| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Iran: Rich, armed and angry, how dangerous is it to the world? |
| 2005-10-30 |
| Posted by:.com |
| #5 Iran can only be dangerous ONCE. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2005-10-30 14:45 |
| #4 While it should be encouraging to note that the question is no longer whether Iran is dangerous but instead how dangerous, the article's complete and total lack of any suggested solutions make it patently obvious these journalistic wankers are just that. The writers would have it appear as though America's defeat in Iraq and Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons are all but foregone conclusions. I respectfully suggest that they both can go f%&k a rock. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2005-10-30 14:32 |
| #3 Ain't that the truth, 2b. |
| Posted by: jules 2 2005-10-30 12:29 |
| #2 For most of these influential figures, staying in power is the most important goal  a goal that is inimical to any sort of direct attack on Israel. In all probability, the naive outbursts of Mr Ahmadinejad were as much of an embarrassment and irritation to them as his self-image as a blacksmith's son who speaks for the people. or a reporter who thinks he keep the world safe just by manipulating words to change the reality of a mad regime who just declared nuclear war on Israel. It's hard to tell the difference between Reality and Scrappleface anymore. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-10-30 08:55 |
| #1 The Independent trys to convince us Iran is not a danger. When the article makes a statement about the failed US led Iraqi invasion it shows it's true colors and just how untrustworthy the Indpendent is. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet O´ Doom 2005-10-30 03:42 |