I checked Pakistan offered some help on nuclear weapon safety to the US after that fiasco with the B-52...
    • flink405, on 07/03/2008, -7/+14Iran weekly, if not daily threatens, Israel; calling for its total destruction.
      Iran provides weapons and training for the Hezbollah and Hamas terror groups in the Middle East.

      If Iran launched a nuclear strike against Israel it would wipe out the country (including all the Palestinians that Iran is supposedly so concerned about).

      Iran also has visions of Pan-Islamic state from Morocco to Indonesia, where Iran is the center of power. Having nuclear weapons is a simple way to bully countries into being a subservient part of Iran´s dictatorial religious Pan-Islamic empire.

      The current Iran government is not to be trusted.
      • wpi97, on 07/03/2008, -0/+6"Iran weekly, if not daily threatens, Israel; calling for its total destruction."
        No, no, no... It calls for Israel to "vanish from the pages of history"...
      • spongya77, on 07/03/2008, -2/+3ummm... Any proof of that? Cuz, you know, according to people who do read Farsi it's not what they said. At all. So please don't make facts up if the real world does not conform your take on reality.
      • wpi97, on 07/03/2008, -2/+2@spongya77
        http://timesonline.typepad.com/faith/2007/10/1-we- ...
    • wpi97, on 07/03/2008, -0/+5Iran is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Developing nukes would be a violation of this treaty and a violation of the international law. I am not a legal expert by any means, and I do not know whether or not funding, training, and arming terrorists, such as Hezbollah and Hamas is also a violation of the international law, but it should certainly be a cause for concern for the "international community".
  • Fangsinmybeard, on 07/03/2008, -14/+8I think the Bush war machine is sucking some dead air now that Pyongyang is getting dismantled and Iran finding newer cleaner sources of energy. Looks like we're about to have a peaceful coupe from the people of the U.S.
    • nikitab, on 07/03/2008, -10/+14But this is what the Bush administration wants. They would be perfectly happy with Iran and NK changing their policies and opening up. US and Bush want peace, stability, and respect for human rights of civilians.

      I don't understand it. US has been trying to set up a peaceful democracy in Iraq for years now, yet they are still called the war machine. Something is really wrong with this world :
      • cryptomystic, on 07/03/2008, -11/+7"US and Bush want peace, stability, and respect for human rights of civilians"

        You should do stand up comedy.
      • GassyTurd, on 07/03/2008, -7/+0***** moron. How much are they paying you? Nobody is that stupid.
  • x1300, on 07/03/2008, -11/+10Wasn't there a story yesterday of Iran suspending it in 2002?
    • oveedrx, on 07/03/2008, -6/+1i think it was a weapons programme

      but dont quote me
    • noahhoward, on 07/03/2008, -3/+12They suspended their weapons program but were still persuing a 'peaceful' program. The big issue has been they are not willing to comply with inspection requirements which made a lot of folks nervous
    • iceperson, on 07/03/2008, -9/+3yup. something about an FBI/CIA guy being fired because bush is a nazi or some such.
  • poidh, on 07/03/2008, -24/+37Don't fall for it. This tactic is known as "cheat and retreat" and Iran has been pulling this ***** for years.

    They "suspend" their nuclear program, resetting the "efforts" of the "international community" to stop them, all the while heading towards their goal of functional nuclear weapons. Then when they are discovered they simply "suspend" their activities again and so it goes on.

    My money's on the "international community" falling for it hook, line and sinker for the nth time.
    • Duositex, on 07/03/2008, -2/+12While I'm not a big fan of any nation having nuclear weapons, I'm really not comfortable with any nation lead by someone who leans toward extremism possessing nuclear weapons. I think you're right on this.
      • kiwiboyus, on 07/03/2008, -18/+5You mean like the US? Bush leans towards extremism so you must mean the US.
      • poidh, on 07/03/2008, -6/+10Damn right I'm right.

        Be careful with the word "extremism" though. There's nothing extreme about devout Muslims wanting to murder non-Muslims and install sharia over the whole planet - it's the basics of their religion. So in place of "any nation lead by someone who leans toward extremism possessing nuclear weapons", substitute "any nation lead by devout Muslims possessing nuclear weapons".
      • poidh, on 07/03/2008, -5/+9@kiwiboyus

        I was waiting for someone like you to come along and embarrass themselves. I'm just surprised it took so long.
      • kiwiboyus, on 07/03/2008, -12/+2Really, and that was the best come back you could think of? What a disappointment. Interesting post history you have there by the way, troll much? Who's paying you to work Digg by the way? Stooge.
      • poidh, on 07/03/2008, -4/+7No, yo momma is paying me. And yo poppa too.
      • Rikety, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1If Ahmad were deposed today, you'd be ok with Iran getting the weapons? Then the next day a Saddam is put in power - very good foresight.
  • ByrcheWroot, on 07/03/2008, -14/+6If we strike Iran off the list, who is left for Bush to attack? What about Michigan? Yeah. Michigan has a large Muslim population. They have to be a threat, right? We can take out the threat and maybe Kid Rock at the same time. Cake for everyone!
    • TTURabble, on 07/03/2008, -8/+2Kid Rock you say?
    • mecharabbit, on 07/03/2008, -5/+6Why not? Detroit is pretty much a war zone already.
    • thedsack, on 07/03/2008, -6/+1Bush only dose what sounds right:

      Attack Iraq
      Bomb Iran
      911 on 9/11
  • NightVortez, on 07/03/2008, -13/+7I don't see why they shouldn't have a Nuclear Program when their enemy countries do, but I guess it gets rid of the excuse for Bush to attack them.
    • koft, on 07/03/2008, -8/+2No it won't. The government will just say they're doing it in secret.
    • noahhoward, on 07/03/2008, -2/+6No one says they shouldn't have a program but when they signed the treaty they agreed to a level of oversight that they are not complying with. That is why the UN, Europe and the US have been pressuring them to open up or stop. They claim to have suspended weapons programs but the secrecy they are keeping up makes everyonea bit nervous.
      • NightVortez, on 07/03/2008, -3/+1Oh I know, I'm just saying that theoretically I see no problem in a Nuclear Program which a lot seemed to freak out about, the fact that they are breaking a treaty is a different story and I agree that it shouldn't be done.
    • SPECOPS, on 07/03/2008, -1/+5You'll find out one day why.
    • neko6, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2Iran doesn't have enemies - it just turned Israel and the US into their enemies in the last decade. Before that nobody had any issues with them.
      • merlin5, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Wow. Theres no way anyone can believe that one. You must think Iran is the land of rainbows and lolipops.
  • punkcat, on 07/03/2008, -9/+12all that hard work on the graves, wasted.
    for shame.
  • koft, on 07/03/2008, -13/+5I was hoping they would announce that they actually have a nuclear weapon. Then nobody would be able to ***** with them anymore. Even if Iran converted to Christianity and came up with a cure for aids, we'd still bomb them over oil.
    • hmmmok, on 07/03/2008, -3/+11Nobody would mess with Iran ? You mean like the capturing of their sailors in international waters? Oh wait, that's what the Iranians have been doing..
    • noahhoward, on 07/03/2008, -2/+10No one planned on bombing Iran and oil sure as hell was not an issue. Pay atention to facts not the hype you read on Digg. We've been pressuring Iran over non-compliance with a program they agreed to, that is all.
  • surfacewound, on 07/03/2008, -9/+4So is "Just In" the new "BREAKING" or something? I can hate it slightly less for not being in all caps, but it's still retarded.
  • treelovinhippie, on 07/03/2008, -19/+20Oh, so any country the US has an issue with, they cannot even enrich uranium for simple nuclear power plants?

    The main reason the US hates Iran at this point is OPEC. Iran has been pushing to have the oil industry (especially throughout the EU), to start buying and selling in Euros instead of the US dollar.

    But, I think this decision won't stop the US from attacking Iran.

    My prediction is that Israel will attack a supposed terrorist location within Iran. The location won't be any real threat, but the US and Israel media/government will say it was. Iran will then launch a counter-attack on Israel. Then the US being the biased big brother of Israel, will attack Iran.

    I think we'll see the US attacking Iran sometime around September 20, this year... and Israel will attack about a week earlier. Being at around the same time as 9/11, this will help instill the fear propaganda both Israel and the US will need.
    • noahhoward, on 07/03/2008, -4/+17They can if they comply with inspections that they agree to. The US is NOT the only nation that has been pressuring Iran the UN has been actiely persuing more and more sanctions.
      • treelovinhippie, on 07/03/2008, -2/+4Um, yeah but the UN is a US-established body that is essentially owned and controlled by the US. If the UN was a decent independent organisation, the US would have never been able to go into Iraq.

        And why is the US still allowed in the UN if it deliberately disobeyed the UN and preemptively invaded Iraq without approval? Not to mention the $1billion+ the US owes to the UN.

        Who decides which country should be allowed nuclear technology?

        Israel has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. And they have been known to be very shady in their affairs with surrounding nations (just look at the history of nations Israel has attacked and continues to).

        But it's fine for those guys to have nukes, and yet Iran can't even have the "technological knowledge" to build nuclear power plants (you know, so less reliance is placed on oil).

        Foreign affairs will either make or break this global civilisation.
      • noahhoward, on 07/03/2008, -2/+4What are you smoking? The UN is a US-established body? It's owned and controlled by the US? Seriously go back to school and beat the ***** out of your history teacher.

        "Israel has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. And they have been known to be very shady in their affairs with surrounding nations (just look at the history of nations Israel has attacked and continues to)."

        Isreal isn't held to any treaty because they never signed it, Iran did.
      • neko6, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2What nations did Israel attack? Israel was never the first to attack.
      • SuperMoses, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1@neko6: Umm... Suez Crisis? Samu Incident? Six Day War? ....just to name some early examples
      • SuperMoses, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1"They can if they comply with inspections that they agree to"

        So far they have complied. The IAEA has had minor complaints so far about Iran's compliance and overall has found no evidence of a nuclear weapons program. Furthremore, their ability to enrich uranium is a right granted by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The reason why there are some countries within the UN asking for sanctions is because it's in their interest to do so. It is purely a political move and one not founded an any kind of ethical principle. It makes no sense for UN nations to sanction Iran when they are complying with the IAEA and have not violated the NPT.

        What Iran is not complying with is the unfair request by these UN nations that they stop enriching uranium even though it is within their right to do so under the NPT.
    • flink405, on 07/03/2008, -3/+4Many nations are against Iran and its nuclear programs.
      The Europeans have been negotiating with Iran for years and Iran just spits in their faces.
      Iran continually calls for the total destruction of Israel. Even predicting it will come soon.
      As soon as they have their nuclear weapons.

      Why is the tone of your comment so anti-American and anti-Israel?
      It is Iran that is making the threats to kill millions of people.
      Why does Iran need missiles that can send a nuclear warhead to the middle of Europe; potentially killing tens of millions of people?

      And your comment regarding selling oil in Euros. Why doesn´t Iran sell its oil in its own currency - the Rial?
      • SuperMoses, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1First of all Iran has NOT continually ased for the destruction of Israel. There was one moment when Ahmadenijad's comments were mistranslated, but that's as close as it got. Even Ahmadinejad said his speech was misinterpreted. If he had no problems with calling for the destruction of Israel, he wouldn't have claimed his speech was misinterpreted.

        Now, for your claims about them seeking nuclear weapons. Where's your evidence? The National Intelligence Estimate says they are not seeking nuclear weapons. And The International Atomic Energy Association has also stated the same thing.

        Yet, you keep standing by those who convinced you Iraq was a big threat and had thousands of WMDs
  • RusskiGuy, on 07/03/2008, -2/+11I found it odd they have 2 spellings used in the article for "Mattaki" so I went to msnbc.com, bbc.co.uk, nytimes.com, and cnn.com and none of those publications had the story on their front page. Sorry Miami Herald, I'll wait for a more reputable source on international news before considering cheering!
    • jascination, on 07/03/2008, -4/+5I see the bury brigade's digging everyone down, but you speak the truth; I don't think the Miami Herald is exactly the sort of place where a story like this would be breaking, best to wait for confirmation from a better source before getting our hopes up about an aversion to WWIII
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/03/2008, -7/+2Oh great, the voice of reason coming from a propaganda agent.

      The "alleged" anonymity of the internet protects free speech, and the traitors who betray it alike.

      Hopefully, people are wise enough to discern that a newspaper is not going to make crap like this up -- it might distort, but it wouldn't make up this sort of fact -- especially when there is no benefit to a sponsor.
  • rrife, on 07/03/2008, -9/+10We've heard this before.
  • hellsing47, on 07/03/2008, -8/+8I'm surprised people are reading this with "TWELVE BEST PARADES TO BANG HOTTIES" right below it.
  • spawnfree, on 07/03/2008, -8/+16nice try Iran.
    they are still going to come and get you.

    personally i wish Iran was super nice so any military action against them looked unjustifiable from the word go.
    • 1timeuser, on 07/03/2008, -1/+3Unfortunately, no matter how nice they are xenophobia will still create conflicts.
  • quarc, on 07/03/2008, -9/+3intellgence actually says that Iran suspended the program in 2003
    • mmmmmbiscuits, on 07/03/2008, -3/+6This is the same CIA intelligence which in August 1978 said Iran was "not in a revolutionary or even a prerevolutionary situation." ***** geniuses! Things they also got wrong recently: Pakistani bomb, Berlin wall coming down, fall of Soviet Union...
    • noahhoward, on 07/03/2008, -1/+4Different program. Weapons vs. Power. The only problem with this program is failure to comply with mandated inspections.
    • merlin5, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Yea, they allegedly suspended the program they where vehemently denying to have. Liars cannot be trusted. If Iranians are living near the nuclear facilities I recommend copious amounts of sun-block and lead underwear.
  • vexingmodstwo, on 07/03/2008, -15/+19You rabid Bush haters are unbelievable. If this article is accurate, and the Iranians are considering accepting the proposal made by the UNSC, than the pressure they put on Iran is WORKING.
    • rrc7cz, on 07/03/2008, -9/+10Well, I think that's a rather simplistic view of things. First, until we see results, I wouldn't be so quick to claim victory (just as I wouldn't condemn it either).

      Also, are you so sure that opening up all diplomatic and economic relationships with them wouldn't have resulted in a better outcome? If we traded freely with them, had diplomatic missions, you'd be removing the #1 threat to their country, which is the only thing justifying and energizing the population around the program anyway. Likewise, if we didn't blindly support Israel and have half our military next door in Iraq, it's the same story - they wouldn't feel as threatened and have such a ready excuse to their population for the program

      The #1 way tyrants stay in power is by presenting an outside enemy to unite the people at home. We gladly filled that place, instead of setting a good example and trying to build stable economic relationships.
      • vexingmodstwo, on 07/03/2008, -2/+4First, I'm not claiming victory. I qualified the comment with "if this article is accurate".

        Secondly, my comment is directed at the ignorant commenters who are doing intellectual gymnastics in order to avoid admitting that the measures taken by the US, along with the UNSC, seem to be working... if the article is accurate and Iran is being truthful.

        As to the rest of your comment, you seem to be ignoring the known fact that Iran funds Hezbollah. And doing what you suggest would be akin to saying it is okay to do so. Additionally, you seem to be under the impression that the Mullahs in Iran would suddenly decide not to find another reason to keep the perception of the outside enemy alive.

        Bottom line: If what is being portrayed in the article is an accurate reflection of what is going on in those meetings, the measures taken by the US and UNSC are working and people here need to admit it to themselves.
      • merlin5, on 07/03/2008, -5/+2Absolutely Vexi. Diplomatic approaches have been tried for decades. These people are complete liars and cannot be negotiated with. They only respond to force. And force, apparently, is working. Fools like Carter, Kerry, and Obama really think they are so smart that They could negotiate effectively. This, in my opinion, is the greatest stupidity of all.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/03/2008, -6/+3--because we love America.
      And how much do you get paid to betray it by pretending to like Bush?
    • shitforbrains, on 07/03/2008, -2/+6Anyone who can believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old and that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs can believe anything. George Bush and the Neocon evangelicals are engaging Iran because they are trying to bring about the Rapture. Now that God's chosen people are back in Israel, it's their job to see that the rest of the prophesy comes true. They don't care about Israel, they know for the prophesy to come true and the Rapture to come, that Israel has to have a knock down drag out fight with Iran and with Iraq. When I heard Israel was practicing attacking Iran I knew that Bush was right on schedule. He said he believes God put him in the White House for a reason, and this is it. When a nutjob like Bush has his finger on the button and Armageddon is his goal, watch out. Be careful what you wish for.
  • prleet, on 07/03/2008, -15/+2Iran needs a nuclear weapon, thats the only solution to stability. You are an ignorant fool if you think otherwise.
    • ElDiablo6870, on 07/03/2008, -1/+4I am an ignorant fool.
    • merlin5, on 07/03/2008, -2/+4They claim to need to wipe out every man woman and child in Israel. A nuclear bomb would sure be a handy way to do that. Who's the ignorant fool? The leaders of Iran are crazy murderers. If the people dont stop them than someone else will. I hope soon.
      • prleet, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1I am sure there are reason for it... :)
  • Zacktopia, on 07/03/2008, -8/+15The mullahs have been playing the UN with stalling tactics like this for years. Behind the scenes, their Manhattan project is still full speed ahead.
    • sodade, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2This thread is full of this kind of speculation. The way I see it, there are a lot of people talking out of their asses with no evidence to back it up. Oh yeah, you guys just KNOW that Iran is working FSA on nukes so they can "wipe Israel from the map." And where do you get the basis for your claims? Oh yes - the US/Israel government and media - boy I sure do trust them - especially after the Iraq debacle.

      Isn't that the same kind of blind faith that religious people have about and omniscient god?
    • tucsonwc, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2Really? So you know something the CIA in the last NIE on this doesn't? Or are you just another bushie warmonger dying to bomb someplace else?
      • merlin5, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Duh, that same CIA said Iraq had WMD. Now you believe them? Get some consistency koolaid drinker.
    • spongya77, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Wow. Dude, you are hot. You know more than any of the intelligence agencies in the whole ***** world!!! Please tell me who shot JFK, and where the UFOs came from!! Please!! I beg you!!!
  • thedsack, on 07/03/2008, -6/+1At this point we must consider what is best for our country:
    If we invade Iran, we will be in a 3rd war, this time agents a REAL army and a moderate to strong economy... They also have a ton of friends in the Middle East. This (3rd) war would surely cost us considerably more then Afghanistan and Iraq combined! Not to mention the fact that it will take the needed resources away from the other 2 wars. The simple loss of our troops is virtually limitless. This (3rd) could last "100 years".

    If we don't believe Bush and McCain and assume that Iran is not a threat to America:
    In a worst case scenario, Iran might have a nuke and hit Israel... or America? What then? Well, for starters the death total would be vast. BUT, we would survive! Next we AND THE REST OF THE WORLD! would work together and probably annihilate them!

    The second scenario would be if we did nothing with regards to Iran AND Bush/McCain where right about Iran’s intentions.

    This 3rd scenario is one where we do nothing aggressive with Iran, and Iran also stays peaceful.

    WE ALL LIVE HAPPILY EVER AFTER!
    • neko6, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2The world, especially the US, did nothing to Hitler before they felt threatened. The world did nothing when Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and Iran killed tens of thousands of Israelis. Do you really think a nuclear detonation would make the world go to war? It would probably just make them appease Iran some more to make sure they won't get hurt...
      • thedsack, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1The US did something to Iraq, when they had no WMDs and no connection to Al Qaeda... The US did (and is doing) NOTHING to Pakistan while Al Qaeda regroups there.

        Yeah, let’s just keep dropping bombs on innocent civilians because we think the governments in their countries might be a threat to us. Never mind the fact that the incompetents in our own government can’t accurately identify the real threats to America.
  • trevor98, on 07/03/2008, -10/+19You can't have it both ways. Iran stating that they may suspend their nuclear program is an admission that they have one. You can't say that Bush and Co are making it up if Iran admits to it (unless Iran wants to get bombed).
    • thepeacemaker, on 07/03/2008, -10/+12Iran is considering suspending their "nuclear" program. Their nuclear program is not a secret. They never admitted to having a "nuclear weapons" program and there is NO evidence they have one. Bush and Co are accusing Iran on having a nuclear weapons program.
    • rrc7cz, on 07/03/2008, -5/+7Are you kidding? What about them making it up for use as a barganing chip? Didn't the world just witness North Korea get a ridiculously great deal on oil for "giving up their nuke program". It's absolutely in their best interests to say they have one, true or not.
    • Duositex, on 07/03/2008, -3/+7I can't understand why either of the previous two replies were dugg down.
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/03/2008, -9/+3Because there are people paid to spread propaganda -- and this is an important topic for the groups that will profit from war with Iran.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/03/2008, -7/+1Well, if you think that Iran wants to get nuked -- then your comment would make sense.

      This is just a way to get credit for it, and to get the UN to say; "See, we can now assure everyone they have no nukes."

      If you remember, the same claim was made about Saddam and WMDs. There is no real way to prove a negative.
    • Bilabrin, on 07/03/2008, -8/+1Iran has stated they have a nuclear program for energy pruposes (much like we need to do here). They deny plans to use the technology from that program to make a nuke and from everything we know, they are telling the truth.
      • GhostRidr, on 07/03/2008, -1/+8Then why are they not letting inspectors in? Because they have a nuclear weapons goal.
      • merlin5, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Iran telling the truth? Wow are you gone. Boy everything you know isnt much.
      • Bilabrin, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1@Ghostridr

        Saddam didn't let them in either. Some people don't let the police into their house without a warrant. Does that mean they are necessarily hiding something or do they just not like the idea of people going through their stuff?


        @Merlin

        Here's something I don't know - that Iran is developing Nuclear weapons. Nobody knows that. And since we don't have evidence, what good does it do to jump to conclusions? Didn't we already go through that in Iraq?
  • FlaNative, on 07/03/2008, -7/+9So, now that they have suspended nuclear power; do we invade?
  • Kanaka, on 07/03/2008, -10/+12I think its a lie. On the record they'll suspend it, off record they'll still be doing some underground 'activities'
  • k2jones, on 07/03/2008, -11/+6For context, here's a history lesson on US intervention in Iran: http://youtube.com/watch?v=_RuVi6DAO6s
  • evil-doer, on 07/03/2008, -16/+15jesus ***** christ, look at the anti iran digging and burying going on. is it primetime web surfing time in israel right now or something?
    • GassyTurd, on 07/03/2008, -8/+1No, it is "1% Off Internet Thursday" in Isreal.
  • arbouler, on 07/03/2008, -12/+18israel has nuclear weapons but no one seems to want to blow them up to pieces. i dont understand the double standard.
    • merlin5, on 07/03/2008, -8/+14Its simple. Israel does not publicly state its intention to wipe out every living person in Iran. Whats not to understand? Israel does not openly foment terror and embrace terror as a legitimate strategy like Iran does. Terrorism is a cancer on this world that is systematically being dismantled right now by the forces of good. Your inability to accept this is the source of your confusion.
      • tucsonwc, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2So Congress approved spending $400 million to foster terrorism inside of Iran. We are PAYING Al Qaeda groups money and other groups on our own terrorist watch list to do evil in Iran.

        http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story ...

        And by the way, Hillary Clinton offered that she would OBLITERATE Iran and their 70 million citizens. You can find her saying that on youtube quite easily. Just as you can find McCain singing Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran.
      • spongya77, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2That's funny. Nobody in Iran said anything about murdering every single living person in anywhere... Hm.
    • dronf23, on 07/03/2008, -11/+2You realize that that was never really said don't you? What he actually said was that the "regime should vanish from the page of time". Saying that a regime should go away and saying everyone in a country should die are two VERY different things.
      • GhostRidr, on 07/03/2008, -2/+11Remove the argument over the interpretation of that statement, and you still have multiple instances of Iran threatening Israel, and sponsoring terrorism.
      • sodade, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1How many instances have there been of Israel/US threatening Iran? By the definition of "terrorism," Israel and the US have been doing much worse than "sponsoring" terror in the Middle East.
      • merlin5, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1I like the quote where Amidenijerkoff stated that " Every last woman and child in Israel must be killed" Yea you stupid towel head, we have interpreters that speak your monkey gibberish.
      • spongya77, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2GhostRidr
        You are playing, or you really are that stupid? How about the constant threats the US issues to anyone that's perceived a potential enemy? How about the countless of proxy wars, coups, and other little things the US had a hand in? Does it mean, it's OK, to attack the US?
        What did Iran do to this scale? Anything they have done pales in comparison.
      • vinod1978, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2"regime should vanish from the page of time"

        @dronf23 - That's semantics. It's the same thing. Hezbollah in Lebanon have fliers that clearly state their mission is to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth, and Iran sponsors them. So you are telling me Israel is mad because a big misunderstanding of his translation?

        C'mon. Get real.
  • rrc7cz, on 07/03/2008, -14/+22It never ceases to amaze me how the average population have this blind loyalty to Isreal and hatred of Iran because the news, politicians, and tradition has told them to. THINK FOR YOURSELF. Iran is a small country being threatened with military action by a superpower who happens to have half it's military next door to you in a country that formerly never even attacked it!

    What would you do in the same situation? Go ahead and bury me... keep towing the line.
    • k1ko, on 07/03/2008, -5/+10I believe there is a difference that has been discussed before. Israel doesn't have its leaders constantly saying publicaly that they want to wipe Iran and muslims off the face of the earth. Israel's military buildup and aggressive attitude is really a direct result of all its neighbors wanting to kill them.

      Iran's only real threat in that region is Israel and not because Israel wants to take over Iran or kill Iranians. The threat comes from Iran's centuries old hatred of the Jews. On the flip side, Israel pretty much has no friends in that region.. only enemies.
    • vinod1978, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2@rrc7cz - Your statement has some truths in it, however there are some big differences as k1ko said in his comment. Should the US support Israel no matter what it does? No. Do we? Yes. And that needs to change - especially on the financial side (don't get me started...)

      However, Israel is stuck in a place where every country in the region does not believe they should be, geographically and they have to deal with threats from neighboring countries on a regular basis. When they receive threats in the form of speeches, or in the from of missiles (i.e. Hezbollah) they have a right to respond militarily. Whether or not a crazy prime minister spitted out some racial ***** is not an issue. The fact is that Iran sponsors Hezbollah, and Hezbollah's purpose is to wipe Israel off the earth. Just ask Hassan Nasrallah, as he has stated in many times on interviews. The main problem is not just the immediate attacks on Iranian soil, but this would mean Syria would get involved to protect Iran, and members of Hezbollah would go to defend Iran and cause more attacks in Israel, and the US would have to back Israel up.
      • rrc7cz, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1@vinod

        When did the US become Israel's army? Isreal is fully capable of defending themselves. They have previously won all past conventional wars against them AND they're nuclear capable. They aren't going away.

        Again, when did it become okay for the government to forcefully take my money and send it to Israel... then take more of my money and send it to arm their enemies?
    • tomerdean, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1What are you talking about?

      Iran publicly says they will "wipe Israel off the planet" , "Israel is a virus that must be destroyed". Their leader is a fantactic that WILL use a nuclear weapon on Israel. He's crazy and doesn't care about anything else.

      On the flip side, Israel is a democratic country [exactly like USA] that only wants to survive with the least problems. But we have to fight for our survival. Our army forces is called IDF = Israel DEFENSE Forces. Created for defending Israel. We are the ones getting picked.
  • t4m5t3r, on 07/03/2008, -9/+6this will certainly make it harder for the US govt to attack iran, but lets face it we all know its got nothing to do with the nuclear program!

    so i wouldnt take this as a sign there wont be an attack! there will no doubt be an "attack" of some kind to justify it, and unfortunatly probably in america, and if there is, it'll be BIG, i would love nothing more than to be utterly wrong, but iv seen how the world works nowadays so i'll go with my gut on this one!
    • nickelking, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2Yeah, because we all know that iran is all about the initial attack! just look at the last one they did just over 500 years ago!
      • t4m5t3r, on 07/03/2008, -2/+1im talking about the corporations that run america, attacking america and blaming iran, you'd have to be pretty dumb to think it would be possible for iran to attack america!!
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2nickelking was agreeing with you -- he is pointing out that Iran hasn't been attacking anyone since the American revolution.
      • neko6, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4Iran only came under Islamist zealot control less than 30 years ago... A they've been threatening Israel for several years now.

        Anything before that is irrelevant.
  • flogistan, on 07/03/2008, -12/+13I get a little tired of this country bullying the world for israel. You know, some day... that little country is going to do something in that oil rich part of the world that we don't like. They always do. When they do, they're going to be able to actually deliver a nuclear weapon to the continental united states. Telling everyone in the middle east they can't have nuclear weapons, while allowing israel to have them is a huge mistake. They're fourty years ahead of Iran, and we allow them to steal our missile technology with impunity. The problem is in a different place than the media is telling you to pay attention.
    • vinod1978, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1The best defense is an offense. We allowed Israel to utilize nuclear technology because we realized every country in the region wants them out of the middle east. You are insane if you think Israel will every attack us. that's like saying the US would drop the bomb on Great Britain.
      • flogistan, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Have we ever gone to war with Britain? Have we ever had a war with them? Am I insane? Did Hitler ever side with Stalin? What kind of crazy things happen in the world?
  • ElDiablo6870, on 07/03/2008, -11/+9Why are the people on here that disagree with President Bush so disrespectful? I don't with all his decisions. He has made mistakes, but he is our President. I sincerely believe he has done what he thought was right. And, right or wrong, we actually know where he stands.
    • rrc7cz, on 07/03/2008, -7/+8Maybe it's because of this: "I sincerely believe he has done what he thought was right."

      A lot of us don't. And once you're at that point, there's a lot of anger.

      I'll start to be more respectful of him, when he's more respectful of the Constitution, laws and rights.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/03/2008, -7/+9Because George Bush deserves a fair trial for the many crimes he has committed. And Congress refuses to give it to him.

      They are depriving him of his rights!
    • sodade, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2What evidence do you have that makes you believe that he did what he thought was right? There is a ***** of evidence to the contrary.
      You or I have no real ***** clue as to where he stands.
    • spongya77, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4You are like that wacko who screamed about Britney on Youtube... Please make a video.
    • vinod1978, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1@ElDiablo6870 - There is so much to say, I don't know where to begin.

      Politically - Maybe I can start by saying that he misrepresented the truth on why the US went to Iraq. Read more about it here: http://digg.com/politics/Do_what_is_fair_and_right ... Or the fact that he gave millions to Pakistan where the terrorists were actually were, instead of being more aggressive with a country that actually DOES harbor terrorists.

      Economically - it was under his administration that allowed the deregulation of trading certain commodities like oil, and the so called "Enron loophole". His administration is responsible for not investing in research for renewable resources, and to continue our "addiction" to oil - those are Bush's words - not mine. His solution for our "addiction to oil" is to get more oil from Saudi Arabia.

      Read my blog at http://www.bigredmat.com if you want to see why 83% of Americans believe that the Bush Administration took the United States in the wrong direction.
    • GhostyBoy, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2Bush was complicit in the attacks of 9/11.

      He's an *****.
  • LogicBomB, on 07/03/2008, -9/+4We should settle all future nuclear impasses with army-to-army sword fighting on battlegrounds selected by an impartial third party.
  • boejangles, on 07/03/2008, -5/+2I know if I ran a country, the first thing id think of, is "Hey guys... lets say we are going to stop.... and then TOTALLY do it anyway! MUHAHAHA" and then do a dr.evil laugh. "MUHAHAHAHA"
  • nickelking, on 07/03/2008, -8/+2so... they're no longer pursuing nuclear power.

    More coal and oil power polluting the environment. I suppose the miami herald wants me to say yay?
    • nickelking, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2For the diggers down, I'd appreciate a counter argument. Our intelligence says they stopped their weapons program in 2003 at the latest, Iran and many agencies have said they're only going after power. Please, share the dissenting opinions!
      • nickelking, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1aww, still being dugg down, but without an argument to defend the reason. Well, good luck with your reasonless war.
      • evil-doer, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1the rednecks and israel firsters dont need any other reason other than thats what the israeli motherland wants
    • ProUSADigger, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1I didn't digg you down, but I'll point out some of the flaws in your thinking (or brainwashing).

      You said, "so... they're no longer pursuing nuclear power.". Nuclear power? Why (and seriously ponder
      this question) would they even consider using nuclear power? They're not exactly enviro-nazis and they
      have plenty of other less expensive and more readily-available power. Besides (and nobody EVER makes
      this point), they DON'T NEED nuclear power. Period.

      Just a wild-ass guess here, but I imagine the reason that you didn't receive an explanation to your
      uninformed post by the people who were digging you down is because they felt it was a waste of their time
      to even address something so fundamentally flawed. And, they probably thought you were just trolling.

      So, yeah, there you go.
  • RAGEdemon, on 07/03/2008, -10/+5*****, Bush can't use that excuse to invade yet another country for it's oil for the oil companies whom he received massive donations from... what will he do now?

    Oh yer... same thing he did the last time: refuse to act on intellitgence of another 9/11, let it happen, then blame Iran.

    If you don't want to go to war then, then you are unpatriotic and hate America :/
  • pgoetz, on 07/03/2008, -10/+8Judging from the thumbs up/down, clearly the neocons have been all over this article like a cheap suit. Keep it up, jackasses; see where it gets you in the long run.
    • GassyTurd, on 07/03/2008, -8/+5It is probably a room full of sister-***** losers being paid to scour the net for anti-Isreal topics. Desperate bunch indeed.
    • mrgreenjeans, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1I know. Am I on Digg?
  • t4m5t3r, on 07/03/2008, -9/+7im not talking about iran attacking america, im talking about the corporations that run america that want the oil attacking america and blaming iran!! thought was obvious, apologies if it wasnt!

    how could anybody with half a brain think it would be even possible for iran to attack america?
    • vexingmodstwo, on 07/03/2008, -6/+4Hey moron, you need to look up a word: Allies.
      • t4m5t3r, on 07/03/2008, -3/+2did i not mention i would love to be wrong, did you miss that bit, i hope im totaly, utterly wrong, i realy do,

        but they want that oil, thev already started one (possibly two, well proabably never know for sure) wars based on total lies so whats to stop there being another?

        time will tell!

        and what do you mean allies? like who? china? russia? you need to stop watching TV m8, its not good for the brain!
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/03/2008, -6/+1What allies? Israel does nothing but steal our tech and get us in hot water, and Saudi Arabia likes us like a drug dealer likes a junkie -- remember the oil cartel?

        And I'm guessing that PNAC and bloggers from a certain part of the world are the ones supporting the Iran invasion on this topic today.
      • neko6, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4"Israel does nothing but steal our tech " he said, while clicking away on his Computer with an Israeli designed CPU, on his Israeli invented IM software.
  • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/03/2008, -9/+8The NeoCon line on this will be both;
    "Don't believe it -- oh no it is a trap." Because we are supposed to forget that NeoCons lie when their lips are moving.

    and

    "This is unacceptable. There is no way to guarantee that the nuclear program is stopped."
    Right. There was no way to GUARANTEE Saddam didn't have WMDs except by invading. Which means everyone is a target.

    Rumsfeld and BushCo were so convinced about the WMDs in Iran and Iraq because they've been working to get them there -- if you bother to look into Siebel Edmunds and the back story on Brewster Jennings. Oh, and Carysle Group.
  • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/03/2008, -10/+9Seems that the paid bloggers are very active on this topic today.
  • ProUSADigger, on 07/03/2008, -9/+9They are simply trying to prevent Israel from bombing the hell out of their KNOWN facilities. As soon
    as the pressure dies down a bit, they'll be right back to it.

    Anybody who believes anything that comes out of the mouth of that missing link, Ahmadinejad, is as
    gullible and as naive as, well, as the typical liberal digger.

    Brains are for thinking.
    • sodade, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2Educate yourself: http://youtube.com/watch?v=VV7YBnf6IHs&feature=rel ...
      • ProUSADigger, on 07/03/2008, -2/+0Holy *****, that's priceless!! Are you being serious or sarcastic? If you're being sarcastic
        then forgive me for thinking that you must be absolutely retarded.

        From Wikipedia: "Stephen Kinzer is an American author and newspaper reporter. He is a veteran New York Times correspondent..."

        You're sending me a link about some anti-American NYT reporter??!? And you consider
        this reality and an education in anything other than liberal anti-American propaganda?

        Absolutely priceless.
      • sodade, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1First off - you my friend are ***** priceless. Just what the world needs, yet another dumbass american apologist. I don't even know or care who the Stephen Kinzer is, but EVERY ***** WORD HE SAID WAS FACTUAL. Are you trying to disagree with the facts?
        While you're at it, why don't you try to answer this:
        Name one US military (covert or overt) action in the last 60 years that actually benefited the american people. Oh gee, you can't. The US foreign policy of the last 60 years has ***** the american people and made a couple corporations wealthy.
  • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/03/2008, -10/+8Anyone who thinks war with Iran is a bad idea should embrace this. It is apparent that they are bending over backwards to show they aren't a threat.

    >> And help to digg up each and every reasonable comment on here -- because the Usual two dozen troops of the 101st Blogging Brigade that supports Fascism is on this topic like ants on a lollipop.
  • oilcan, on 07/03/2008, -8/+4these comments scare me. usually comments about Iran include 'we shouldn't attack them' or 'omg bush is gonna go for it we must stop it!' and the like. these are all like 'don't trust them!' and 'there's no way, they're just buying time!' shows me people are already sold on the notion that we are going to war with Iran, despite the many laments to the contrary, and it's just a matter of time. WWIII here we come! should be exciting.
  • beckerist, on 07/03/2008, -7/+3Leave it to Digg to bring out all the haters...
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 77 of 77 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.