<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Iran&#8217;s Underground Nuke Site Struck?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/irans-underground-nuke-site-struck/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/irans-underground-nuke-site-struck/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=irans-underground-nuke-site-struck</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2014 04:30:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: EarlyBird</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/irans-underground-nuke-site-struck/comment-page-1/#comment-4235347</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[EarlyBird]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2013 01:27:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=175333#comment-4235347</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Ah, but that&#039;s the problem. They have no consistent rule of law, and they&#039;re not predictable.&quot; 
 
And this is our fundamental disagreement.  I see a very weak and perfectly sane leadership of Iran, however genuinely evil, and that they can and should be contained.  
 
I also believe that a nuclear Iran is inevitable, maybe even we launch a ground war, and I see a ground war as genuine suicide.  I will not let the US be led there. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&quot;Ah, but that&#039;s the problem. They have no consistent rule of law, and they&#039;re not predictable.&quot; </p>
<p>And this is our fundamental disagreement.  I see a very weak and perfectly sane leadership of Iran, however genuinely evil, and that they can and should be contained.  </p>
<p>I also believe that a nuclear Iran is inevitable, maybe even we launch a ground war, and I see a ground war as genuine suicide.  I will not let the US be led there. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: EarlyBird</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/irans-underground-nuke-site-struck/comment-page-1/#comment-4235339</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[EarlyBird]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2013 01:25:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=175333#comment-4235339</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Oh, and I know it will rebuild and be a better, more relevant conservatism.  That&#039;s my fervent hope, because we always need a loyal opposition to each other, and conservative values are always needed.   ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh, and I know it will rebuild and be a better, more relevant conservatism.  That&#039;s my fervent hope, because we always need a loyal opposition to each other, and conservative values are always needed.   </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: EarlyBird</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/irans-underground-nuke-site-struck/comment-page-1/#comment-4235335</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[EarlyBird]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2013 01:24:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=175333#comment-4235335</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I don&#039;t think there&#039;s anything unique about this forum, unfortunately, nor are grade school insults the monopoly of the right wing.  I&#039;ve just never played the &quot;villain&quot; on a board like this, and find it hilarious that people consider me some lefty, since I consider myself a Reagan-Buckley type conservative.   
 
I just feel that after the perversion of conservative ideas during Gingrich and W. Bush, that I&#039;ve got no where to go.  I do believe the conservative movement has become a victim of its own success and has become tired and broken.   
 
I do think this site is a propaganda machine, and it&#039;s not about honest or reasoned analysis.  You&#039;ve been far more honest and thoughtful than any article I&#039;ve read here.  Horowitz is the first to admit he&#039;s a propagandist.   ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#039;t think there&#039;s anything unique about this forum, unfortunately, nor are grade school insults the monopoly of the right wing.  I&#039;ve just never played the &quot;villain&quot; on a board like this, and find it hilarious that people consider me some lefty, since I consider myself a Reagan-Buckley type conservative.   </p>
<p>I just feel that after the perversion of conservative ideas during Gingrich and W. Bush, that I&#039;ve got no where to go.  I do believe the conservative movement has become a victim of its own success and has become tired and broken.   </p>
<p>I do think this site is a propaganda machine, and it&#039;s not about honest or reasoned analysis.  You&#039;ve been far more honest and thoughtful than any article I&#039;ve read here.  Horowitz is the first to admit he&#039;s a propagandist.   </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: EarlyBird</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/irans-underground-nuke-site-struck/comment-page-1/#comment-4235312</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[EarlyBird]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2013 01:16:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=175333#comment-4235312</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So you are worried that Iran can not be deterred by MAD.  I disagree, and point to a long history of very rational actions on their part.   
 
Israel&#039;s regional enemies have never been weaker and Israel has never been stronger.  There is simply no comparison to earlier times.   
 
Jordan is nice now, Egypt is run by a military elite totally dedicated to keeping US dollars flowing to it, Iran&#039;s economy is on the brink, Syria is literally falling apart, the Saudis just talk a big game.  Other countries don&#039;t even deem a mention.   ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So you are worried that Iran can not be deterred by MAD.  I disagree, and point to a long history of very rational actions on their part.   </p>
<p>Israel&#039;s regional enemies have never been weaker and Israel has never been stronger.  There is simply no comparison to earlier times.   </p>
<p>Jordan is nice now, Egypt is run by a military elite totally dedicated to keeping US dollars flowing to it, Iran&#039;s economy is on the brink, Syria is literally falling apart, the Saudis just talk a big game.  Other countries don&#039;t even deem a mention.   </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: EarlyBird</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/irans-underground-nuke-site-struck/comment-page-1/#comment-4235301</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[EarlyBird]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2013 01:12:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=175333#comment-4235301</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[OFM, I have total clarity on who is in the right here, and who is in the wrong.  The West, the US, Israel and foes of Iran are in the right, and Iran and its allies are in the wrong.   
 
But the fact of the matter is we need to physically invade and occupy to keep them from their nuclear program.   Then what?   
 
Please help me understand where you see things going from there?   ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OFM, I have total clarity on who is in the right here, and who is in the wrong.  The West, the US, Israel and foes of Iran are in the right, and Iran and its allies are in the wrong.   </p>
<p>But the fact of the matter is we need to physically invade and occupy to keep them from their nuclear program.   Then what?   </p>
<p>Please help me understand where you see things going from there?   </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: EarlyBird</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/irans-underground-nuke-site-struck/comment-page-1/#comment-4235288</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[EarlyBird]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2013 01:09:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=175333#comment-4235288</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I must also point out that your belief that the LEFT is what made Iraq a failure is a least a start - you admit it was a failure.  What chutzpah to suggest it was politics which made it a failure.   
 
But this is very much how I found myself breaking with the right; over Iraq and so many conservatives&#039; inability to grapple with the disaster of that war and their desire to now double-down on it in Iran.   
 
Because McCain/Palin were among that ilk, I simply had nowhere else to go but for Obama.  You simply must grapple with the limits of American military power, and how we can become a second rate country believing that we can and should bomb our way around the world.   ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I must also point out that your belief that the LEFT is what made Iraq a failure is a least a start &#8211; you admit it was a failure.  What chutzpah to suggest it was politics which made it a failure.   </p>
<p>But this is very much how I found myself breaking with the right; over Iraq and so many conservatives&#039; inability to grapple with the disaster of that war and their desire to now double-down on it in Iran.   </p>
<p>Because McCain/Palin were among that ilk, I simply had nowhere else to go but for Obama.  You simply must grapple with the limits of American military power, and how we can become a second rate country believing that we can and should bomb our way around the world.   </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: EarlyBird</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/irans-underground-nuke-site-struck/comment-page-1/#comment-4235280</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[EarlyBird]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2013 01:06:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=175333#comment-4235280</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[OFM, your anger at the left has you blind to the absolute debacle that was Bush&#039;s and the neocons&#039; Iraq war.  They genuinely believed it would be a cakewalk and after a quick war there&#039;d be peace and democracy in Iraq, a pro-American Arab country in the heart of the beast, and we&#039;d have it as a new base of power.  The idea was to then put enormous pressure on Saudi Arabia thereafter, and remake the Middle East.   
 
Great theory, but it was a fantasy.  And when American generals said it was impossible they were ignored or moved to other operations.  It was simply IMPOSSIBLE to occupy that country they way we needed to with the number of troops we had at our disposal.   
 
Iran is even far larger, and has a far better equipped army.  I refuse to let my country commit suicide to stop a fairly harmless enemy.   ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OFM, your anger at the left has you blind to the absolute debacle that was Bush&#039;s and the neocons&#039; Iraq war.  They genuinely believed it would be a cakewalk and after a quick war there&#039;d be peace and democracy in Iraq, a pro-American Arab country in the heart of the beast, and we&#039;d have it as a new base of power.  The idea was to then put enormous pressure on Saudi Arabia thereafter, and remake the Middle East.   </p>
<p>Great theory, but it was a fantasy.  And when American generals said it was impossible they were ignored or moved to other operations.  It was simply IMPOSSIBLE to occupy that country they way we needed to with the number of troops we had at our disposal.   </p>
<p>Iran is even far larger, and has a far better equipped army.  I refuse to let my country commit suicide to stop a fairly harmless enemy.   </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: EarlyBird</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/irans-underground-nuke-site-struck/comment-page-1/#comment-4235268</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[EarlyBird]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2013 01:02:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=175333#comment-4235268</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We need to weigh the pros AND cons.  With all respect, you write as if war - even one which can be clearly won - has no or minor costs.  But this is the kind of war which can not be clearly won, and which has many, many costs both seen and unseen.   
 
I&#039;ve read numerous times from retired IDF generals that airstrikes alone will not take out the nuclear program, but that to do so would require sustained ground operations.   
 
That alone is enough for me to say, &quot;no.&quot;  To want to charge into another ground war in the Middle East is to completely disregard the debacle which was Iraq and Afghanistan.  We will LITERALLY go bankrupt committing to another such war. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We need to weigh the pros AND cons.  With all respect, you write as if war &#8211; even one which can be clearly won &#8211; has no or minor costs.  But this is the kind of war which can not be clearly won, and which has many, many costs both seen and unseen.   </p>
<p>I&#039;ve read numerous times from retired IDF generals that airstrikes alone will not take out the nuclear program, but that to do so would require sustained ground operations.   </p>
<p>That alone is enough for me to say, &quot;no.&quot;  To want to charge into another ground war in the Middle East is to completely disregard the debacle which was Iraq and Afghanistan.  We will LITERALLY go bankrupt committing to another such war. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: EarlyBird</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/irans-underground-nuke-site-struck/comment-page-1/#comment-4235247</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[EarlyBird]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2013 00:57:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=175333#comment-4235247</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I believe Obama has decided, privately and to himself, to not go to war against Iran to prevent it from getting nukes. By &quot;war&quot; I mean any kind of operation which could or would require a land invasion, and I applaud him for that.  Nor does he want the same humiliating dance that the US had to go through with Saddam regarding inspections prior to the Iraq War.   
 
Sitting down with Iran to me, specifically over the nuclear threat or other specific regional issues to me is not about elevating their lies. It&#039;s about the specific issue.  We spoke with enemies far worse and more threatening than Iran in our future.     ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I believe Obama has decided, privately and to himself, to not go to war against Iran to prevent it from getting nukes. By &quot;war&quot; I mean any kind of operation which could or would require a land invasion, and I applaud him for that.  Nor does he want the same humiliating dance that the US had to go through with Saddam regarding inspections prior to the Iraq War.   </p>
<p>Sitting down with Iran to me, specifically over the nuclear threat or other specific regional issues to me is not about elevating their lies. It&#039;s about the specific issue.  We spoke with enemies far worse and more threatening than Iran in our future.     </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/irans-underground-nuke-site-struck/comment-page-1/#comment-4224955</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Feb 2013 01:33:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=175333#comment-4224955</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Finally, I just hope you can begin to consider that good, intelligent, clear-headed people, who hate the scourge of Islamist terror as much as you do, can honestly disagree with you on these points and on the course of action regarding Iran. &quot; 
 
No need to reconsider. I never discourage honest respectful debate. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&quot;Finally, I just hope you can begin to consider that good, intelligent, clear-headed people, who hate the scourge of Islamist terror as much as you do, can honestly disagree with you on these points and on the course of action regarding Iran. &quot; </p>
<p>No need to reconsider. I never discourage honest respectful debate. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/irans-underground-nuke-site-struck/comment-page-1/#comment-4224950</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Feb 2013 01:32:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=175333#comment-4224950</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;By the way, I predict the US and Israel WILL strike Iran. I hope O gets some credit here. &quot; 
 
If the actual facts show a change in direction, I&#039;ll be the first to cheer. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&quot;By the way, I predict the US and Israel WILL strike Iran. I hope O gets some credit here. &quot; </p>
<p>If the actual facts show a change in direction, I&#039;ll be the first to cheer. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/irans-underground-nuke-site-struck/comment-page-1/#comment-4224946</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Feb 2013 01:31:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=175333#comment-4224946</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Iran seeks &quot;conventional power&quot; in that they have conventional aims: to get and wield power regionally. &quot; 
 
OK. I could have guessed that but it&#039;s especially confusing when they want nuclear weapons to achieve &quot;conventional power.&quot; A nuclear state wants &quot;conventional&quot; (political) power. It&#039;s not literally incorrect, but vague because people can read it a number of different ways.  
 
 
&quot;They are not apocalyptic, no matter how nuts Ack&#039;jad wants us to believe.&quot; 
 
Ah, but that&#039;s the problem. They have no consistent rule of law, and they&#039;re not predictable. We, and even they don&#039;t know who has the authority or political power to do any particular thing. They&#039;re innately unstable. Hell, even most of them are probably hoping we in the West will stop the regime because the peaceful people don&#039;t have or don&#039;t feel they have any way to do it themselves. 
 
Collectively, they&#039;re innately unstable and untrustworthy. It&#039;s like sitting around arguing that a group of 5-year old children ought to have a car to share just because one of them sat on your lap once while pretending to steer. Nothing bad happened so far, just let them have the car to drive. It&#039;s a stupid spontaneous analogy, so I&#039;ll try to think of a better one. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&quot;Iran seeks &quot;conventional power&quot; in that they have conventional aims: to get and wield power regionally. &quot; </p>
<p>OK. I could have guessed that but it&#039;s especially confusing when they want nuclear weapons to achieve &quot;conventional power.&quot; A nuclear state wants &quot;conventional&quot; (political) power. It&#039;s not literally incorrect, but vague because people can read it a number of different ways.  </p>
<p>&quot;They are not apocalyptic, no matter how nuts Ack&#039;jad wants us to believe.&quot; </p>
<p>Ah, but that&#039;s the problem. They have no consistent rule of law, and they&#039;re not predictable. We, and even they don&#039;t know who has the authority or political power to do any particular thing. They&#039;re innately unstable. Hell, even most of them are probably hoping we in the West will stop the regime because the peaceful people don&#039;t have or don&#039;t feel they have any way to do it themselves. </p>
<p>Collectively, they&#039;re innately unstable and untrustworthy. It&#039;s like sitting around arguing that a group of 5-year old children ought to have a car to share just because one of them sat on your lap once while pretending to steer. Nothing bad happened so far, just let them have the car to drive. It&#039;s a stupid spontaneous analogy, so I&#039;ll try to think of a better one. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/irans-underground-nuke-site-struck/comment-page-1/#comment-4224926</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Feb 2013 01:25:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=175333#comment-4224926</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Notice how you&#039;ve determined that anything short of war to remove Iran&#039;s nukes is &quot;appeasement.&quot; Not just a bad idea, not just naive, but treasonous, a lie, maybe even &quot;pro-Islamist,&quot; etc.&quot; 
 
It&#039;s a matter of degree. That&#039;s why facts matter. Sure you can question it, but mocking it is not appropriate given that the facts can easily show what we&#039;re angry about. 
 
 
&quot;That&#039;s what&#039;s so maddening about this board, the presumption of ill intent or flabby brains/morals with anyone who doesn&#039;t toe this line.&quot; 
 
You&#039;re imagining things a little bit, but I understand why you feel that way. It didn&#039;t occur to you that you might be wrong and that given time the people here might be able to rationally explain their positions. That is why I don&#039;t mind dissenters at all. I hope they come and talk about things rationally. Leftists are indoctrinated to mock dissent. Only by turning it on them and defeating their mockery are they able to experience something they weren&#039;t programmed to respond to. 
 
If you think about it, you&#039;ll realize how many assumptions you&#039;ve made merely because you can&#039;t envision that some or most of the people here can justify their positions if given a chance. 
 
Try reading &quot;huffington post&quot; forums or some site like that. The discourse is early grade school on average, or worse. Are they all stupid? Not all, but even the smart ones simply don&#039;t have a chance to unpack their ideas. This is too bad because any opportunity for sincere comprehensive discussion will always be helpful to all who participate. I have no fear of any facts. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&quot;Notice how you&#039;ve determined that anything short of war to remove Iran&#039;s nukes is &quot;appeasement.&quot; Not just a bad idea, not just naive, but treasonous, a lie, maybe even &quot;pro-Islamist,&quot; etc.&quot; </p>
<p>It&#039;s a matter of degree. That&#039;s why facts matter. Sure you can question it, but mocking it is not appropriate given that the facts can easily show what we&#039;re angry about. </p>
<p>&quot;That&#039;s what&#039;s so maddening about this board, the presumption of ill intent or flabby brains/morals with anyone who doesn&#039;t toe this line.&quot; </p>
<p>You&#039;re imagining things a little bit, but I understand why you feel that way. It didn&#039;t occur to you that you might be wrong and that given time the people here might be able to rationally explain their positions. That is why I don&#039;t mind dissenters at all. I hope they come and talk about things rationally. Leftists are indoctrinated to mock dissent. Only by turning it on them and defeating their mockery are they able to experience something they weren&#039;t programmed to respond to. </p>
<p>If you think about it, you&#039;ll realize how many assumptions you&#039;ve made merely because you can&#039;t envision that some or most of the people here can justify their positions if given a chance. </p>
<p>Try reading &quot;huffington post&quot; forums or some site like that. The discourse is early grade school on average, or worse. Are they all stupid? Not all, but even the smart ones simply don&#039;t have a chance to unpack their ideas. This is too bad because any opportunity for sincere comprehensive discussion will always be helpful to all who participate. I have no fear of any facts. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/irans-underground-nuke-site-struck/comment-page-1/#comment-4224909</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Feb 2013 01:17:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=175333#comment-4224909</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Notice how you&#039;ve determined that anything short of war to remove Iran&#039;s nukes is &quot;appeasement.&quot;&quot; 
 
 
Not exactly. But close. That&#039;s because we&#039;ve historically been so concerned about what the Soviets and Russia would do. When you&#039;re already overcautious and then 0&#039;Bama comes along and talks about the USA as if we caused all the tension, and then he acts like we&#039;re the guilty party, accepting all of the lies of our enemies as legitimate...that is one aspect of traitorous appeasement. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&quot;Notice how you&#039;ve determined that anything short of war to remove Iran&#039;s nukes is &quot;appeasement.&quot;&quot; </p>
<p>Not exactly. But close. That&#039;s because we&#039;ve historically been so concerned about what the Soviets and Russia would do. When you&#039;re already overcautious and then 0&#039;Bama comes along and talks about the USA as if we caused all the tension, and then he acts like we&#039;re the guilty party, accepting all of the lies of our enemies as legitimate&#8230;that is one aspect of traitorous appeasement. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/irans-underground-nuke-site-struck/comment-page-1/#comment-4224903</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Feb 2013 01:15:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=175333#comment-4224903</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;We contained China and the USSR for 50 years, and they were nuclear armed and FAR stronger than Iran is today.&quot; 
 
This argument might have made sense before the current regime. Now it makes zero sense unless you are in complete and total denial about the regime and Islam. 
 
MAD does not work reliably with people who think killing them will send them directly to heaven. Their stated goals are not material.  
 
This is in contrast with China and the USSR whose stated goals were exclusively material and who denied the afterlife. They couldn&#039;t even pretend to not care about being annihilated. See the difference? This is the most salient point about why MAD does not apply. MAD was already risky with people who cared only about this life. It is insanity to count on MAD with Islamic regimes, especially the Shia regime in Iran. It&#039;s not MAD, madness. We must remain clearly strong enough to kill them before they can even hope to draw blood. Just drawing significant blood from us might be enough of an incentive for them to knowingly cause a war of annihilation when they know they will lose. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&quot;We contained China and the USSR for 50 years, and they were nuclear armed and FAR stronger than Iran is today.&quot; </p>
<p>This argument might have made sense before the current regime. Now it makes zero sense unless you are in complete and total denial about the regime and Islam. </p>
<p>MAD does not work reliably with people who think killing them will send them directly to heaven. Their stated goals are not material.  </p>
<p>This is in contrast with China and the USSR whose stated goals were exclusively material and who denied the afterlife. They couldn&#039;t even pretend to not care about being annihilated. See the difference? This is the most salient point about why MAD does not apply. MAD was already risky with people who cared only about this life. It is insanity to count on MAD with Islamic regimes, especially the Shia regime in Iran. It&#039;s not MAD, madness. We must remain clearly strong enough to kill them before they can even hope to draw blood. Just drawing significant blood from us might be enough of an incentive for them to knowingly cause a war of annihilation when they know they will lose. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/irans-underground-nuke-site-struck/comment-page-1/#comment-4224889</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Feb 2013 01:11:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=175333#comment-4224889</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;For instance, Iran &quot;warned&quot; Israel yesterday about the strike on the Syrian convoy. Do you really think anyone in Israel is worried?&quot; 
 
 
I don&#039;t understand how the strike is supposed to be evidence that Israel has nothing to worry about. Of course they&#039;re worried. They value life a lot more than their enemies AND their enemies grossly outnumber them. Israel has to be exponentially more deadly just to survive. How many nukes would it take to kill every last Israeli? Not many. Can Israel count on defeating each enemy if they coordinate their attacks? They have in the past, but each success seems like a miracle even after objective examination. 
 
Yes, they are worried. They are just not stupid enough to think that giving in to Palestinians will help. They&#039;re correct. They might as well take cyanide instead. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&quot;For instance, Iran &quot;warned&quot; Israel yesterday about the strike on the Syrian convoy. Do you really think anyone in Israel is worried?&quot; </p>
<p>I don&#039;t understand how the strike is supposed to be evidence that Israel has nothing to worry about. Of course they&#039;re worried. They value life a lot more than their enemies AND their enemies grossly outnumber them. Israel has to be exponentially more deadly just to survive. How many nukes would it take to kill every last Israeli? Not many. Can Israel count on defeating each enemy if they coordinate their attacks? They have in the past, but each success seems like a miracle even after objective examination. </p>
<p>Yes, they are worried. They are just not stupid enough to think that giving in to Palestinians will help. They&#039;re correct. They might as well take cyanide instead. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/irans-underground-nuke-site-struck/comment-page-1/#comment-4224877</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Feb 2013 01:07:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=175333#comment-4224877</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;&quot;Appeasing&quot; what? We have THEM over a barrel, not the other way around. &quot; 
 
That only makes appeasement possible and absurd. If we didn&#039;t have them over a barrel it would be considered realpolitik to back off. There is no need for us to back off. They attribute our mercy to fear of allah. This merely encourages them to increase their belligerence.  
 
If we have them over a barrel, why haven&#039;t we gone in to inspect their sites that they claim are for &quot;peaceful energy production?&quot; And it makes no economic sense for them to do this in spite of sanctions. If they were motivated by economics, they&#039;d start acting like a peaceful regime that wants to share technology with the West. We invented all things related to nuclear energy. You do know that I assume. It all came from the Manhattan Project. Anyone who claims they want peace with the USA while building &quot;nuclear power plants&quot; that they insist remain hidden, why that in itself is such a blatant lie that I can&#039;t believe anyone wouldn&#039;t understand that...except that with the mainstream media being totally dominated by leftist thinking, all you hear about are streams of lies and distractions so that you forget about fundamental logic. 
 
 There is no peaceful explanation for Iran&#039;s behavior. And that is before we even factor in the rhetoric that they use to foment anger among their supporters towards the West, the &quot;Great Satan.&quot; 
 
Don&#039;t give me this &quot;Iran as victim&quot; BS because those are more lies. Only by taking our responses to aggression, and leaving out our justifications can anyone build a case of &quot;USA as bully.&quot; 
 
Sure, an individual might be forgiven for thinking that after personally suffering, but this collective victim BS is just destructive to peace.  Nations deal with nations because there is rarely any other way by the time it gets to that point. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&quot;&quot;Appeasing&quot; what? We have THEM over a barrel, not the other way around. &quot; </p>
<p>That only makes appeasement possible and absurd. If we didn&#039;t have them over a barrel it would be considered realpolitik to back off. There is no need for us to back off. They attribute our mercy to fear of allah. This merely encourages them to increase their belligerence.  </p>
<p>If we have them over a barrel, why haven&#039;t we gone in to inspect their sites that they claim are for &quot;peaceful energy production?&quot; And it makes no economic sense for them to do this in spite of sanctions. If they were motivated by economics, they&#039;d start acting like a peaceful regime that wants to share technology with the West. We invented all things related to nuclear energy. You do know that I assume. It all came from the Manhattan Project. Anyone who claims they want peace with the USA while building &quot;nuclear power plants&quot; that they insist remain hidden, why that in itself is such a blatant lie that I can&#039;t believe anyone wouldn&#039;t understand that&#8230;except that with the mainstream media being totally dominated by leftist thinking, all you hear about are streams of lies and distractions so that you forget about fundamental logic. </p>
<p> There is no peaceful explanation for Iran&#039;s behavior. And that is before we even factor in the rhetoric that they use to foment anger among their supporters towards the West, the &quot;Great Satan.&quot; </p>
<p>Don&#039;t give me this &quot;Iran as victim&quot; BS because those are more lies. Only by taking our responses to aggression, and leaving out our justifications can anyone build a case of &quot;USA as bully.&quot; </p>
<p>Sure, an individual might be forgiven for thinking that after personally suffering, but this collective victim BS is just destructive to peace.  Nations deal with nations because there is rarely any other way by the time it gets to that point. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/irans-underground-nuke-site-struck/comment-page-1/#comment-4224848</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Feb 2013 00:58:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=175333#comment-4224848</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&gt;&gt;Agreed: Iran has been the Father of All Terror Groups since &#039;79.  
 
&gt;&quot;We could &quot;contain&quot; them more aggressively.&quot;  
 
&quot;Israel has taken care of them pretty well vis a vis Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. The US has its hands full w/Iranians in Iraq and Afghanistan (another reason we should not have invaded and occupied - but for another discussion). Outside of invading or hitting them inside Iran, I don&#039;t know how much more aggressive we can be.&quot; 
 
 
We have created a stalemate scenario which has merely prolonged the suffering. Is a stalemate acceptable for those families that suffer to this day?  Of course we could do better. It made sense when the cold war was raging to contain the Soviets first. Weapons and communications technologies hadn&#039;t advanced to the point that anyone could envision Islamic supremacists threatening us. Westerners called jihadis &#039;liberators&quot; because we never imagined in a million years that these people could hope to do more than make an oppressive regime think twice. But now they use terror offensively while maintaining the rhetoric of the victim. 
 
But now that we know what we know, we should play to win, not play to contain. This is not that kind of cold war. They don&#039;t actually have a central command. We could annihilate them once and for all (politically, but many probably would be dead in the short run). They fight because we behave like a force that is scared of allah. Our behavior encourages them. This is not to say it&#039;s our fault per se. But it&#039;s important to know that we&#039;re fitting in with what Mohammed taught about Judeo Christian culture, but he invented lies to explain it. We&#039;re scared of allah, not merciful and patient. That means jihadis are on the verge of winning...in their minds. 
 
If your vision of peace is tolerating this level of Islamic violence, and your middle name is &quot;status quo&quot; then of course you can&#039;t envision doing better. My anger comes from the fact that we could have done a lot better if the left had not been mobilized early in the Bush years to start attacking our legitimate war aims. It all fell apart then and we still have not done anything to reconcile our own domestic politics as a result of that form of mutiny. I almost blame the left more than I blame the jihadis. We could have won by now if the country had been as unified as it pretended to be shortly after September 11 2001. Instead, leftists and anarchists just waited for a pretext for mutiny. &quot;Israel (or Bush) did 911,&quot; then you have Michael Moore-on, and so forth. 
 
We could have won already and a lot more lives would be continuing peacefully with little fear of Islamic terror. Instead we have 0&#039;Bama and his transformation that is supposed to be a good thing. He&#039;s going in the direction opposite of good  in every policy. 
 
And it has NOTHING to do with &quot;race.&quot; NOTHING. Other than the left using race to dismiss our legitimate anger. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt;&gt;Agreed: Iran has been the Father of All Terror Groups since &#039;79.  </p>
<p>&gt;&quot;We could &quot;contain&quot; them more aggressively.&quot;  </p>
<p>&quot;Israel has taken care of them pretty well vis a vis Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. The US has its hands full w/Iranians in Iraq and Afghanistan (another reason we should not have invaded and occupied &#8211; but for another discussion). Outside of invading or hitting them inside Iran, I don&#039;t know how much more aggressive we can be.&quot; </p>
<p>We have created a stalemate scenario which has merely prolonged the suffering. Is a stalemate acceptable for those families that suffer to this day?  Of course we could do better. It made sense when the cold war was raging to contain the Soviets first. Weapons and communications technologies hadn&#039;t advanced to the point that anyone could envision Islamic supremacists threatening us. Westerners called jihadis &#039;liberators&quot; because we never imagined in a million years that these people could hope to do more than make an oppressive regime think twice. But now they use terror offensively while maintaining the rhetoric of the victim. </p>
<p>But now that we know what we know, we should play to win, not play to contain. This is not that kind of cold war. They don&#039;t actually have a central command. We could annihilate them once and for all (politically, but many probably would be dead in the short run). They fight because we behave like a force that is scared of allah. Our behavior encourages them. This is not to say it&#039;s our fault per se. But it&#039;s important to know that we&#039;re fitting in with what Mohammed taught about Judeo Christian culture, but he invented lies to explain it. We&#039;re scared of allah, not merciful and patient. That means jihadis are on the verge of winning&#8230;in their minds. </p>
<p>If your vision of peace is tolerating this level of Islamic violence, and your middle name is &quot;status quo&quot; then of course you can&#039;t envision doing better. My anger comes from the fact that we could have done a lot better if the left had not been mobilized early in the Bush years to start attacking our legitimate war aims. It all fell apart then and we still have not done anything to reconcile our own domestic politics as a result of that form of mutiny. I almost blame the left more than I blame the jihadis. We could have won by now if the country had been as unified as it pretended to be shortly after September 11 2001. Instead, leftists and anarchists just waited for a pretext for mutiny. &quot;Israel (or Bush) did 911,&quot; then you have Michael Moore-on, and so forth. </p>
<p>We could have won already and a lot more lives would be continuing peacefully with little fear of Islamic terror. Instead we have 0&#039;Bama and his transformation that is supposed to be a good thing. He&#039;s going in the direction opposite of good  in every policy. </p>
<p>And it has NOTHING to do with &quot;race.&quot; NOTHING. Other than the left using race to dismiss our legitimate anger. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/irans-underground-nuke-site-struck/comment-page-1/#comment-4224822</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Feb 2013 00:47:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=175333#comment-4224822</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;HOW he has &quot;appeased&quot; Iran. Specifically. I&#039;m willing to be convinced. He&#039;s done everything short of waging war. I genuinely don&#039;t get it. &quot; 
 
Fair enough. 
 
appeasement [əˈpiːzmənt] 
n 
1. (Government, Politics &amp; Diplomacy) the policy of acceding to the demands of a potentially hostile nation in the hope of maintaining peace 
2. the act of appeasing 
 
 
If you think he&#039;s actually threatened Iran, you don&#039;t understand politics. Everyone knows that public speeches and statements must be sensitive to constituency. Every leftist knows that they&#039;re the only ones who think they can deal with Iran peacefully. Most of them probably don&#039;t even trust Iran. That means no matter what 0&#039;Bama&#039;s policies are towards Iran, he can&#039;t appear to be just running away from our historical stance derived from our original response to the embassy attack which is not resolved to this day. 
 
 
If you look at the positions he has taken (rather than the way he describes his supposed objectives), he has clearly backed off of everything that threatens Iran. He verbally attacks Israel in particular over the threats of acquisition of nuclear weapons...and remember this could be resolved if Iran simply allowed international inspection to verify what the regime already said is true.  
 
This discussion could go on for a long time if you remain unconvinced, which is fine, so please be patient and try to read various sources to make sure you read the cynical conservative view of Iran as well, and then when you are familiar with the &quot;controversies&quot; we might more easily then zero in on points that might remain cloudy for you. 
 
In short, 0&#039;Bama has appease Iran by changing policy with regard to support of Israel, who is our proxy in the middle east as well as having their own interests to protect. He has backed off of enforcement of trade sanctions. He has projected publicly that he will &quot;sit down without preconditions&quot; which is already backing off and the public seems to forget that they can already do this without announcing it publicly. What then is the point in broadcasting to the world that we, the theoretical righteous hegemonic power, have decided that we don&#039;t actually need any promises with Iran in order to give them a &quot;seat at the table&quot; as equals? &quot;Sit down&quot; as in bilateral discussions is a huge elevation in status for  an enemy that has done nothing but foment world terror and propagate lies about the West, the USA and Israel. 
 
Sitting down with liars is virtually conceding that their lies might have some merit. They are total liars. They deserve nothing but our contempt and a serious nonnegotiable last chance warning. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&quot;HOW he has &quot;appeased&quot; Iran. Specifically. I&#039;m willing to be convinced. He&#039;s done everything short of waging war. I genuinely don&#039;t get it. &quot; </p>
<p>Fair enough. </p>
<p>appeasement [əˈpiːzmənt]<br />
n<br />
1. (Government, Politics &amp; Diplomacy) the policy of acceding to the demands of a potentially hostile nation in the hope of maintaining peace<br />
2. the act of appeasing </p>
<p>If you think he&#039;s actually threatened Iran, you don&#039;t understand politics. Everyone knows that public speeches and statements must be sensitive to constituency. Every leftist knows that they&#039;re the only ones who think they can deal with Iran peacefully. Most of them probably don&#039;t even trust Iran. That means no matter what 0&#039;Bama&#039;s policies are towards Iran, he can&#039;t appear to be just running away from our historical stance derived from our original response to the embassy attack which is not resolved to this day. </p>
<p>If you look at the positions he has taken (rather than the way he describes his supposed objectives), he has clearly backed off of everything that threatens Iran. He verbally attacks Israel in particular over the threats of acquisition of nuclear weapons&#8230;and remember this could be resolved if Iran simply allowed international inspection to verify what the regime already said is true.  </p>
<p>This discussion could go on for a long time if you remain unconvinced, which is fine, so please be patient and try to read various sources to make sure you read the cynical conservative view of Iran as well, and then when you are familiar with the &quot;controversies&quot; we might more easily then zero in on points that might remain cloudy for you. </p>
<p>In short, 0&#039;Bama has appease Iran by changing policy with regard to support of Israel, who is our proxy in the middle east as well as having their own interests to protect. He has backed off of enforcement of trade sanctions. He has projected publicly that he will &quot;sit down without preconditions&quot; which is already backing off and the public seems to forget that they can already do this without announcing it publicly. What then is the point in broadcasting to the world that we, the theoretical righteous hegemonic power, have decided that we don&#039;t actually need any promises with Iran in order to give them a &quot;seat at the table&quot; as equals? &quot;Sit down&quot; as in bilateral discussions is a huge elevation in status for  an enemy that has done nothing but foment world terror and propagate lies about the West, the USA and Israel. </p>
<p>Sitting down with liars is virtually conceding that their lies might have some merit. They are total liars. They deserve nothing but our contempt and a serious nonnegotiable last chance warning. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/irans-underground-nuke-site-struck/comment-page-1/#comment-4224786</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Feb 2013 00:35:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=175333#comment-4224786</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Is that just hyperbole, or do you *REALLY* believe Obama is a Sunni (or otherwise Muslim) and a &quot;traitor&quot; (as you say later)?&quot; 
  
 
It&#039;s reasonable to ask people to justify their opinions. I&#039;m not sure that you know much about 0&#039;Bama&#039;s life and even what he personally admits to. He was raised in Hawaii and Indonesia and had a Sunni father. If one were to run a cultural analysis, it would be impossible to avoid the fact that all of his known cultural influences are Sunni Muslim and communist. Communism was accepted among many nominal Muslims in Indonesia during the period 0&#039;Bama was raised in Indonesia. When in Hawaii, he seems to admit his biggest role model was &quot;Frank&quot; who was later revealed to be Frank Marshall Davis. He speaks glowingly about every aspect of spiritual and political Islam. He denies that such a thing as &quot;Islamic terror&quot; can even exist. He equates &quot;Islamic terror&quot; with &quot;Christian terror&quot; as if all crime in &quot;Christian&quot; (Western) cultures can be attributed to Christian theology just as logically as Islam can be blamed for inciting terror. 
 
He was born a Muslim. He never denounced Islam, never did anything to distance himself but lo and behold he shows up at another &quot;Christian&quot; church run by another individual with the same background. A Muslim with an agenda in the &quot;Christian world.&quot; Wright may have performed this fiction to cover for homosexuality for political objectives, or both. But the point is that both have admitted that neither have renounced Islam, but profess Christianity. 
 
I&#039;m going to continue this on an offline document and then feed it to you as time and the policy of the forum allow me to. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&quot;Is that just hyperbole, or do you *REALLY* believe Obama is a Sunni (or otherwise Muslim) and a &quot;traitor&quot; (as you say later)?&quot; </p>
<p>It&#039;s reasonable to ask people to justify their opinions. I&#039;m not sure that you know much about 0&#039;Bama&#039;s life and even what he personally admits to. He was raised in Hawaii and Indonesia and had a Sunni father. If one were to run a cultural analysis, it would be impossible to avoid the fact that all of his known cultural influences are Sunni Muslim and communist. Communism was accepted among many nominal Muslims in Indonesia during the period 0&#039;Bama was raised in Indonesia. When in Hawaii, he seems to admit his biggest role model was &quot;Frank&quot; who was later revealed to be Frank Marshall Davis. He speaks glowingly about every aspect of spiritual and political Islam. He denies that such a thing as &quot;Islamic terror&quot; can even exist. He equates &quot;Islamic terror&quot; with &quot;Christian terror&quot; as if all crime in &quot;Christian&quot; (Western) cultures can be attributed to Christian theology just as logically as Islam can be blamed for inciting terror. </p>
<p>He was born a Muslim. He never denounced Islam, never did anything to distance himself but lo and behold he shows up at another &quot;Christian&quot; church run by another individual with the same background. A Muslim with an agenda in the &quot;Christian world.&quot; Wright may have performed this fiction to cover for homosexuality for political objectives, or both. But the point is that both have admitted that neither have renounced Islam, but profess Christianity. </p>
<p>I&#039;m going to continue this on an offline document and then feed it to you as time and the policy of the forum allow me to. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 915/968 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-29 23:40:07 by W3 Total Cache -->