Skip navigation

Iran says it has tested advanced missile

Globe and Mail Update

Range of about 2,000 kilometres would be enough to strike Israel and southeastern Europe ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Wayne Canadian from Canada writes: What , they launched a rocket , big deal , all the other countries do it almost every day , but when Iran does it , well its just wrong. The hysteria that surrounds their every move is getting old , either deal with them diplomatically or militarily , but hurry up and get it done with ,
    this is getting to be a farce. The longer the UN dithers and hums and haws the more of a joke the whole UN looks in the eyes of the world.
  2. Michael Cole from Canada writes: Wayne, you don't use solid propellent for "research". Solid propellent rockets are only used for one thing (space shuttle boosters notwithstanding). You use solid rockets because the fuel does not need storage and can be fired at the push of a button. Liquid rockets require count downs and complex fuel handling, but can carry more payload per pound of fuel. Liquid rockets are used by NASA, but the Navy and the Air Force use solid. That is why what Iran is doing is so transparently militaristic in nature.
  3. John Hynde from Montreal, Canada writes: Why is this such a big deal? Because nuclear armed Israel says so?
  4. Wayne Canadian from Canada writes: Michael Cole , but again if as you put it the US navy and Air Force do it all the time , but we dont hear the world freaking out when they do.
    Iran has never threatened any country in their region , unless you believe what Bush and Cheney were preaching.
  5. Left Wing from Togo writes:
    C'mon, this is about extending Iranian influence and power over the region. "Why is that a big deal?" Because, if you've been reading the headlines at any time in the past 30 years, you'll see that Iran has a big hate on for America/Europe/Israel and would also like to control the oil shipping lanes.
  6. A Better Canada from no-quebec, Canada writes: Iran has the right to defend herself....against the square-heads in Washington and Israel.....when a country supported by the terrorist regime in Washington is planning to attack Iran, at anytime, no wonder Iranians wants to be ready......You see what happened to Iraq.....just waiting to hear from poodle harper and naive peter to support Israel....
  7. Joe V from Canada writes: Personally, I'm not comfortable with either Iran or Israel having nuclear capabilities, as it creates unnecessary conflict.

    However, Iran is more troubling than Israel because it is run by Islamic extremists. You never know how crazy such extremists might be; maybe they are eager to go meet their virgins and young boys in heaven, taking the rest of us with them.

    Therein lies the one thing that separates Iran from existing nuclear powers: all existing nuclear powers have leaders who do not want to die. How can we be sure that the current or future leaders of Iran do not want to be martyrs?
  8. Jon S. from Montreal, Canada writes: John Hynde and A Better Canada:
    I'm not sure what news some of you read....I'd love foreither of you or ANYONE to point out to me when Israel had EVER threatened Iran, prior to Ahmedinejad becoming president, threatening to "wipe Israel off the map" (or WHATEVER he said, it was controversial), questioning the Holocaust and Israel's right to exist, funding Hamas and Hezbollah, and at the same time, developing a nuclear program. There is no trade dispute, there is no border dispute. So why has Ahmedinejad been SO beligerant. Moreover, why should Israel sit still when the President of a fascist Islamic society, threatens it?

    Go for it, educate us. Then when you demonstrate that you can't back up your own ugly opinions, give your heads a shake.
  9. A Better Canada from no-quebec, Canada writes: Joe V, you are right with the fact that Israel and Iran should not have nuclear weapons, but wrong, when you say Iran is an islamic country....it is persian...big, big difference...so don't get brainwashed by the Israel-Washington propaganda.....the real problem...now, as I mentioned for the last 3 years....is Pakistan...but with the gang of naive politicians in Ottawa and irresponsible members of Congress in Washington, they are just starting to realize....after having wasted a few billions in arming their own enemies...well, lobbysts and companies producing arms are laughing to the bank...at our own expenses.....naive loser Canadians
  10. Joe V from Canada writes: A Better Canada from no-quebec, Canada writes: "but wrong, when you say Iran is an islamic country"

    You have got to be kidding me. What do you think the Ayatollah are? Catholic?
  11. Syed Abbas of Toronto from Seattle WA, United States writes:

    John Hynde: Greetings

    " ... Why is this such a big deal? Because nuclear armed Israel says so? ..."

    If Iranians have any brains, they would have learnt a lesson from Israel and Pakistan both of them had nuclear capability long before they announced it.

    Pakistan mastered its nuclear technology not on Pakistani soil but on loaned Chinese Gobi Desert for the fear of Indian/Israel pre-emptive attack and brought back home the technology only after they had become skillful. I bet Iran has done the same with its close connections with North Korea, and would bring back their skills when the time is ripe.

    Israel today is not of 1967, but a fearful nation worried about its behind as it never was. Well, serves them right. If you live by the sword, you die by the sword. What you sow, so shall you reap.

    Cheers
  12. A Better Canada from no-quebec, Canada writes: Jon S....first of all, Iran has never said they want to destroy Israel...you are just limited to the Israel propaganda....so are limited in your own view.....no use to discuss with yo, if your source is biased. Again, you are wrong about the desire of Israel to eliminate Iran only after the election of present president....this has been in the planning, with Washington, a long time. ago...Were you born when Washington helped Iraq to attack Iran? Oops, perhaps, you are not interested in the real history of the world...so, no use to continue.
  13. Iv Iv from Bellevegas, Canada writes: Jon V

    Israel already has nukes. I'm not a big fan of Iran but they are merely trying to establish a balance off power in the region same what the US and Russia did in the 60-70 but on a smaller scale.

    Israel having nukes is as troubling as Iran developing them. Islamic extremists? What about Israel's Samson option? Talk about extreme.
  14. Joe V from Canada writes: Iv Iv:

    There is a difference between using nuclear weapons preemptively and using them after being attacked and nearly defeated.

    I'm not a big fan of Israel, but there is no reason to believe that they will ever use nuclear weapons preemptively. The same can not be said of Iran when its leaders believe in a religion that glorifies death and martyrdom, and promises great riches in the afterlife.

    Sure, Israel would massively retaliate in the event of a preemptive Iranian nuclear attack and there would not be a living soul left in Iran. But does the Iranian leadership fear death? Not if they believe in the religion that they preach!
  15. Mark H from United States writes: Extend your hand, Obama. Extend your hand.

    Oh well. I'm sure we'll see some photoshopped propeganda photo on the AP wires in a matter of hours, showing what a glowing success the launch was. Iran: one step closer to the next Caliphate. And then, paradise!
  16. Spring Fire from China writes: Congrats to Iranians on their achievement. Hopefully this test will stop the military adventures from some warmongers.
  17. Jon O from Canada writes: Did Ahmedinejad or any of his people say "It can reach Israel"
    or is that the media saying it?
  18. Cant we all just get along from Canada writes: I wake up and thank God everyday,that I live in Canada and that the United States of America is our Big Brother,I sleep well everynight knowing that Myself and my family are safe from hostile Leaders past and present,I respect our Cnadian troops for wanting to make at least some kind of difference in this world we live in,,they are not murderers as some would say.The military has given us our freedom as we know it.Most of you people posting here and you lefty wingnuts should be absolutly ashamed of yourselves.,,,,Amen
  19. Vadim ! from Canada writes: A Better Canada from no-quebec, Canada writes: Joe V, you are right with the fact that Israel and Iran should not have nuclear weapons, but wrong, when you say Iran is an islamic country....it is persian...big, big difference...
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    First things first: The fact that you think that being Islamic and Persian is mutually exclusive demonstrates that you know absolutely nothing about what you're talking about.

    Second, Iran, as are many countries, is signatory to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty which explicitly restricts them from developing nukes. For those who don't understand this treaty, it is basically a trade-off between those countries who have nukes (e.g., US, Russia, France, Britain) to REDUCE their arms inventory in exchange from a promise by other countries, like Iran and Pakistan, to NOT DEVELOP nukes. End of story. There should be no further debate. This isn't a moral issue vis a vis "why should Israel have nukes and Iran can't blah, blah, blah...". This is a legal issue and Iran is violating the terms of an agreement they signed back on July 1, 1968. Israel, by the way, is not a signatory to the agreement and therefore has no obligation to restrict develop if they so choose.
  20. Chris Michaels from Canada writes: I'm not a big fan of anyone having nuclear/ ICBM weaponry.
    But, as long as the U.S and Israel are armed to the teeth, I find it difficult for anyone to pass judgement when other countries produce the same things. Especially countries who have been named enemies of two said nations.

    You wanna talk the talk, then walk the walk. Disarm yourselves and then advocate for others to do the same.
  21. Vadim ! from Canada writes: My apologies. Pakistan is not signatory to the treaty.

    Check out a simple Wiki entry to learn more about the treaty and its signatories:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ListofpartiestotheNuclearNon-Proliferation_Treaty

    So, can we please end this stupid debate now?
  22. Common Sense for Dollars from Vancouver, Canada writes: For an advanced culture like Iran to be driven by a theocratic dictatorship into a genocidal military state is sad. Their avowed intention of using an atomic weapon makes this rogue state a threat to the entire world, since nuclear fallout respects no frontiers. Sometimes, to preserve long-term peace, you have to hammer the weasels. Iran is a clear threat and the time has come to hammer them. Luckily our society is smart enough to have a professional army that understands that other people are more unscrupulous than we are & would not hesitate to cause bloodshed on a massive scale. This is because they just do not care. We care too much; it is our strength and it is our weakness.
  23. Chris Michaels from Canada writes: "Cant we all just get along from Canada writes: I wake up and thank God everyday,that I live in Canada and that the United States of America is our Big Brother.."

    Really? Because that's why I don't sleep well at night. The United States has fostered a great deal of well-deserved ill-will among many nations around the globe. Often, due to our own doing or not, we are guilty by association.

    Thus, thanks to aggressive foriegn policies of many United States administrations, we may also be deemed a target.
  24. A Better Canada from no-quebec, Canada writes: Vladim...what a great excuse....Isreal does not sign the treaty...so, this gives her all the reasons and excuses in the world to do what they want...not giving a damn about others......also, perhaps, before lecturing others, you should read the history of islam and persian, and understand their own different mentality.....or, read the history starting a few thousand years ago...you are as hypocrite as Cheney-Bush Regime.....torture does not apply to US....waterboarding is not torture, because White House said so.....talking about hypocrisy, how about Isreal taking millions of naive Americans to sell arms to Iran in 80s, in the invasion by Iraq-US......Israel using american money to sell to the enemies of White House. oops...forgot, Israel did not sign an agreement stopping them to sell arms.
  25. Diablo at large from Canada writes: Joe V from Canada writes:

    "However, Iran is more troubling than Israel because it is run by Islamic extremists. You never know how crazy such extremists might be; maybe they are eager to go meet their virgins and young boys in heaven, taking the rest of us with them."

    And Israel is run by Jewish extremists. And for the last 8 years the US was run by Christian extremists during which time hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died based on the premise of a lie. So tell me, who is more dangerous, a country that has never attacked its neighbors or two countries that have had no qualms about conducting military operations in densely populated civilian areas.

    Also, Muslims are not one monolithic entity. Because a group of muslims believes in martyrdom, it does not mean that every muslim does so. Also. the state of Israel and the US have been responsible for far more bloodshed and have been far more belligerent towards their neighbors than Iran has.
  26. Vadim ! from Canada writes: A Better Canada from no-quebec, Canada writes: Vladim...what a great excuse....Isreal does not sign the treaty...so, this gives her all the reasons and excuses in the world to do what they want...not giving a damn about others......also, perhaps, before lecturing others, you should read the history of islam and persian, and understand their own different mentality.....or, read the history starting a few thousand years ago...you are as hypocrite as Cheney-Bush Regime.....torture does not apply to US....waterboarding is not torture, because White House said so.....talking about hypocrisy, how about Isreal taking millions of naive Americans to sell arms to Iran in 80s, in the invasion by Iraq-US......Israel using american money to sell to the enemies of White House. oops...forgot, Israel did not sign an agreement stopping them to sell arms.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Wow. Just because I mentioned you can't grasp the fact that one can be Persian AND a Muslim doesn't mean you should stop taking your meds and go on a rant.

    All your rabble babble aside. I'm curious as to why you are singling out Israel for not signing the NPT, and aren't also criticizing India and Pakistan as well for the same reason?
  27. mg casey from Canada writes: The Israelis will not allow these nut bars to acquire nuclear weapons.Nor should they!
    They have repeatedly said they want to annihilate the Jewish State. It is a matter of survival for Israel.
  28. A B from Calgary, Canada writes: Well, now they can reach European countries with their nukes. No doubt missile shield is needed in Europe. Hopefully US will step up to protect Europe and entire World from this Iranian aggressors.
  29. Toronto Lover from Canada writes: The trheat is n't Iran having missles the Threat is to our economy and families' future propsperty and safety if hardline zionist Israelis bomb Iran.

    You think the economy is bad now, try with $200bbl oil. It would be devastating but all we hear is how Iran is our biggest threat, that's a load of crap. on a day to day practical level if Israel and the US attacked Iran it would be a national security nightmare for North America, which is far more costly than negotiating with Iran. A war for Israel on Iran would bankrupt the US.

    Read this article by Michael Scheuer who was the head of the CIA's Bin Laden search team. It's an eye opener

    http://tinyurl.com/ortaux
  30. Jay Crawford from Miami, Florida, United States writes:
    Okay, let's get a LITTLE technical:
    Michael Cole is EXACTLY right about the purpose of solid rocket used by armed forces: immediate readiness.
    I'll supplement his point with the most important technical virtue of solid rockets: SIMPLICITY. These engines have few, if any, moving parts and therefore are very reliable and storable. However, because of the need to chemically "solidify" the combustible elements within them (by use of a stabilizing chemical), they are inherently LESS efficient propellents on a kilogram-for-kilogram basis than liquid propellents.
    NASA uses solid rocket boosters for the shuttle because NASA believed that reliability was of paramount importance for engines required to provide parallel axis of thrust because, if one engine failed, the shuttle would twist laterally and probably break up before the orbiter could detach itself safely.
    Military forces, by comparison, use solid rocket engines almost exclusively because for their storability.

    One problem with the article, however, is the lack of any critical analysis of the claim by Iran of its having developed a solid fuel rocket with a 2,000km range. Because such a rocket engine would be large, it would require an experienced industrial base which was used to working with HUGE amounts of sensitive high-energy materials. America had such an industry (in the late 1950s when we developed large solid rockets) as a result of much rocket experience during WWII. It had the network "tree" of supporting technologies to build such engines for the first Minuteman ICBMs.
    Iran doesn't have that experience. While they may have engineers who understand the concept, having industry to build the thing is an entirely different matter. Based on their past performance, the Iranians' persistent claims of developing "wonder weapons" ring hollow.
    Based on what has actuall come out of Iran recently, I'd say their rocket "technology tree" is really a "technology bush"
  31. Jon S. from Montreal, Canada writes: A Better Canada from no-quebec: Thanks for the laugh of the day by saying that Iran is not Islamic, but rather Persian. Persians are not Arabs, which is perhaps what you mean, but I don't even think you meant that. I think you've discredited yourself enough. But let's review your post anyway:

    A Better Canada from no-quebec, Canada writes: "Jon S....first of all, Iran has never said they want to destroy Israel...you are just limited to the Israel propaganda....so are limited in your own view.....no use to discuss with yo, if your source is biased."

    >>>Why are your sources reliable, but mine are biased. Please enlighten.

    "Again, you are wrong about the desire of Israel to eliminate Iran only after the election of present president....this has been in the planning, with Washington, a long time. ago...Were you born when Washington helped Iraq to attack Iran? Oops, perhaps, you are not interested in the real history of the world...so, no use to continue."

    >>> Iraq had been involved in attacking Israel in 48 and 67 (and not sure if they were involved elsewhere). Israel SUPPORTED Iran in this war, and even supplied them with weapons.

    My suggestion is to give some sources and facts instead of just telling me "I'm not interested in the real history of the world". Your tone suggests you're not really interested in listening to anyone with a different point of view yourself, so please don't cast stones at those in glass houses (or whatever the expression is).

    Since Ahmedinejad's election, Iran has used beligerant, provocative language and tone towards Israel, with zero provocation.
  32. Jon S. from Montreal, Canada writes: For the record, I don't advocate an Israeli attack on Iran. The world doesn't need it, but I most certainly do NOT advocate an Iranian attack on Israel. Iran is messing with the bull, so there should be no surprise if they get the horns. That's the way this world of ours works, like it or not.
  33. Diablo at large from Canada writes: Common Sense for Dollars from Vancouver, Canada writes: For an advanced culture like Iran to be driven by a theocratic dictatorship into a genocidal military state is sad. Their avowed intention of using an atomic weapon makes this rogue state a threat to the entire world, since nuclear fallout respects no frontiers.

    Can you please state one source for me where Iran has stated that it intends on using nuclear weapons? Or does this threat exist simply in your mind?
  34. Jay Crawford from Miami, Florida, United States writes:
    While I doubt that Iran actually has built a solid fuel rocket engine capable of throwing a militarily-useful payload for 2,000km, I have no doubt that this article will continue to bring out the historically ignorant, paranoid, or merely delusional critics of Israel.

    Since I'm a bit busy now, I won't have time to shred such foolishness until later tonight (assuming that uber-smart Vadim ! hasn't already done so).
    Right now, I've got to finish sending out my reports on all of you to our Zionist overlords.
    Be seeing you
  35. A Better Canada from no-quebec, Canada writes: Great points, Diablo and good explanations, Jay Crawford. To Vladim, you are contradicting yourself....accuse others not to accept a different opinion, when you are the one who dares to rely upon insults...and still, did not contradict, with facts, my comments...again, again, and again, never Iran has said that they want to destroy Israel......but, as with the Cheney=Bush Regime, repeat a lie, a thousand times, and a bunch of naive gullible ignorant people, will start to believe it is true......as the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.....just wait, they will discover them....someday...in the future...future Meanwhile, our economy is collapsing because of war makers....
  36. The Last Fenian from Upper Canada from Canada writes: .

    Cant we all just get along from Canada writes:

    "I wake up and thank God everyday,that I live in Canada and that the United States of America is our Big Brother,

    Most of you people posting here and you lefty wingnuts should be absolutly ashamed of yourselves.,,,,Amen "
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    "Big Brother"?

    You don't even get the irony of using that phrase, do you?

    "you lefty wingnuts"?

    Where is Bill Buckley when we need him?

    .
  37. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: As much as people want to deny it, Iran has been a threat to Israel for a long time. As a country they have supported and exported terrorism by supporting Hamas and Hezbollah. No, Iranians are not Arabs but Persians. However, they are an Islamic theocracy and a thorn in the side of many other Muslim countries because they are Shiite rather than Sunni. It is not simply Israel or Western countries that are concerned about Iran -- it is other Muslim countries. Saudi Arabia has been concerned with the expansionism of Shiites from Iran for decades. They were very angry at the US for 'allowing' the establishment of a theocracy in Iran. It is one reason they discouraged the US from taking out Saddam at the end of the Gulf War - they were worried about Iran moving to fill a power vacuum. Of course Iran has made moves in Iraq - but so has Al-Qaeda and that is part of the problem. Al-Qaeda also poses a serious threat to the current governments of all Muslim countries in the region.
  38. Slippery Slope from Canada writes: The unfortunate thing is that Iran is just taunting Israel to attack it. Why?
  39. Spring Fire from China writes: The funny thing is, Iran has not attacked anyone. Israel/US has attacked many countries. So I don't see why Iran is a threat.
  40. A Better Canada from no-quebec, Canada writes: To Catherine...why do you think the Sunnies are not also a threat? From where do you think the terrorists come from? Authoritian regimes supported by US.....as in Iran when US boycotted an elected government to install the Shah...as they did in so many other countries, including Latin America. By the way, how about the Crusades, when you have religions against other fanatic religious....or Catholics versus Protestants.....among each of them, you still have various differences....why I previously mentioned the difference between Persian Iran and other different islamic groups....but, I guess, tract-minded readers are not interested to see the real truth....To your credit, you are so right about US being so naive for invading Iraq.....we can not blame Iran to accept such a gift....and the loss of a few trillion dollars from ignorant arrogant Americans.....at least, Chretien has been smarter than the great majority of naive Canadians, but being from Quebec, he is not getting credit.....as for Trudeau who did stand up for this country...like it or not.....much better than all other prime ministers since.....surely can not rely upon poodle harper.....should concentrate on the Artics
  41. Vadim ! from Canada writes: Jay Crawford from Miami, Florida, United States writes: ...Since I'm a bit busy now, I won't have time to shred such foolishness until later tonight (assuming that uber-smart Vadim ! hasn't already done so)...
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    What's up with that comment, Jay? I'm not the one who went on a technical description of the differences between solid vs. liquid rockets. Do you have something of value to add to the conversation, or do you prefer to be the bully in the school yard who likes to pick on kids smarter than he is?
  42. Vadim ! from Canada writes: A Better Canada from no-quebec, Canada writes: ...To Vladim, you are contradicting yourself....accuse others not to accept a different opinion, when you are the one who dares to rely upon insults...
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I did not at any point accuse others of not accepting a different opinion. That would be disengenuous of me on a board such as this one where we're encouraged to give our opinions. Please enlighten me as to where I did. Oh wait, perhaps it was your "opinion" that Iran wasn't an Islamic country, it was Persian. Classic that one was.

    And for the record, you threw the first punch on insults with your maniacal rant calling me hypocritical and ignorant, so if you can't take it then don't dish it out.
  43. Jon S. from Montreal, Canada writes: " Slippery Slope from Canada writes: The unfortunate thing is that Iran is just taunting Israel to attack it. Why? "

    Bingo.
  44. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: A Better Canada from no-quebec - Pierre Trudeau was an intelligent statesman that many Canadians never did appreciate - IMO Chretien was one of the worst PMs we have ever had. PM Harper certainly is no statesman and seems unable to even communicate to Canadians effectively much less the leaders of other countries. Canada has had a limited number of statesmen/women enter politics because they are often undercut by the existing system and can rarely count on real support from Canadians.

    As for the Sunnis, ever since Iran became a theocracy Saudi Arabia(as one example) invested many of their proceeds from the sale of oil to spread Wahhabism around the world. Al-Qaeda is Sunni and based on Salafi Wahhabism and is a threat to both Shiite and Sunni Muslims because they want all Muslim countries (including Saudi Arabia) to become theocracies a la Taliban. One main difference is that Al-Qaeda, like the Taliban, believe in the use of violence and terrorism to achieve their objectives.
  45. Chicoine or Ciccone or Kikkoine from Canada writes: Iran fired a rocket, 2000 km of range, they call it defensive. I don't think a rocket with such a range fits the purpose of being defensive. Pre-emptive?
    However, the US and it's allies are more than a match to this new threat, and therefore this conversation is moot.
  46. Glynn W from Canada writes: Thats fine ... it still won't reach us.
  47. Mark H from United States writes: "Spring Fire from China writes: The funny thing is, Iran has not attacked anyone. Israel/US has attacked many countries. So I don't see why Iran is a threat. "

    Haha, Poland probably said the same type of thing until about 1936.
  48. Chicoine or Ciccone or Kikkoine from Canada writes: Well "A better Canada...", time for you to move to Iran and make them target Quebec with their nukes, once of course their rockets are in the 10,000 km range...
  49. A Better Canada from no-quebec, Canada writes: Catherine, I agree with you in regards to Trudeau...For Chretien, the only thing I mentioned: he was smart enough, and brave enough to stand against the terrorist Cheney-Bush Regime...in spite of a bunch of naive gullible Canadians. So, for Iraq, Chretien has saved us billions of dollars and thousands of lives. For Iran, it was a democratic society before the US installed the Shah...We should not blame Iranians for invading embassies...they have the courage to stand up against invaders and profiteers...like Castro did in Cuba...like it or not. This does not mean that everything they did after, is perfect. No relation. I mostly agree with you on your comments: my point: sunnies are not better than shiites and Persian Iran, is different from other islamist cultures....that was my point at beginning...and still is....There is no use to reply to Vadim...he is now against Jay who was supporting one of his arguments before....just show his low-class and lack of understanding....or interest in understanding others' opinion.
  50. Calahoolie Brott from Toronto, Canada writes: Interview with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on April 10th in Spiegel Online International. Before we all start putting in/taking words out of his mouth. His perspective is pretty clear.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,618559,00.html
  51. Spring Fire from China writes: Mark H from United States writes:
    "Haha, Poland probably said the same type of thing until about 1936"

    1936? I only look at history in the last 10, maybe 20, if stretched 30, pushing hard 40, years. And I see Iranians were or are not with war with anyone.

    Kudos to Iranians for their achievement, a positive force for world peace.
  52. Jay Crawford from Miami, Florida, United States writes:
    Vadim ! wrote:
    "What's up with that comment, Jay? I'm not the one who went on a technical description of the differences between solid vs. liquid rockets. Do you have something of value to add to the conversation, or do you prefer to be the bully in the school yard who likes to pick on kids smarter than he is?"

    Respectfully, Vadim !, you couldn't be more wrong. I've always respected (and even admired) your sensible responses to insensible writers. I have full confidence (hence my describing you as "uber-smart") in YOUR responses shredding the foolishness (and bigotry) I often read among these comments.
    Simply put, I like reading your posts.
    As for my technical point about Iran's claims, it's used in as the basis for my belief that THIS specific Iranian "2,000km rocket" claim is probably false.
    Peace out, dude!
  53. Ivan Wilson from Canada writes: Oh great! Muslims with Nukes - just what the world needs.
  54. Ivan Wilson from Canada writes: Spring Fire from China writes: So I don't see why Iran is a threat.

    You'd better see an optometrist - they are in the yellowpages under 'O'
  55. Spring Fire from China writes: Well, a Chinese proverb says: A devil will see everyone as devil.
  56. Steve is a warmongering neanderthal and loving it! from Canada writes:

    Globe and Mail, your Iranian proxy for propaganda.
  57. Jon S. from Montreal, Canada writes: Calahoolie Brott from Toronto, Canada writes: Interview with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on April 10th in Spiegel Online International. Before we all start putting in/taking words out of his mouth. His perspective is pretty clear.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,618559,00.html

    Thanks for this. This guy is a loon. My favorite part was when he said "I believe that the controversy over the Holocaust is not an issue for the German people. The problem is more deep-seated than that."

    Um, sure.
  58. Jeff Wong from North York, Canada writes: .
    .
    .
    I think Iran developing nuclear weapons is acceptable. It has to be able to defend itself. Every country has that right. Iran's been around far longer than most countries.

    I look at what the US is doing in the Middle East, they are doing a lot more harm then good. They have totallyed ruined Iraq, Afghan, and indirectly Pakistan, the whole area is destabilized.

    Without hestitation, USA would make up an excuse to invade Iran at some point in the future. It's almost a given. Don't believe Obama when he says he plans to pull out the troops, I see the troop count increasing in Middle East for the next 30 years, as long as there is oil in the ground.
  59. Jeff Wong from North York, Canada writes: "Ivan Wilson from Canada writes: Oh great! Muslims with Nukes - just what the world needs. "

    ----------------------

    Ivan, if even 20% of the West's poplulation thinks like you, the World is in deep trouble. A large portion of the World's population is Muslim. Remember, the United States of American remains the ONLY country on Earth to ever deploy a Nuclear weapon on humans.

    The Americans are the ones meddling in Iran's backyard.

    If you put yourself in Iran's shoes, what would you do? Really.
  60. Syed Abbas of Toronto from Seattle WA, United States writes:

    mg casey: Greetings

    " ... The Israelis will not allow these nut bars to acquire nuclear weapons ..."

    What do you think Iranians are Arabs and it is 1967?

    If the Israelis buckled under Hezbollah, Iran's student, whom will they call for help against the Iranians? James Bond 007?

    Cheers
  61. Ron Burke from Ashton Ont, Canada writes: Iran is one of the founders of human civilization, having invented the wheel and the chariot.. The 4000 yr old Iranians have more right to nuclear arms than 250 yr old USA. Iran is twice as old as the UK wer emho tried to conq, France, Russia. The only country to have actually abused the weapon was the USA. The USA destroyed 2 foreign cities with nuclear weapons in 1945. The USA proliferated nuclear weapons to the Isrealis in 1974. Isreal has nuclear submarine launched nuclear weapons. Stop the lies about Iranian foreign policy. They want to defend themselves from USA hegemony all around them. USA is 10000 miles away from Iran. Iran has done nothing but boot the CIA stooges our of Tehran in 1979. Suck it up.
  62. John Peterson from Canada writes: Spring Fire from China writes: Well, a Chinese proverb says: A devil will see everyone as devil.

    --------------------

    Yeah but we are not talking about "everyone".

    I think that after the cultural revolution you are left with the proverbs but none of their wisdom.
  63. Steve is a warmongering neanderthal and loving it! from Canada writes:



    Jeff Wong from North York, Canada writes: The Americans are the ones meddling in Iran's backyard.

    ======================================

    Actually Iran played in America's backyard.

    http://www.meforum.org/670/irans-link-to-al-qaeda-the-9-11-commissions

    -------------------------------------------------------------

    "the United States of American remains the ONLY country on Earth to ever deploy a Nuclear weapon on humans."

    ------------------------------------------------------------

    That gets filed in the what have you done lately for me category.
    Big deal , ONLY.
    How many times has it been used since then, by anyone???
  64. Steve is a warmongering neanderthal and loving it! from Canada writes:

    Response to Jeff Wong from North York, Canada writes: If you put yourself in Iran's shoes, what would you do? Really.

    ========================================

    Those curly Q Persian jobs???

    Not my job to be a fake victim for a fake victim.
  65. Ron Burke from Ashton Ont, Canada writes: Yes it's true. The USA nuked 2 cities full of people. Persians are real people like you and I. They are proud of their past glories and will defend their Republic and their shiite brand of Islam. Yes, they are supporting their friends here and there, just as the West supports its clients in various foreign capitals here and there. There is patriotic honour in Tehran today. Thirty years free of the grasping Brits and Yanks. They deserve some nukes just like Isreal or India. More so than France or UK do.
  66. Fake Name from Canada writes: " A Better Canada from no-quebec, Canada writes: Joe V, you are right with the fact that Israel and Iran should not have nuclear weapons, but wrong, when you say Iran is an islamic country....it is persian...big, big difference...so don't get brainwashed by the Israel-Washington propaganda."

    The country is run by mullahs.

    Kthxbai.
  67. Jon S. from Montreal, Canada writes: Ron Burke: All the Persians I know here in Canada (about a dozen or so) abhor this government, and every single Iranian leader/government since the revolution. They miss their homeland, but are smart enough to know how far their society has degraded since that time under Islamic theocratic rule. They all say the same things: Mullahs are corrupt, and do everything in the name of the almighty dollar, much like those they chastize.

    Syed Abbas: Take Hezbollah out of civilian Lebanon, and see how well they do against the IDF. Israel wears kid gloves when it goes up against Hamas/Hezbollah.
  68. Vadim ! from Canada writes: Jay Crawford from Miami, Florida, United States writes: Vadim ! wrote: "What's up with that comment, Jay? I'm not the one who went on a technical description of the differences between solid vs. liquid rockets. Do you have something of value to add to the conversation, or do you prefer to be the bully in the school yard who likes to pick on kids smarter than he is?" Respectfully, Vadim !, you couldn't be more wrong. I've always respected (and even admired) your sensible responses to insensible writers. I have full confidence (hence my describing you as "uber-smart") in YOUR responses shredding the foolishness (and bigotry) I often read among these comments. Simply put, I like reading your posts. As for my technical point about Iran's claims, it's used in as the basis for my belief that THIS specific Iranian "2,000km rocket" claim is probably false. Peace out, dude! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My sincere apologies, Jay. I'm routinely maligned on these posts for having an alternative viewpoint to those who believe that the world's despotic regimes are a model we should all aspire to. I've obviously become hyper-sensitive and reflexively and unfairly attacked you. And, for the record, I do appreciate your technical analysis and see your point. I brushed that argument aside in favour of being the bully in this case and I, once again, apologize for that.
  69. Steve is a warmongering neanderthal and loving it! from Canada writes:

    Response to Ron Burke from Ashton Ont, Canada writes: Yes it's true. The USA nuked 2 cities full of people. Persians are real people like you and I. They are proud of their past glories and will defend their Republic and their shiite brand of Islam.

    ==============================

    I always knew Islamic bloggers trolled North American forums.
    The internet is just another battlefront of war.
  70. Ron Burke from Ashton Ont, Canada writes: Jon S. from Montreal, Canada

    Canada is full of people who left their homeland because they lost. They are bitter of course. Natural. Just like I don't like to read about the the poor Irish expelled from 19th century British-occupied Ireland . The Irish were rapid anti-British. What would you expect of emigrees? Much like the royalists from France in 1779 went to London. They detested the new Republic in Paris. Same goes with Vietnames boat people and United Empire Loyalists expelled from their homelands in Virginia or Saigon .
  71. D Peters from Alberta, Canada writes: Well, I guess until oneof these missiles enters foriegn airspace there is not much that can be done. Until then it is just sabre rattling. But if a missile leaves Iran, no matter where it lands, bomb them right back to the stone age.

    Where did they get the people and technology for this endeavour? I would be willing to guess that the US had a hand in it. They didn't want North Korea or Russia getting all the credit/money.
  72. John Peterson from Canada writes: Should we be concerned if the supreme, universal, glorious Ayatollah throws a temper tantrum when his coffee is served too hot?

    The bugger will be a 100 years old and still be executing 50 people if he wakes up on the wrong side of the bed.

    Nice guy to have a finger on the button - eh?
  73. Another vicious kick right in the face from Orwell's Ghost, writes: .

    Congratulations to Iran on this technological achievement. As a Canadian, I envy the commitment of Iran's government to supporting achievements in science and technology. If only our government could see the value in encouraging advanced research.

    .
  74. Vadim ! from Canada writes: Simple fact: Iran is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and as such has agreed that they will not develop nukes. Any development of nukes by them, or the other 188 nations who are a signatory to this treaty is considered a provocation and means that they will be subject to sanctions or perhaps more dire consequences.

    This is an argument based on international law. Any further debate on this point alone is pointless and moot. India, Israel and Pakistan are not signatory to the treaty. If you're going to criticized Israel for not signing, then you damned well better be prepared to criticize India and Pakistan as well.
  75. Another vicious kick right in the face from Orwell's Ghost, writes: Left Wing from Togo writes:
    C'mon, this is about extending Iranian influence and power over the region. "Why is that a big deal?" Because, if you've been reading the headlines at any time in the past 30 years, you'll see that Iran has a big hate on for America/Europe/Israel and would also like to control the oil shipping lanes.

    =======================

    Well, countries compete for power and influence. That fact is still not cause for alarm.
  76. Glynn W from Canada writes: WTF has this got to do with us?
  77. Jon S. from Montreal, Canada writes: Ron: I don't know if these people "lost". They were not expelled. They chose to leave. They saw the writing on the wall, and saw that a progressive, western-nation was about to take a massive step backwards, both socially & economically. They had in fact wanted change (the Shah was corrupt, etc), and they got it in a far worse fashion than they had ever imagined.

    I'm also talking about sensibility here. The Iranian government is not serving ANYONE well -including the citizens of Iran. Their economy is in the tank, and they're threatening a country that wasn't even looking at them - until now.
  78. Another vicious kick right in the face from Orwell's Ghost, writes: Jon S. from Montreal, Canada writes: John Hynde and A Better Canada:
    I'm not sure what news some of you read....I'd love foreither of you or ANYONE to point out to me when Israel had EVER threatened Iran, prior to Ahmedinejad becoming president, threatening to "wipe Israel off the map" (or WHATEVER he said, it was controversial),

    =================

    It was controversial because it was falsely reported in the way you just did.

    Adminjihad said he wants the regime in Israel to vanish from the pages of history. He did not say he intended to make the whole country of Israel do anything, let alone wipe it from anything.
  79. Jon S. from Montreal, Canada writes: Another Vicious: My point, was that WHATEVER the translation was, it was not friendly, belligerant, and provocative.

    I don't speak Farsi, so while I do not claim to understand exactly what he said, he has clearly inflamed Israel with his rhetoric, for no apparant reason.

    So, do YOU speak Farsi?
  80. Another vicious kick right in the face from Orwell's Ghost, writes: Vadim writes: ...Iran ... is signatory to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty which explicitly restricts them from developing nukes. ...this treaty, it is basically a trade-off between those countries who have nukes ... to REDUCE their arms inventory in exchange from a promise by other countries, like Iran and Pakistan, to NOT DEVELOP nukes. End of story. ... This isn't a moral issue vis a vis "why should Israel have nukes and Iran can't blah, blah, blah...". This is a legal issue and Iran is violating the terms of an agreement they signed back on July 1, 1968.

    ====================

    A few additional facts:

    1. There is no proof that Iran is violating the treaty. Signatories are permitted to developing civilian nuclear power technology.

    2. The nuclear powers have mostly failed to do what they are supposed to under the treaty.

    3. Anyone can get out of the treaty by giving 3 months notice.

    4. Non-signatories are allowed to build nukes.
  81. Ron Burke from Ashton Ont, Canada writes: Jon S. from Montreal, Canada

    I am telling you that refugees emigrees from revolutions are naturally going to be biased. That's why they seek refugee. They supported the losers. United Empire Loyalists kicked from New York 1781, Iranians from Tehran 1980, Vietnamese from Saigon 1975, whoever. Much like the Sri Lankan Tamils emigrated to Canada lately are all bleeting about their evil overlords back home in the old country. Irans economy is doing as well as any oil-based economy does that is sanctioned by half the world. Anyways, I know you are a smart guy, but Isreal's 1970's illegal proliferated nukes have provoked a counterpart.
  82. Another vicious kick right in the face from Orwell's Ghost, writes: Common Sense for Dollars from Vancouver, Canada writes: For an advanced culture like Iran to be driven by a theocratic dictatorship into a genocidal military state is sad. Their avowed intention of using an atomic weapon makes this rogue state a threat to the entire world, since nuclear fallout respects no frontiers.

    ============================

    Why do warmongers make up such obvious nonsense?

    Fact: Iran has no "avowed intention" whatsoever of (a) building nukes (b) using them or (c) attacking any state anywhere.
  83. Glynn W from Canada writes: Ron Burke from Ashton - How does your theory apply to S.African whites?
  84. Another vicious kick right in the face from Orwell's Ghost, writes: mg casey from Canada writes: The Israelis will not allow these nut bars to acquire nuclear weapons.Nor should they!
    They have repeatedly said they want to annihilate the Jewish State. It is a matter of survival for Israel.

    =====================

    1. There is nothing Israel can sensibly can do to prevent other countries from pursuing whatever domestic policies they like. Surely you are not suggesting Israel would make an illegal attack on another sovereign state, are you?

    2. Can you please provide a reference for where Iran has declared an intention to annihilate Israel? Thanks.
  85. Steve is a warmongering neanderthal and loving it! from Canada writes:

    Response to Another vicious kick right in the face from Orwell's Ghost, writes: Common Sense for Dollars from Vancouver, Canada writes: For an advanced culture like Iran to be driven by a theocratic dictatorship into a genocidal military state is sad. Their avowed intention of using an atomic weapon makes this rogue state a threat to the entire world, since nuclear fallout respects no frontiers.

    ============================

    Why do warmongers make up such obvious nonsense?

    Fact: Iran has no "avowed intention" whatsoever of (a) building nukes (b) using them or (c) attacking any state anywhere.

    =====================================

    You know this to be true of their intentions because ..... ???
    What inside info have you procured???

    PT Barnum was right, a sucker is born every minute.
  86. Vadim ! from Canada writes: Another vicious kick right in the face from Orwell's Ghost, writes: Jon S. from Montreal, Canada writes: John Hynde and A Better Canada:
    I'm not sure what news some of you read....I'd love foreither of you or ANYONE to point out to me when Israel had EVER threatened Iran, prior to Ahmedinejad becoming president, threatening to "wipe Israel off the map" (or WHATEVER he said, it was controversial),

    =================

    It was controversial because it was falsely reported in the way you just did.

    Adminjihad said he wants the regime in Israel to vanish from the pages of history. He did not say he intended to make the whole country of Israel do anything, let alone wipe it from anything.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Let's say for the sake of argument that Ahmadinejad didn't technically say "wipe Israel off the map" at that fateful moment. Then what do we say about the fact that a "Death to Israel" banner routinely hangs on Iran's foreign ministry in Tehran?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/2711668/Israel-could-capture-Iranian-President-Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad.html

    It's funny how people often give a free pass to Ahmadinejad because of the nuance of his words.
  87. Another vicious kick right in the face from Orwell's Ghost, writes: Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes:... Saudi Arabia has been concerned with the expansionism of Shiites from Iran for decades.

    ===============

    Oh, well! If Saudi Arabia doesn't like something it MUST be bad, right?

    LOL!
  88. Another vicious kick right in the face from Orwell's Ghost, writes: Jon S. from Montreal, Canada writes: " Slippery Slope from Canada writes: The unfortunate thing is that Iran is just taunting Israel to attack it. Why? "

    Bingo.

    ==================

    What has bingo go to do with it?
  89. Vadim ! from Canada writes: Another vicious kick right in the face from Orwell's Ghost, writes: Vadim writes: ...Iran ... is signatory to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty which explicitly restricts them from developing nukes. ...this treaty, it is basically a trade-off between those countries who have nukes ... to REDUCE their arms inventory in exchange from a promise by other countries, like Iran and Pakistan, to NOT DEVELOP nukes. End of story. ... This isn't a moral issue vis a vis "why should Israel have nukes and Iran can't blah, blah, blah...". This is a legal issue and Iran is violating the terms of an agreement they signed back on July 1, 1968. ==================== A few additional facts: 1. There is no proof that Iran is violating the treaty. Signatories are permitted to developing civilian nuclear power technology. They are indeed permitted. But, they must permit the IAEA to perform inspections. They have steadfastly refused and are therefore in violation of the treaty. 2. The nuclear powers have mostly failed to do what they are supposed to under the treaty. Please provide examples. The nuclear powers, particularly the US and Russia have been actively reducing their ridiculously enormous nuclear rocket inventory. 3. Anyone can get out of the treaty by giving 3 months notice. Has Iran given notice yet? 4. Non-signatories are allowed to build nukes. True. But Iran is signatory, so what's your point?
  90. Steve is a warmongering neanderthal and loving it! from Canada writes:

    Response to Vadim ! from Canada writes: It's funny how people often give a free pass to Ahmadinejad because of the nuance of his words.

    =====================================

    You are dead on.
    It is not only nuance but cognitive dissonance as well.
  91. Another vicious kick right in the face from Orwell's Ghost, writes: Mark H from United States writes: "Spring Fire from China writes: The funny thing is, Iran has not attacked anyone. Israel/US has attacked many countries. So I don't see why Iran is a threat. "

    Haha, Poland probably said the same type of thing until about 1936.

    ================

    The idiocy of some posts! Incredible.
  92. A Better Canada from no-quebec, Canada writes: Thanks Calahoolie for the reference to the interview with President of Iran....All Canadians should read that....including a few square-head from US and a few naive gullible Canadians, especially Vadim who still does not get it.....to his credit, he offers his excuse to Jay...after of course, his insults. Never too late to learn the real facts....As we can notice, the stubborness of the journalists, their lack of savoir-faire and knowledge.....President of Iran is surely more patient and polite than me....as he demonstrated in front of the coward low-class president of Columbia University, last year. I guess the arrogance of Cheney-Bush regime is a standard behaviour of certain American leaders.
  93. Another vicious kick right in the face from Orwell's Ghost, writes: Ivan Wilson from Canada writes: Oh great! Muslims with Nukes - just what the world needs.

    ===========================

    Apart from your blatant religious bigotry, you are reacting to very old news: Pakistan has had nukes for decades.
  94. Jon S. from Montreal, Canada writes: A Better Canada: Funny, we read the same article, and I thought the German interviewer did a great job of showing how out of step with everything that this guy is. His positions were pretty clear. He doesn't like the US, doesn't like Israel, doesn't think that Germans like Jews or Israel, and seemed to get more agitated whenever when having to discuss Israel.

    Why do you assume Ahmedinejad is being open and honest, and the journalist is being disingenuous?
  95. Another vicious kick right in the face from Orwell's Ghost, writes: Jon S. from Montreal, Canada writes: Another Vicious: My point, was that WHATEVER the translation was, it was not friendly, belligerant, and provocative.

    ====================

    That is a common response from people who propagate that particular lie about Adminjihad.

    But it doesn't hold water.

    If WHATEVER he said is sufficiently offensive, it should serve you adequately to report his words accurately. The only reason to make up a fake version is to get some advantage by misrepresenting him.
  96. Another vicious kick right in the face from Orwell's Ghost, writes: Steve is a warmongering neanderthal and loving it! from Canada writes:

    Response to Another vicious kick right in the face from Orwell's Ghost, writes: Common Sense for Dollars from Vancouver, Canada writes: For an advanced culture like Iran to be driven by a theocratic dictatorship into a genocidal military state is sad. Their avowed intention of using an atomic weapon makes this rogue state a threat to the entire world, since nuclear fallout respects no frontiers.

    ============================

    Why do warmongers make up such obvious nonsense?

    Fact: Iran has no "avowed intention" whatsoever of (a) building nukes (b) using them or (c) attacking any state anywhere.

    =====================================

    You know this to be true of their intentions because ..... ???
    What inside info have you procured??? ...

    ===============

    An "avowed intention" is a stated one. No statements of such kind are on the record from Iran as far as I have ever heard.
  97. Vadim ! from Canada writes: A Better Canada from no-quebec, Canada writes: Thanks Calahoolie for the reference to the interview with President of Iran....All Canadians should read that....including a few square-head from US and a few naive gullible Canadians, especially Vadim who still does not get it.....to his credit, he offers his excuse to Jay...after of course, his insults.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At least I was big enough to apologize to Jay for insulting him. But, how can you be so self-righteous in accusing me of throwing around insults after you've just insulted me in the very same breath? Unbelievable.

    And to call me naive and gullible when, once again, you don't believe Iran is an Islamic country is the stuff of comedy.
  98. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: A Better Canada from no-quebec - yes there is a cultural difference between Persians and Arabs. As for the difference between Shiite and Sunni - they are more alike than different in terms of those wanting 'purify' Islam and establish theocratic rule. Although Iran is a theocracy, most of the people are not happy with it. While they wanted to get rid of the shah, they failed to look very closely at what they were getting and it was a rude awakening for many. Among others, the Baha'is paid dearly as a result of the establishment of the theocracy in Iran.

    Ron Burke - Iran has been actively supporting terrorism for decades - Hamas and Hezbollah - so it is disingenuous to suggest they are of no threat to Israel. Other Muslim countries - being mostly Sunni - are also concerned about Iran becoming a nuclear power - especially Saudi Arabia.

    D Peters from Alberta - Iran got their nuclear knowledge from Dr. Khan in Pakistan - as did N. Korea.
  99. Vadim ! from Canada writes: Another vicious kick right in the face from Orwell's Ghost, writes: Steve is a warmongering neanderthal and loving it! from Canada writes: Response to Another vicious kick right in the face from Orwell's Ghost, writes: Common Sense for Dollars from Vancouver, Canada writes: For an advanced culture like Iran to be driven by a theocratic dictatorship into a genocidal military state is sad. Their avowed intention of using an atomic weapon makes this rogue state a threat to the entire world, since nuclear fallout respects no frontiers. ============================ Why do warmongers make up such obvious nonsense? Fact: Iran has no "avowed intention" whatsoever of (a) building nukes (b) using them or (c) attacking any state anywhere. ===================================== You know this to be true of their intentions because ..... ??? What inside info have you procured??? ... =============== An "avowed intention" is a stated one. No statements of such kind are on the record from Iran as far as I have ever heard. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Iranian parliament has chanted "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" too numerous times to count. One notable time was in 2004 when Iranian parliament members were shouting those ghoulish phrases after unanimously voting to continue uranium enrichment. Now I don't know about you, but I don't see a link between America's and Israel's demise and peaceful electricity generation. Do you?
  100. K St-Pierre from Toronto, Canada writes: Vadim!- If the Netanhyahu govt states they do not back a two-state solution are they then guilty of plotting genocide against the Palestinians? Should the people of Israel be threatened with invasion/bombing from the west? Would Arab countries be justified in attacks on Israel till the policy is reversed? The point with these questions is to find out if u really support Israel because you feel they are legitimately threatened by Iran- in which case you would have to answer yes since the Palestinian situation would mirror the criteria you are setting down for the defense of Israel- or are you just putting "lipstick on the pig" of the argument that Israel good, muslim bad? Or would the criteria for Palestine be different because you have 2 different standards for what one party can do/think/legislate against another?
  101. Vadim ! from Canada writes: K St-Pierre from Toronto, Canada writes: Vadim!- If the Netanhyahu govt states they do not back a two-state solution are they then guilty of plotting genocide against the Palestinians? Should the people of Israel be threatened with invasion/bombing from the west? Would Arab countries be justified in attacks on Israel till the policy is reversed? The point with these questions is to find out if u really support Israel because you feel they are legitimately threatened by Iran- in which case you would have to answer yes since the Palestinian situation would mirror the criteria you are setting down for the defense of Israel- or are you just putting "lipstick on the pig" of the argument that Israel good, muslim bad? Or would the criteria for Palestine be different because you have 2 different standards for what one party can do/think/legislate against another? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That's quite the logical jump from not endorsing the two-state solution to genocide. Netanyahu is not willing to endorse a two-state solution until the Palestinians endorse Israel's RIGHT to exist as a Jewish state. Why should he endorse a terrorist state living side-by-side to the nation he's sworn to protect? He has unequivocally stated he would support the two-state solution provided that Israel's security is guaranteed. Judging by Hamas and Hezbollah's recent actions, it doesn't look like that security is forthcoming. Layer on top of this the fact that Hamas and Hezbollah's are Iran's terrorist proxies and yes I support Israel because I believe that they are legitimately threatened by Iran. And finally, I never did the Israel good/Muslim bad thing, so am I sensing that you're accusing me of being religiously bigoted?
  102. Steve is a warmongering neanderthal and loving it! from Canada writes:

    Response to Another vicious kick right in the face from Orwell's Ghost, writes: Steve is a warmongering neanderthal and loving it! from Canada writes: An "avowed intention" is a stated one. No statements of such kind are on the record from Iran as far as I have ever heard.

    =========================================

    That is the key phrase, far as I have ever heard

    Here is "avowed intention" .....

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FckLO8HcNyo
  103. K St-Pierre from Toronto, Canada writes: Catherine Medernach- I would say the Sunni vs Shia conflict is more of an exaggerated construct by the US than a real threat or clash of movements. After the invasion of Iraq the US became stuck and their one option to not totally lose was to create tension between the two groups. Standard divide and conquer tactic. Set up some bombings and voila. The US should be credited for being great salesman. They did a bait and switch on the world. Sunni's from Saudi Arabia and with support from Pakistan intel puppets attack America and the result is Iraq/Afghanistan invaded and Iran is the new "Red Menace". This threat has also driven up weapon sales to some Sunni countries. Astounding. But I wouldn't call it a real conflict or legitimate potential threat. Saudi's concerns are based solely on what the US WANTS their concerns to be!
  104. Very Sceptical Observer from Canada writes: Toronto Lover from Canada writes: The trheat is n't Iran having missles the Threat is to our economy and families' future propsperty and safety if hardline zionist Israelis bomb Iran.

    You think the economy is bad now, try with $200bbl oil.
    >>>>We tried with $150 and it was more or less OK. With the new technologies and Priuses the World will survive with less oil.

    As to hardline zionist Israelis bomb Iran. Anybody subjected to the existential threat gets somewhat hardline. Zionist or not.

    It is better to destroy than be destroyed. And Iranian regine is getting closer to get a very hardline lesson.
  105. Very Sceptical Observer from Canada writes: Another vicious kick right in the face from Orwell's Ghost, writes: Jon S. from Montreal, Canada writes: It was controversial because it was falsely reported in the way you just did.

    Adminjihad said he wants the regime in Israel to vanish from the pages of history. He did not say he intended to make the whole country of Israel do anything, let alone wipe it from anything.
    >>>Is that so? The "death to Israel" demonstrations with Iranian Hitlerajad participation are weekly routine in Teheran augmented with already trivial conferences of the Holocaust deniers.
    Besides who wants to destroy Iran. It is all about the brutal Ayatollah regime vanishing from the pages of history.
    The only countries that invaded Iran in the past and annexed Iranian territory were: Ancient Greece, Ottoman Empire, Russian empire and the USSR.
  106. Very Sceptical Observer from Canada writes: Spring Fire from China writes: The funny thing is, Iran has not attacked anyone. Israel/US has attacked many countries. So I don't see why Iran is a threat.
    >>>>Iran attacked Israel using Hezbollah branch of the Iranian terrorist network. Iran was behind the terrorist attacks in Argentina and other places.
  107. K St-Pierre from Toronto, Canada writes: Vadim- I never meant to imply religous bigotry, that's why I said Israel and not jewish. I might be accusing you of intellectual bigotry however:) The point is that neither Ahmedinejad's speeches nor Israel's refusal to certain policies is a threatening act worthy of attack. Especially Ahmedinejad, if u understand at all how the politics in Iran works. He is given a leash and helps support the illusion of limited democracy. That's it. Policy is made by others. There is no shred of proof that they want nuclear weapons. Most people just think that is what they want because they are led by muslim theocrats. If they did get a nuke, it might be a good thing. MAD has a 100% success rate so why not try it again?
  108. Hee Hoo Sai from Canada writes: So, lots of missles located all over the planet have a range that would allow them to land in Iran. Perhaps "assured distruction" is a phrase that does not traslate well to some languages.
  109. Very Sceptical Observer from Canada writes: Hee Hoo Sai from Canada writes: So, lots of missles located all over the planet have a range that would allow them to land in Iran. Perhaps "assured distruction" is a phrase that does not traslate well to some languages.
    >>>>Is meaning of "religious fanatics don't care" translates well to your language. Look at those holy clowns chasing women wearing lipstick and dreaming about Jihad.
    Was Hitler 70 years ago less rational than Ahmedinajad today?
    What is rational for you and what is rational for them might be not the same.
  110. Jay Crawford from Miami, Florida, United States writes:
    I'm time-limited so only very quick notes for now:

    Vadim !: you're a class act.

    Catherine: Gosh, you're good at suffering silly people!

    Syed Abbas: I like you too; hope you're well. However, military matters may not be your strongest area of expertise. Therefore, if Iran versus Israel with no nukes in a straight-up fight, Iran loses BIG TIME. Though Olmert was fool enough to initially believe in the recurring dream of "victory by airpower alone", when he committed Israeli ground forces, the Israelis MAULED Hizballah on its OWN territory; if a fight errupts between them and Hizballah's patrons, the Iranians won't be able to fight by hiding in bunkers like Hizballah. When they do come out to fight, the Israeli air force will slap down the Iranian IAD and air force and then it will rape Iran's C3I. After that, Iranian ground assets will be disconnected and disorganized mobs. Since those ground forces won't be hiding on familiar ground, Israeli armor and generally superior infantry will butcher much of the IRG...and the Iranian army's survivors will run away or bog down the Israelis by surrendering. And we haven't even yet mentioned how the Iranian logistics system will fail!

    K St-Pierre wrote "I would say the Sunni vs Shia conflict is more of an exaggerated construct by the US than a real threat or clash of movements." In THAT one sentence, K St-Pierre demonstrates a historical ignorance which is so monumental that (since we assume him to be an intelligent person) it can only be construed as DENIAL. I must answer him in one word: Wrong.
  111. K St-Pierre from Toronto, Canada writes: Jay Crawford- Iraq and Iran notwithstanding (because it had nothing to do with Sunni/Shia), name one shia/sunni war in the last 30 yrs? Can't because there was none. How about civil wars within Sunni dominant states by Shia minorities? None again. Do they not get along for religious reasons? Yes. But they were never in a culture clash they way they have been described to date. Name one time where this was a credible threat to global stability? That's right, never. If I'm missing something by all means fill me in. But to characterize this as some brooding hatred that is on the verge of all out war at the drop of a hat is, at best, disingenuous.
  112. J.C. Davies from Canada writes:
    "Another vicious kick right in the face from Orwell's Ghost, writes:
    2. Can you please provide a reference for where Iran has declared an intention to annihilate Israel?"*

    Here's a news report from April 18, 2009:

    TEHRAN (AFP) — Iran marked Army Day on Saturday with a low-key military parade and a speech by hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that contrasted with his confrontational addresses of previous years.

    *In previous years, Iran has prominently displayed the slogan "Death to Israel" on banners carried alongside a missile but this year it was carried on a less visible truck.


    I guess some would call this an improvement.
  113. Mark S Noel from Canada writes: Iran needs weapons like this missle to protect them from Israel aggression. Given the number of times Israel has attacked Iran for no reason, you can't blame them for wanting to defend themselves.
  114. Jay Crawford from Miami, Florida, United States writes:
    K St-Pierre wrote:
    "Name one shia/sunni war in the last 30 yrs?"
    Wrong question; when a 10% religious minority rises up, you'll seldom see it as a war. You'll see such conflict as terrorism, "fifth-column" collaboration, or in the case of Iraq, as a religous dimension hung upon a social/ethnic conflict (as in Northern Ireland).
    "[You] [c]an't because there was none."
    Wrong; QED.
    "How about civil wars within Sunni dominant states by Shia minorities? None again."
    Wrong again; you are blind to Hassan Nasrullah's Hizballah "state within a state".
    Furthermore, you're blind to Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states viciously suppressing the Shia for reasons I mentioned above. Come to think of it, the Shia are a religious minority which keeps their heads down. Wonder why. Oh, yeah; they're suppressed in lots of places!
    "Do they not get along for religious reasons? Yes. But they were never in a culture clash they way they have been described to date."
    You really know so little. One of the big Shia holy days is Ashura, the day on which Shia remember their martyrs...who almost invariably died at the hands of Sunnis! (Come to think of it, most Shia holy days recall someone's death.) Hey, K St Pierre! Do you know how the Shia commemorate Ashura? They lacerate their backs with flails. For the Shia, such commemorations recall the persecutions by the Sunni majority...and the Shia minority's actions on those days continue to scare the Sunni majority.

    But don't let facts stop you, K. Go ahead and use your detached sophistry to tell us that it's all a conflict exaggerated by America.
  115. Catherine Medernach from Winnipeg, Canada writes: K St-Pierre - you clearly know little about the realities of Islam and the split between Sunni and Shiite. To stick to fairly recent events - Saddam consistently used that split to his advantage to maintain control in Iraq. When the people rose up against him following the Gulf War (anticipating US support which did not come because of Saudi Arabia's concern about Iranian Shiite expansionism) he used it again and on the tanks there were signs saying 'no more shia after today'. When Iran became a theocracy Saudi Arabia began spending lots on spreading Wahabbism (Sunni) in Muslim countries and around the world. Also, one of the 9/11 hijackers, from Saudi Arabia, used to sneak into Iran and plant bombs. BTW Neither Al-Qaeda not the Taliban(both essentially Wahabbi Sunni groups) consider Shiites 'true' Muslims and don't hesitate to kill them. You seriously underestimate the historical animosity between these to branches of Islam.
  116. That Guy from Near Toronto, Canada writes: Joe V wrote:

    "The same can not be said of Iran when its leaders believe in a religion that glorifies death and martyrdom, and promises great riches in the afterlife."

    and how is that in any way different then what christianity preaches?

    let me refresh your memory, it goes something like: follow Jesus and enjoy an eternity in heaven as your reward.

    us westerners and our double standards are sickening.
  117. Very Sceptical Observer from Canada writes: Mark S Noel from Canada writes: Iran needs weapons like this missle to protect them from Israel aggression. Given the number of times Israel has attacked Iran for no reason, you can't blame them for wanting to defend themselves.

    >>>>This notion that obvious lies if catered as facts pass as facts is not true. The number of times Israel attacked Iran is zero. You are a liar.
  118. Very Sceptical Observer from Canada writes: That Guy from Near Toronto, Canada writes: Joe V wrote: "The same can not be said of Iran when its leaders believe in a religion that glorifies death and martyrdom, and promises great riches in the afterlife." and how is that in any way different then what christianity preaches? >>>>>>>>>>>>> I will tell you how it is different. Religion and state are separated in the Western countries. _________________________________________________________ That Guy from Near Toronto, Canada writes: Joe V wrote:let me refresh your memory, it goes something like: follow Jesus and enjoy an eternity in heaven as your reward. >>>>Or don't follow Jesus but follow Buddah or your phone book. Who cares? In Iran a secular Muslim is a dead Muslim. A writer criticizing Islam is a dead writer. And they don't have gays. Other religious minorities are oppressed even more that Muslim citizens of Iran. Ask the Bahai people how they are treated in Iran _________________________________________________________ That Guy from Near Toronto, Canada writes: Joe V wrote:us westerners and our double standards are sickening. >>>>>Your attempts to present the brutal regime in Iran as similar to Western style democracies are sickening.
  119. Vadim ! from Canada writes: K St-Pierre from Toronto, Canada writes: Vadim- I never meant to imply religous bigotry, that's why I said Israel and not jewish. I might be accusing you of intellectual bigotry however:) The point is that neither Ahmedinejad's speeches nor Israel's refusal to certain policies is a threatening act worthy of attack. Especially Ahmedinejad, if u understand at all how the politics in Iran works. He is given a leash and helps support the illusion of limited democracy. That's it. Policy is made by others. There is no shred of proof that they want nuclear weapons. Most people just think that is what they want because they are led by muslim theocrats. If they did get a nuke, it might be a good thing. MAD has a 100% success rate so why not try it again?
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Your words directed towards me: "...or are you just putting "lipstick on the pig" of the argument that Israel good, muslim bad?" I'm not talking about Israel, I'm talking about your implication that I think all Muslims are somehow "bad", which I of course never said not implied in any of my posts.

    While I hope that it never gets to the point where Israel must attack, it is Ahmadinejad's (or the ruling theocratic mullahs) actions that will dictate Israel's decision. And despite all the hand wringing, the Western world and the Sunni world would breathe a collective sigh of relief should Israel do the dirty work and flatten Iran's bomb making capacity.

    The fact that your cheering on Iran's pursuit of a nuclear bomb is very telling.
  120. Syed Abbas of Toronto from Seattle WA, United States writes:

    Jay Crawford: Greetings

    " ... military .. not .. your area of expertise ..."

    Served in Forces. Dad too. Syeds specialize in Warfare for 1,400 years (Google Syed or Ali bin Abu Talib).

    In 628 AD the Muslims sieged Khyber (State of Israel of then). For 39 days, Judahists routed the Muslims - Army blaming the General, and the General accusing the troops of cowardice.

    On 40th day Mohammed sent for his cousin Ali. The rest is history.

    Ali happens to be the patron saint of Shia Iran.

    For 39 years since 1967 Judahists routed the Palestinians, but in the 40th Hezbollah took them to task.

    Ali is also the patron saint of Shia Hezbollah.

    Progeny of Ali, 40,000,000 Syeds worldwide, are distant cousins of the Judahists. So, Judahists better settle for their Judea only, and Syeds have enough influence among Muslims to lobby it. But if Judahists’ greed wants Josephite Israel, the we Syeds will simply watch with folded arms a Banu Qurayza happen all over again.

    Peace
  121. K St-Pierre from Canada writes: Vadim!-You certainly do imply such in your posts and your obvious double standards concerning the ME. I'm not cheering Iran on to get a bomb, I just don't think it will be the apocalypse you seem to think it will be. Its inevitable. You can't stop the spread of knowledge. You advocate the same old policies, the defunct mentality of yesterday. Israel has been doing the same thing for 60 yrs and are they any closer to peace? So why is it going to be different this time? Get over your bias and try looking at the bigger picture.
  122. K St-Pierre from Canada writes: Jay Crawford- Nice dance around my facts. But there was still none right? What about Iran? If there is this huge war on the verge of exploding you must have some instances of conflict? None? So I am right then that the media and some anonymous bloggers are using a religious schism and trying to create a war were not existed previously? Hezboallah? They have nothing to do with shia's against sunni? I have asked you for examples of actual conflict and you come back with this? You are just like Vadim-your bias makes you blind. Just because its your country doesn't change the truth of the matter.
  123. Jon S. from Montreal, Canada writes: Syed: Just becaused you served doesn't mean you know how to plan, execute, and win a war. Loads of Egyptians served in 67, and what did THAT prove about their military prowess? Not a lot. 'Cause if they did, we wouldn't be sitting here listening to your silly shpiels on why Jews are ruining the lives of Palestinians on Globe and Mail message boards.

    Secondly, regarding Hezbollah taking Israel to task...nah, never mind. Why do I bother?
  124. Syed Abbas of Toronto from United States writes: Jon S: Greetings " ... Just becaused you served doesn't mean you know how to plan, execute, and win a war ..." Yes, you are right. My apologies for parading my ignorance, and on G&M Boards at that, for everyone to see. Many thanks for the warning. Cheers
  125. K St-Pierre from Toronto, Canada writes: Catherine Medernach- I think you are over estimating this schism. As i have asked Jay give me real examples of aggression, of suppression of war. Saddam suppresed everyone in his country-shia, kurd, sunni. Saudi's concern's have more to do with their own pre-eminent position within the ME than any real "Shia Threat". If anything their concern would be that the US would dump them and try to form an alliance with a moderate Iran. If any branch would be perceived as a threat it would be the wahhabists yet the media is silent about that. Why? There should be more concern about what is going on in Saudi Arabia/Pakistan than in Iran. Again, this whole Sunni-Shia civil war angle only really picked up steam after the bungled invasion of Iraq. Or mybe that's what they wanted the whole time, who knows. But certainly it would work to US interests to have this happen. Iran is totally encircled. I believe the encirclement of Iran was one of the real reasons for the invasion/occupation of both Afghanistan and Iraq when other countries and options would have made alot more sense given the reality of 9/11. You seem to forget the three basic rules of international relations: mask your intentions-manipulate your friends-eliminate your enemies. If you don't get that then you need to do less reading and start doing more understanding.
  126. Arnold Fine from Vancouver, Canada writes: Dear Wayne quoting you "Iran has never threatened any country in the region" ...I guess you don't read the papers. The President of Iran specifically called Israel (and the Jews) a scourge that should be wiped off the face of the earth....and Mein Kampf was just a book. When you make comments perhaps you should be better informed. Iran is a threat to everyone; not disimilar to Nazi Germany..in my view. But for sure they have repeatedly threatened Israel. Maybe you don't care...but your comment is just plain wrong.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top