Slashdot Mirror


Iran War Clock Set At Ten Minutes To Midnight

Hugh Pickens writes "The Atlantic has assembled a high-profile panel of experts, including a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iran, a Senior Vice President at the Council on Foreign Relations, a Deputy Head of the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, and a military correspondent at Haaretz, to periodically estimate the chances of conflict with Iran. The Iran War Clock is not designed to be pro-war or anti-war. Instead, the purpose is to estimate the chances of conflict in the hope of producing a more informed debate. Each panelist makes an individual estimate about the percentage chance of war and we report the average score and based on this number, the Iran War Clock is adjusted so that the hand moves closer to, or further away from, midnight. 'On the one hand, the panelists are highly knowledgeable. On the other hand, there are sufficient members of the panel that any individual error should not have an overly negative effect on the aggregate prediction.' If there is a zero percent chance of war, the clock hand is at 20 minutes to midnight. Each extra 5 percent chance of war moves the hand one minute closer to midnight. 'We're humble about the accuracy of this prediction, which is really a collective "gut-check" feeling. But it may be closer to the truth than the alternative forecasts available.' The panel's first estimate puts the odds of war in the next twelve months at 48 percent, consistent with predictions market Intrade.com, which estimates a 40 percent chance of a U.S./Israeli strike by December 2012."

315 comments

  1. Brilliant! by nman64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hearing the ticking of a clock and seeing a deadline approaching always has a calming effect!

    I'm sure this will be taken every bit as seriously as the Doomsday Clock.

    1. Re:Brilliant! by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Funny

      A symbolic clock is as nourishing to the intellect as photograph of oxygen to a drowning man.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:Brilliant! by busyqth · · Score: 0

      You need a shelf toilet

    3. Re:Brilliant! by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1

      yep. what a horrible analogy, this clock. it only serves to elevate fear.

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    4. Re:Brilliant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I've seen thousands of midnights since I first heard about the existence the "Doomsday Clock" and I've yet to see a single doomsday. That alone makes it an unreliable clock. But I also prefer GMT to the Doomsday clock because the people at NIST and their British counterparts don't have to adjust the time backwards and forwards quite as often as cookie-cutter coffee-house activists do, nor does it convey a sense of urgency. To even call the Doomsday clock a clever analogy is just a good illustration of how pretentious and insufferably stupid most left wingers are.

    5. Re:Brilliant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the great thing about the "snooze" button. You hit it often enough, and eventually there's no point to gettin' at it.

    6. Re:Brilliant! by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      Yep. This analogy is evil. Clocks always go forwards.

      Plus, who decided that 20 to midnight is zero threat? This is guaranteed to make it sound like time is running out. Why not start at 0:00 (in which case we'd be at around 11am - much less scary)?

      All in all ,this is designed to scare people, nothing less.

      --
      No sig today...
    7. Re:Brilliant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A symbolic clock is as nourishing to the intellect as photograph of oxygen to a drowning man.

      Just put your panties on, Quote Man, we’re going in...!

      PS: In case you didn’t get it, he quoted Dr. Manhattan in Watchmen.

    8. Re:Brilliant! by smokeala · · Score: 0

      Or you could just do what many people do (and this way it also works if you go on a public toilet that is not a shelf toilet) and deploy a couple of layers of toilet paper onto the top of the water before you sit down to do your business, minimising any splash back.

    9. Re:Brilliant! by Stiletto · · Score: 1

      Look at the current "doomsday clock". They claim that we are closer to nuclear annihilation today than we were in 1960, at the height of the cold war.

    10. Re:Brilliant! by madhi19 · · Score: 1

      Yeah that am somewhat disappointed after more than twenty years of watching post apocalyptic movie Mad Max and playing games like Fallout I also feel cheated that I have yet to experience a real post apocalyptic world! Hell even a small Zombie infection would be welcome!

    11. Re:Brilliant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its psychological propaganda bullshit. They just needed to come up with something newer and move inventive, because unlike Iraq, even though they really are refining uranium, pointing and going WMDs! just isn't enough nowadays to start a war.

    12. Re:Brilliant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clocks always go forwards.

      My clock goes backward 1 hour every November.

  2. Framing? by Haffner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is possibly the most deliberately confusing way to try to explain our chances of war to anyone. Twenty minutes to midnight means a 0% chance? Why are we restricting a scale designed to have 720 minutes to just 20? This is just designed to scare people (for whatever reason) into thinking war is more probable than it really is. I have no problem with the panel, just the manner in which they displayed their results.

    --
    "Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without your accordion." ~General Norman Schwarzkopf
    1. Re:Framing? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This was my first thought too!

      If there is a zero percent chance of war, the clock hand is at 20 minutes to midnight

      We're basically rigging the system to LOOK like war is inevitable no matter what we do. This sounds like a PR event to get people READY for war more than give a realistic assessment.

      People will see "20-minutes to midnight" and think OMFG!@!@!@!@!11111@@@@@ (internet has changed how people thing)

      If you're used to seeing we're only 20 minutes from war- when war comes it is just because it is a foregone conclusion. No reason to complain to the government... we've been this close all along!

      Using the same scale we're currently at 20 minutes to midnight before Obama personally castrates all men in West Virginia using a switch blade knife... only 20 minutes from midnight folks... it's inevitable- don't fight it.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:Framing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My words exactly. The Atlantic, you hear that!? Please re-adjust for the sake of the geeks.

    3. Re:Framing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      we're currently at 20 minutes to midnight before Obama personally castrates all men in West Virginia using a switch blade knife

      OMFG!@!@!@!@!11111@@@@@

    4. Re:Framing? by Kenja · · Score: 1

      Because the whole dooms day clock thing was created during the cold war and is intended to scare people into obedience.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    5. Re:Framing? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Ed Hocken, Police Squad:
      "Doctors say that Nordberg has a 50/50 chance of living, though there's only a 10 percent chance of that. "

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    6. Re:Framing? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they should have ditched the stupid metaphor that implies we need to be preparing for war right now (if it was 10 minutes 'til midnight on New Year's Eve, you'd be breaking out the champagne glasses if they weren't out already).

      Instead let's just use a simple qualitative scale with no physical metaphor at all.

      Like right now we're at "HOLY FUCK WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!", which means there's only a small chance for war.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    7. Re:Framing? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      We're basically rigging the system to LOOK like war is inevitable no matter what we do.

      That sounds accurate to me! All the politicians are falling over themselves to say they're going to kill the other guys. It's not the peasants asking for it. The nobles are the ones leading it. The military industrial complex, conservative pundits, and a few other rich individuals who for one reason or another want to see a big fight are the few leading the charge. Aside from locking them up, what can we do?

    8. Re:Framing? by khallow · · Score: 2

      Using the same scale we're currently at 20 minutes to midnight before Obama personally castrates all men in West Virginia using a switch blade knife... only 20 minutes from midnight folks... it's inevitable- don't fight it.

      I bet it's rusty too.

      We're basically rigging the system to LOOK like war is inevitable no matter what we do. This sounds like a PR event to get people READY for war more than give a realistic assessment.

      Or more likely to panic people into opposing a war with Iran. My view is that Obama wouldn't go to war without a Pearl Harbor incident. And he's not going to troll for one unlike say Lyndon B. Johnson's Gulf of Tonkin incidents. So that leaves it up to other people such as the possible replacement for Obama. And that right there is probably the explanation. Get people thinking about a possible war with Iran now, then maybe they'll kick some money over to Obama's campaign warchest.

    9. Re:Framing? by PPH · · Score: 0

      Using the same scale we're currently at 20 minutes to midnight before Obama personally castrates all men in West Virginia using a switch blade knife... only 20 minutes from midnight folks... it's inevitable- don't fight it.

      It won't matter anyway. They already got their sisters pregnant. And they did it at 3:00 in the afternoon. Just after junior high school let out when dad was at work and mom was still hanging out at the local cocktail lounge.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    10. Re:Framing? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Like right now we're at "HOLY FUCK WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!", which means there's only a small chance for war.

      Your post made me think of an old song, which I'll mangle here to bring it to the 21st century:

      Well, come on all you big strong men,
      Uncle Sam needs your help again.
      Got himself in a terrible jam
      Way out East out in Iran
      Put down your books and pick up a gun
      We're gonna have a whole lot of fun.

      And it's 1, 2, 3, what are we fightin' for?
      Don't ask me I don't give a damn
      It's just like Vietnam.
      And it's 5, 6, 7, open up the pearly gates.
      Well, there ain't no time to wonder why.
      Whoopie! We're all gonna die!

      Well come on wall street don't be slow
      It's war a go go.
      There's plenty of money to be made
      Supplyin' the army with the tools of the trade.
      Just be sure that when they drop the bomb
      They drop it right on Iran.

      And it's 1, 2, 3, what are we fightin' for?
      Don't ask me I don't give a damn
      It's just like Vietnam.
      And it's 5, 6, 7, open up the pearly gates.
      Well, there ain't no time to wonder why.
      Whoopie! We're all gonna die!

      Well, come on, mothers throughout the land
      Pack your boys off to Iran
      Don't be slow, don't hesitate,
      Pack your boys off before it's too late.
      Be the fisrt ones on your blocks
      To have your boy come home in a box!

      And it's 1, 2, 3, what are we fightin' for?
      Don't ask me I don't give a damn
      It's just like Vietnam.
      And it's 5, 6, 7, open up the pearly gates.
      Well, there ain't no time to wonder why.
      Whoopie! We're all gonna die!

      (Apologies to Country Joe and the Fish)

    11. Re:Framing? by Thud457 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't we have a left wing liberal as a president right now?

      You're f-in kidding, right?

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    12. Re:Framing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using the same scale we're currently at 20 minutes to midnight before Obama personally castrates all men in West Virginia using a switch blade knife...

      Aren't you being a little optimistic here? If anyone could do that, it's Mr. Yes-we-can!

    13. Re:Framing? by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't we have a left wing liberal as a president right now?

      It hurts too much take this as a joke, so I'm just going to say no, we have a moderate conservative as president right now.

      If you do not like who is running the country and making the policies, you can vote them out of office.

      Not really. Every election comes down to two candidates who, on the middle east, differ only in terms of whether they want to start wars or not. AIPAC and other pro-war interests are too strong to allow anyone into the short list who will say things like "The Israeli government is the aggressor in this situation, not Iran." The powers that be will not give us that option.

    14. Re:Framing? by SnarfQuest · · Score: 0

      This is possibly the most deliberately confusing way to try to explain our chances of war to anyone

      It's typical politician talk. If you look into the facts, you'll find most of the numbers they spout are really meaningless. When Nancy states that 98% of catholic women use contraceptives, when you look into the details you'll find out the study only includes women who use contraceptives. When Obama says that the unemployment rate went down, he leaves out the fact that the employment rate is also down.

      Politicians always fudge their numbers, or just lie about them. This is just another example.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    15. Re:Framing? by I+Read+Good · · Score: 1

      As a man living in West Virginia, I might find your comment a tad disconcerting. Luckily, I math as well as I read.

    16. Re:Framing? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      I believe you hint at it, but I'll point it out more prominently. This is psychological propaganda, informing people that war is inevitable. This is training people that it's inevitable, so that when it happens there are few questions. "We knew it was going to happen, check the clock!" Yes people, there is a lot of brainwashing going on even in the "Good" guy places.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    17. Re:Framing? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      conservative pundits?? Don't we have a left wing liberal as a president right now?

      Not only no, but "HELL NO". Did you really believe the platform he ran on? I mean.. okay people were fooled at first. But how long did it take before it was obvious he was just a puppet?

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    18. Re:Framing? by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Using the same scale we're currently at 20 minutes to midnight before Obama personally castrates all men in West Virginia using a switch blade knife...

      Aren't you being a little optimistic here? If anyone could do that, it's Mr. Yes-we-can!

      What does Bob the Builder have to do with it?!

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    19. Re:Framing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didn't run as a leftist, he ran as a moderate liberal. Of coarse, that didn't stop the left from projecting all their hopes on to him, nor did it stop the right for projecting their greatest fears onto him.

    20. Re:Framing? by blueforce · · Score: 1

      720? What happened to the other 720 between midnight and noon?

      --
      If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
    21. Re:Framing? by droidsURlooking4 · · Score: 0

      Don't we have a left wing liberal as a president right now?

      You're f-in kidding, right?

      Well we elected a moderate. Now we have a hawkish lefty. The liberals will take us into Iran. War is what they do.

    22. Re:Framing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd support that.

    23. Re:Framing? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Next time you'd better vote for Gus Hall, then.

    24. Re:Framing? by microbox · · Score: 1

      Nah, in conservative-land, Obama is vilified as a front for liberal world government. And plenty of people believe that this centre-right president is really Stalin in disguise. It would help our political discourse if it was, you know, grounded in reality.

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    25. Re:Framing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If there is a zero percent chance of war, the clock hand is at 20 minutes to midnight

      We're basically rigging the system to LOOK like war is inevitable no matter what we do. This sounds like a PR event to get people READY for war more than give a realistic assessment.

      People will see "20-minutes to midnight" and think OMFG!@!@!@!@!11111@@@@@ (internet has changed how people thing)

      If you're used to seeing we're only 20 minutes from war- when war comes it is just because it is a foregone conclusion. No reason to complain to the government... we've been this close all along!"

      I agree accept for the "knife at the balls" part. I think we've already been castrated because
        we've lost the way to cast a legitimate vote for a viable candidate.
      "there are turds in the bowl but the Flush Lever is stolen!"

    26. Re:Framing? by microbox · · Score: 1

      and is intended to scare people into obedience.

      If you mean obedience against the big-government industrial military complex, then you are correct. Political activists wanted to stop the build-up of nuclear weapons in the world, and stuck upon this rhetorical device.

      But only the sheep were polarized.

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    27. Re:Framing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of people don't vote because they know the election is rigged. Also when you only have a choice of only asshats and war pigs to choose from who do you choose? Get a real person to run and hell I vote for him. You only have a choice of several people that have been already chosen by the people behind the curtain.

      A Left Wing president? You've got to be kidding. They may call him left but he is far from it.
      Locking them up would be a good idea but I think it will take a firing squad to fix the problem one day.

      Anonymous Coward? Your damn right words like this will get you locked up these days.

    28. Re:Framing? by gVibe · · Score: 1

      Framing is just another way to put it...

      Keep on the look out, as there will be a staged "terrorist attack," or a "false flag" operation, for which Iran will be blamed. As Iran and its leadership have already been demonized, the "false flag" attack will suffice to obtain US and European public support for bombing Iran. The bombing will, of course, include more than the nuclear facilities and will continue until the Iranians agree to regime change and the installation of a puppet government.

      Its how the US was able to move from Afghanistan to Iraq so quickly, and why we were able to re-deploy back to Afghanistan to "finish what we started". Its also why Bush never found and killed Osama bin Laden, because Bush was never after him, he was after Saddam, the oil reserves in Iraq, and the corruption of all the reconstruction contracts.

      --
      Keywords for the NSA overthrow oppressive regime true believers marathon Manhatten the financial district blueprints I
  3. Chances of war? by busyqth · · Score: 1

    I'd say the probability of a war with Iran is 0.
    That is, unless Israel and/or the U.S. is determined to start one.

    1. Re:Chances of war? by Firehed · · Score: 1

      Which is why it's starting at 50%.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    2. Re:Chances of war? by jdgeorge · · Score: 1

      but can someone explain to me how "50% chance" == "10 minutes until war begins", and "0% chance" == "20 minutes until war begins"?

      This looks like a concept created by someone who is in a very big hurry to see a war.

    3. Re:Chances of war? by Whatanut · · Score: 2

      That's pretty much the point. No matter how you look at it, this way of depicting things says war is inevitable. Clocks are intended to move forward. Eventually we're going to get to midnight.

      --

      yvan eht nioj
  4. All we are saying..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    is give peace a chance.

    1. Re:All we are saying..... by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      For everything there is a season. A time for war...

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:All we are saying..... by PlatyPaul · · Score: 1

      Turn turn turn...

      --
      Misery loves company. Online misery loves unsuspecting random strangers.
    3. Re:All we are saying..... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Insightful? Platitudes are insightful now? I got a million of 'em:
      Good things come to those who wait
      It was meant to be
      Time heals all wounds
      Nothing is impossible
      Perception is reality

      In all seriousness, the last decade of Iran policy has been giving peace a chance. Eventually, they will ride the peace train long enough to arrive at Nuclearville. I still don't think that means war (in fact historically it makes it less likely), but peace has definitely been given a chance. Of course, Iran could just pull out of the nonproliferation treaty and then there would be no basis for sanctions... the treaty only requires 3 months notice, and North Korea has established precedence.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    4. Re:All we are saying..... by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Eventually, they will ride the peace train long enough to arrive at Nuclearville.

      In Islam, they have a word for this: Hudna. Basically, a call for peace, or temporary cease-fire, when you need to reload. The fact that the religion/culture of this area of the world is taught this concept, and has a word for it, should speak volumes. Bin Laden called for peace when he was being bombed in 2001. Hamas has called for peace when they were attacked by Israel. None of them seriously want peace; just time to reload.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    5. Re:All we are saying..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that the religion/culture of this area of the world is taught this concept, and has a word for it, should speak volumes.

      I'm so glad I live in a country that calls it a ceasefire, instead of some scary Arabic name. Too bad there are so many bigots here.

    6. Re:All we are saying..... by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      It's a temporary ceasefire. Learn to read. As in, they deliberately plan on it being temporary while they rearm and prepare for war.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    7. Re:All we are saying..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Islam, they have a word for this: Hudna. Basically, a call for peace, or temporary cease-fire, when you need to reload

      And in English they have a word for it: ceasefire.

    8. Re:All we are saying..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Peace has been given a chance?? What, by forcing the Natives of the Middle East to live next door to an every growing population colonial racists with a clandestine Nuclear weapons program (yes I am referring to Israel). Or is there some special reason why they are allowed have nukes? 'Cos remember, the only reason Iran are the 'bad guys' is cos they are allegedly developing nukes, oh wait my brain hurts, and of course they did have the temerity to overthrow the US pupet régime of the Shah. Imagine the temerity of those ragheads to believe they had the right to self determination and to control their own natural resources. If the US and or Israel really wanted peace they could start by allowing UN weapons inspectors into all Israeli nuclear facilites and the subsequent removal of all nukes would end the nuclear arms race in the region leaving only one further obstacle to peace in the region; the cessation by Israel of all current violations of international law. But the sad reality is that peace in the Middle East would be economically disasterous for the US what with the whole strategy of divide on conquer it has been persuing in the region for half a century or so. So the US will keep subsidising and the Zionists will continue their increasingly belligerant and criminal activities to create a pretext for the murder of another million or so natives of the Middle East simply because the collective gang of scumbags that is the US population cant afford to actually buy their oil off them so they have to steal it instead.

    9. Re:All we are saying..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, in ARABIC they have a term for that. Iranians are not Arabs though, neither is Arabic a synonym for Islamic but I guess all those dirty brown non-English people look the same to you, eh?

    10. Re:All we are saying..... by Fned · · Score: 1

      It's a temporary ceasefire. Learn to read

      If a ceasefire isn't temporary, it's a "truce".

    11. Re:All we are saying..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not according to any definition I can find. Post a source please. This is oodaloop posting ac from my phone.

    12. Re:All we are saying..... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Or is there some special reason why they are allowed have nukes?

      The most "special" reason I can think of is that they never signed the non-proliferation treaty, just like India and Pakistan. In 3 months, Iran could legitimately have them, too, by formally withdrawing from the treaty.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    13. Re:All we are saying..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The IRA did the same in the eighties. Any political/dissenting force will demand relief when it is being attacked.

    14. Re:All we are saying..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that the religion/culture of this area of the world is taught this concept, and has a word for it, should speak volumes

      The US government has been at war with someone, somewhere in the world, for every single year of the past 100 years. The US government has even admitted they are willing to kill innocents in the name of agenda ("collateral damage"). They actually have an upper limit (search google for "collateral damage magic number").

      For the record, I view every political authority as corrupt, dangerous, and self-serving, and it's not because of lack of evidence.

    15. Re:All we are saying..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's play the "apply your own logic to your culture and see if you like the result" game: English has a word for rape. The fact that the religion/culture of this area of the world is taught this concept, and has a word for it, should speak volumes.

      First of all, Iran -- like any other country -- is made up of a gov't with different internal forces pulling or pushing for war. The faction that wants war wants it because they are legitimately scared of being screwed over by the west. And if what you say is true, and Iran actually is one unified political front that just hates the west and wants holy jihad absent any sociopolitical forces, at least they're aware of the flavor of bullshit the prefer.

      Where do you get off delineating between us and them based on Hudna? The United States is STILL calling for peace in the middle east, after starting two full blown wars, supporting Israel -- an aggressive neo-conservative theocracy, and threatening to start a third.

      So you're right. The west doesn't have a word for Hudna. Instead, we just swallow every hypocritical stance our gov't makes and circulate racist tropes to support it.

    16. Re:All we are saying..... by Archtech · · Score: 1

      In 3 months, Iran could legitimately have them, too, by formally withdrawing from the treaty.

      And that "hostile act", of course, would be exactly the pretext for launching an aggressive war against Iran that Israel and the USA have been longing for.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    17. Re:All we are saying..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and who is iran trying to invade? and who was the one killing people on an aid flotilla? it seems you are bent on ignoring the facts and support going to war with a people who haven't started a war in several decade. and for what its worth, i believe if the irani people have a problem with their government or with the way things are, they should do something about it themselves...its not for the american govt to decide whats best for people..they have already harmed the financial interests of american commoners enough i think...does the current economic situation really allow for a prolonged invasion and occupation or is just carpet bomb the sh!t out of 'em?

    18. Re:All we are saying..... by MichaelKristopeit426 · · Score: 1

      the religion/culture of this area of the world is taught that the concept of "rape" is a terrible crime. the religion/culture of the arab world is taught that the concept of "peace while reloading" is a standard tactic for use when a conflict is going badly for you. you're an idiot.

      --
      I am not the real Michael Kristopeit.
  5. Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    48% of War! I say 50% - 50% there will be war, 50% there won`t be a war.

  6. So in other words... by brainzach · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The chance of going to war with Iran is a 9.5 based on a scale from 9 to 10.

    1. Re:So in other words... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      On a scale where 10 inches means 0 inches and 100 inches means 12 inches- I have a 12inch long um. banana.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:So in other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Roughly translated, that means your .. banana .. is (2*12)/90 inches long, or slightly under 1/4".

      Let's just say I'm not impressed with the size of your banana at this point.

    3. Re:So in other words... by davidbrit2 · · Score: 1

      But that's not sensationalist enough. On a scale from 6,999,999,998 to 7,000,000,000, I'd put us around 6,999,999,999.

    4. Re:So in other words... by atrain728 · · Score: 1

      Assuming the scale is linear.

    5. Re:So in other words... by I+Read+Good · · Score: 1

      Maybe he's a panda?

    6. Re:So in other words... by orcwog · · Score: 1

      So they're using a video game rating scale...

  7. Can I get that in Libraries of Congress? by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    WTF - a zero chance of war means 11:40pm. Shouldn't that be closer to 12:01 AM? I mean 10 minutes to midnight (when, I presume, we launch the pumpkins and somebody gets caught wearing rags instead of a ball gown) sounds a lot worse when compared to a 24 hours day than to a 20 minute window.

    Threat Level for the day: Chartreuse

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Can I get that in Libraries of Congress? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer to stick with Ron White's version of the threat level system

      Threat level 1: Find a helmet
      Threat level 2: Put on the damn helmet.

    2. Re:Can I get that in Libraries of Congress? by JeanCroix · · Score: 2

      I was hoping someone could explain the percent chance of war with Iran in terms of a car analogy. It would be about as apt as the clock.

    3. Re:Can I get that in Libraries of Congress? by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Right, come see my Canada doomsday clock...

      Its only 18 minutes to midnight.

      By the time you watch an episode of simpsons... even if you skip the commercials... we could be at war.

      But don't let that worry you, my Alien Invasion Conspiracy doomday clock which tracks the chances that an alien fleet is behind the moon right now and is coordinating with the CIA and FBI to prepare a combination harvest & extinction of the human race has been very accurately set at only 20 minutes to midnight.

      What a retarded metric.

    4. Re:Can I get that in Libraries of Congress? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're current at '1960s Volkswagon Bus,' when we get to the Yugo, it's war.

    5. Re:Can I get that in Libraries of Congress? by JeanCroix · · Score: 1

      I find this less misinforming than the clock.

    6. Re:Can I get that in Libraries of Congress? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, when your car gets Iran, we're at war. Since the chance is 0%, you don't even have a car and if you did, it would be in North America.

    7. Re:Can I get that in Libraries of Congress? by BurningFeetMan · · Score: 1

      U-oh. I assumed 12:01am to be when the nuclear winter settles!

    8. Re:Can I get that in Libraries of Congress? by iggie · · Score: 1

      "Seconds to midnight" is a great unit of probability.
      5% probability every minute. Conveniently, a 95% probability (2 sigma) is "One Minute To Midnight".

      Or if the higgs is at 2.4 sigma now, its 24 seconds to midnight.
      And, its energy is about a quarter microfirkin-microfurlong!

  8. Doesn't seem to be any outrage here by Catbeller · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I assume none of you tech types are actually going to die in Oil War III?

    1. Re:Doesn't seem to be any outrage here by oodaloop · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, it'll be just like the last World War that started when Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear facility in 1981.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:Doesn't seem to be any outrage here by jdgeorge · · Score: 1

      The outrage is that this "war clock" seems designed to promote the idea of starting a new war.

    3. Re:Doesn't seem to be any outrage here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I won't. And after the last few wars I've decided to take a new outlook on these things. Really they don't involve me. Other than some rather disturbing news reports it has no impact on my day to day life. It may result in a % or two change in my taxes at some point in the future but other than that it's just a gentleman's agreement between the aristocracy (who want these things for financial reasons and largely pay for the wars based on our tax structures) and poor people who are looking for jobs and/or are genuinely interested in killing others. Either way I'm not a part of the equation so getting my panties in a knot about it is a waste.

    4. Re:Doesn't seem to be any outrage here by Crasoose · · Score: 1

      I don't know, I'm pretty mad but I don't want to take it out on you guys by commenting righRASRARSARGGGGGGRRGARGRAGRaragr

    5. Re:Doesn't seem to be any outrage here by cavePrisoner · · Score: 1

      If we went to war with Iran, I would very probably die in that war. That's the job I do. Sometimes wars are easy, sometimes not. But somebody has to be first. Most of the people doing the dying at this point in the game signed up during the war. We know what we signed up for.

      What is there to be outraged about? That I'll die in a pointless war? I'm pretty sure I've already prepared for that when I signed up the first time. Or do you think the present dying is really meaningful? I don't know if it is. I'm pretty sure you're not in a position to make that call either.

      Maybe our mothers should be outraged. Maybe it's the innocent Iranians. But their government plays the same game ours does. And they have elections just like us.

    6. Re:Doesn't seem to be any outrage here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honest question: If you acknowledge that it's a pointless war, and that you're likely to die in it, does it not make more sense then to fight the assholes that throw you into the pointless war (mostly for their own personal profit, no less) than some dudes that are essentially in the same situation as you, because their respective assholes did the same to them?

    7. Re:Doesn't seem to be any outrage here by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The difference between Iraq and Iran is pretty huge. Iran has much better military. Furthermore, their nuclear sites are deeper into the country, and most interesting stuff is deep underground - it's not something you can take out with a single F-16, it needs a massive bombing campaign with deep penetrators to make sure that you've got everything there (because if you don't, and if your assumptions about their nuclear capability are right, they'll probably launch whatever's left as soon as they can).

    8. Re:Doesn't seem to be any outrage here by s122604 · · Score: 1

      Simple solution
      pick the second biggest city in Iran, bomb all the major highways and railways out of it, then commence firebombing
      Then tell them Tehran's next unless they fall in line and open up all their facilities immediately
      Man, I have the strangest boner right now..

    9. Re:Doesn't seem to be any outrage here by couchslug · · Score: 1

      I wasn't outraged at deploying to Oil War 1. Anyone who serves thinking they are defending the US instead of playing Smedley Butler is nuts. That's what most wars anywhere are for, not moralist crusades. So what?

      Our casualties are tiny, our forces are well-paid volunteers (who can volunteer back to the block by not re-upping), and we can stay at war as long as funding holds up. Yes, really.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    10. Re:Doesn't seem to be any outrage here by Archtech · · Score: 1

      I wasn't outraged at deploying to Oil War 1. Anyone who serves thinking they are defending the US instead of playing Smedley Butler is nuts. That's what most wars anywhere are for, not moralist crusades. So what?

      Our casualties are tiny, our forces are well-paid volunteers (who can volunteer back to the block by not re-upping), and we can stay at war as long as funding holds up. Yes, really.

      So your ethics are really exactly the same as the Nazis'.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    11. Re:Doesn't seem to be any outrage here by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Unless your first strike cripples their nuclear launch facilities, they're just going to launch all they've got. If you actually firebomb a large city - second largest would be Mashhad, with a population of 2.5 million - you'd get people riled up enough that they will demand their government do just that, seeing how it's clearly doomsday coming and all...

    12. Re:Doesn't seem to be any outrage here by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      Good luck with that. Iran isn't to be underestimated here.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
  9. Bring it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need ourselves a good nuclear war.

  10. Senseless gimmick by owlnation · · Score: 2

    This (and the Doomsday Clock) are just stupid gimmicks. They get in the way of facts. It's just lousy journalism.

    Just state the percentage chance -- percentages are clear. Even if they are just probabilities and do not necessarily reflect what will happen in any way.

    Considering Iran's leadership, anything could happen at any time. Using a retarded clock with a deliberately confusing scale isn't going to make that any clearer.

    1. Re:Senseless gimmick by fnj · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Senseless gimmick is right. Jesus christ. You can't assign a percentage figure to the chance that a particular war will break out. It's infantile. You just can't quantify it. It's all guesswork. Most of it is breathtakingly uninformed guesswork.

    2. Re:Senseless gimmick by iggie · · Score: 1

      I vote we adopt these new doomsday units into the Furlong/Firkin/Fortnight (FFF) system, so that we can say "That's 3 minutes to midnight!" to mean "That's an 85% probability!"

  11. And More Framing? by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is possibly the most deliberately confusing way to try to explain our chances of war to anyone. Twenty minutes to midnight means a 0% chance? Why are we restricting a scale designed to have 720 minutes to just 20? This is just designed to scare people (for whatever reason) into thinking war is more probable than it really is. I have no problem with the panel, just the manner in which they displayed their results.

    I thought the same thing. Why not simply say "48% chance of war by December 2012"? Another thing I found quite humorous was that this is titled "The Iran War Clock" which made me think 'damn those war mongering religious fundamentalists' but then when I get to the end of the summary I see they reference a "U.S./Israeli strike" which makes me think 'perhaps this should be called The U.S./Isreali War Clock'? I mean, is this clock about Iran nuking a neighbor or Israel? Or is this clock about the US and Israel tag-teaming on Iran? Or is it a split and, if so, what's that split on the 48%?

    And yet another peculiar thing was that I searched around for the panel's positions and stances of each member in order to understand why this war clock is now at ten minutes and how this is any different than, say, the past twenty years of Iran. It's a coin flip that war will break out by the end of the year? Hasn't this always been sort of the sentiment with Iran? What makes this so different now, specifically?

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:And More Framing? by houghi · · Score: 1

      Why not simply say "48% chance of war by December 2012"

      Because it is meaningless as well.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    2. Re:And More Framing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reading more deeply into the whole 48% number, we can see that, yes, they're trying to say "It's a coin flip, people! 50/50 shot at war!"

      But really what that says is "We don't know what's going to happen. We don't know what Iran is going to do. We don't know what Israel/America will do."

      So yeah, 50% is usually the "I don't know" answer or the threshold for unpredictability.

      But the whole ten minutes thing sounds like a countdown to blast off. It made sense for the cold war, because we really needed to think about an honest-to-god extinction level apocalypse.

      This? This is propaganda.

    3. Re:And More Framing? by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      It wont happen from us this year or probably Israel either. US elections may have something to do with what happens to Iran.

    4. Re:And More Framing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh no. Are you saying that I have a 50% chance of winning the lottery because it's unpredictable? 48% chance of something specific happening is not the same as flipping a coin. For example, I would like to think that there is a substantially less chance than that of the US going to war with... Let's flip a coin... England. Yeah, totally the same.

      People should have to pass an IQ test before being allowed on the internets. You make the rest of us more stupids.

    5. Re:And More Framing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have some predictions:

      You are either male or female. Flip a coin, heads male, tails female. There is a 50% chance that you are female.

      U.S./Israel either will or won't go to war with Iran. Flip a coin, heads war, tails status quo. There is a 50% chance of war.

      You will win the lottery or not win the lottery. Flip a coin, heads win, tails lose. There is a 50% chance that you'll win.

      Pretty awesome predictions, right? Thanks Atlantic. Pretty cool that you ripped off the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists' Doomsday clock. Makes your article seem totally unbiased and credible.

    6. Re:And More Framing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or is this clock about the US and Israel tag-teaming on Iran?

      Hmm. Time for another Iraq. That is invading a country, which refuses to be ruled by USian politics/greed.

      Iran has not suffered years of sanctions like Iraq had. Their manufacturing base is better prepared to attack US bases. And the US will not have its allies to do the specialised warfare after the initial carpet bombing. Unless it can goad Iran into declaring war.

  12. Further analysis. by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Funny

    'We're humble about the accuracy of this prediction, which is really a collective "gut-check" feeling

    Actually, we asked two guys if there would be a war. One said "yes", the other "no". So we were going to say there was a 50% chance, but then we changed it to 48% because that sounded more scientific.

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    1. Re:Further analysis. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "In our defense, the guy who said "no" said it slightly louder."

  13. Student of American History by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The U.S. is determined to start one. We're seeing the same type of media froth that we saw leading up to the Spanish-American war, the second Iraq war, and others. This whole stupid clock is just one more rattling saber.

    1. Re:Student of American History by alen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      except the US has now been at war for almost 11 years and most people are tired of it and the 5000 or so dead soldiers. there is close to 0 public support for another war

      and the US army isn't ready for it either

    2. Re:Student of American History by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm from the US and I don't want to start one. The other day, the CNN home page had a poll something about "should military force be an option" (about preventing nuclear weapons in Iran). I voted NO, but was surprised to see 67% had voted YES. I guess there are a bunch of warmongers out there. I'm certainly not one of them.

    3. Re:Student of American History by burnit999 · · Score: 2

      I feel like you haven't been watching the republican preliminaries...

    4. Re:Student of American History by elrous0 · · Score: 0

      Israel is determined to start one.

      FTFY

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    5. Re:Student of American History by x1r8a3k · · Score: 1

      That doesn't mean that someone isn't pushing them into it. No public support and lack of preparation has never stopped politicians. They're just waiting for an opportunity to spin it into a positive thing.

    6. Re:Student of American History by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose you didn't see any of Obama's 2008 campaign speeches either.

    7. Re:Student of American History by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Meh. The Republican primaries are all about appealing to the core Republicans, since they're the ones you have to make happy to win the nomination.

      Whoever comes out of the primaries is going to be in for a shock if they keep beating the drums of war in the run-up to the general election.

      But I'm betting it'll be Romney and he's smarter than that.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    8. Re:Student of American History by houghi · · Score: 1

      5.000 soldiers is a lot. Care to say how many civilians? Or do you not care about the people you are trying to liberate?

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    9. Re:Student of American History by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5000 soldiers in 11 years... is not a lot really. Compared to every other armed conflict, this is nothing. Civilian casualties and injuries are MUCH worse, but that's the downside to war. To get what you want/need, or to defend yourself... the other side suffers. Everyone suffers, and it's not going to stop over the next decade. Maybe if our soldiers die in full scale combat or a bomb strike (like we do to other combatant centers) than we would be more willing to support our troops. It may take another attack on the U.S.... no one will listen until it hits home.
      Diplomacy isn't an option until a regime change occurs, civilian led or otherwise. The leaders in hostile countries see us as the big Satan and have made it a holy war to kill any and everyone who is American... argue that with them. Drop the leaders, support civil evolution, and maybe in a decade we can have some real steps towards global stability.

    10. Re:Student of American History by artor3 · · Score: 1

      People generally care more about their friends and neighbors and spouses and children than they do about nameless, faceless people from the other side of the globe. Americans care more about their troops being killed, and I'd wager that the Iraqi people care a lot more about neighbors killed as "collateral damage" than they do about some American soldiers being killed by a suicide bomber at some check point in another city. There's nothing wrong with that -- it's human nature.

    11. Re:Student of American History by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we care about them so much that we don't count them because that would be a violation of their privacy

    12. Re:Student of American History by busyqth · · Score: 1

      Yeah we'll see about that.
      Let's hope that when Israel attacks Iran, the U.S. just stands back and lets them work things out.

      but I'm not that optimistic.

    13. Re:Student of American History by lgw · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Sadam was killing a hell of a lot of people, though, to keep control. And he was fond of torture - he'd torture people to death just for fun, and his followers seemed keen on it as well. So compared to the status quo ante, the ongoing civilian death count wasn't so much. Compared to the casualties in most wars, the civilian death count was nothing.

      And, hey, it worked. Democracy in Iraq, Arab Spring, too early to say how it will all end but this democracy fad might just catch on.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    14. Re:Student of American History by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      > except the US has now been at war for almost 11 years and most people

      At first glance many people (here in US at least) are not aware we are at war. Take a look at most mainstream media and very little is mentioned about war activity in Afghanistan and Iraq. Although we have "pulled out" (actually replaced soldiers with contractors) some think we can then use those resources to start another war, which is probably the objective as it's election year.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    15. Re:Student of American History by jps25 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It might be your nature. It isn't mine. It isn't human nature. And there's everything wrong with it.

    16. Re:Student of American History by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      blah...

      He didnt say we dont care about other people. The key was we care MORE about our own which is totally true and foolish to think otherwise.

    17. Re:Student of American History by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      I doubt it. Sadly.

    18. Re:Student of American History by artor3 · · Score: 2

      So you care as much about the old guy who just this second passed away (and another this second, and yet another this second) as you would (did?) about your own father passing?

      Either your an emotionless psychopath, or you must spend every waking moment in mourning. The rest of us care more about people the closer we are to them. We love our immediate family more than our friends, our friends more than acquaintances, acquaintances more than friends of friends, friends of friends more than a random guy across town, a random guy across town more than a random guy across the country, a random guy across the country more than a random guy across the world, a random guy across the world more than a random guy from a century ago, and a random guy from a century ago more than a random guy from a millennium ago.

      If you want to pretend to be a perfectly rational robot, aren't the deaths of the people killed during the sack of Babylon in the 16th century BC just as sad as those of the people killed in the recent midwest tornadoes? Of course, no actual human being would feel that way, but if it makes you feel special, go on pretending.

    19. Re:Student of American History by jps25 · · Score: 1

      Right.
      You already had me convinced when you had to capitalise "more" but you totally blew my mind when you said that it's totally true.
      Totally foolish otherwise, bro. Totally didn't understand a single word before but I'm totally enlightened now. Totally thankful.

    20. Re:Student of American History by chrb · · Score: 1

      there is close to 0 public support for another war

      Not true. Americans are sick of *some* wars; 75% of Americans support withdrawal from Afghanistan by Obama's timetable or earlier. But... 70% of Americans believe Iran already has nuclear weapons, and 58% of Americans say they support U.S. military attacks on Iran. The Young Turks: Can we stop a war with Iran?

      5000 or so dead soldiers

      6,300 U.S. soldiers killed, 46,000 U.S. soldiers wounded, estimated hundreds of thousands of civilian dead, and $3 trillion of public money given to "defense contractors".

      And now Iran is being blamed for 9/11: U.S. District Court Rules Iran Behind 9/11 Attacks (December 23rd 2011)

      How convenient. After 2001, 44% of Americans believed that the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi, and 70% of Americans believed Saddam did 9/11. In fact, not a single one of the hijackers were Iraqi, and secularist Hussein and Islamist bin Laden were known to hate each other. It was all a lie. Even now, after the whole argument has been completely discredited time and again, including by the CIA, 41% of Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11. But now Iran did it, so we have to attack them.... omg..

      I can't believe people are falling for this again...

    21. Re:Student of American History by jps25 · · Score: 1

      I find it very amusing that you feel the need to attack me instead of simply accepting that not everyone is like you and that your inane generalisation is simply wrong. Clearly I'm the psychopath. In words I'm sure you'll understand "2/10 would chuckle again".

    22. Re:Student of American History by artor3 · · Score: 1

      So you have no argument, then. You're just gonna stick with the story that yes, you do care just as much about people who died a thousand years ago as you would about your own wife, because "people are different, man!"

      The simple truth is we're not that different. People experience the same general feelings everywhere. You just got up on a high horse, and can't figure out a way to get back down without losing face. So go ahead and laugh it off, if that's what you've got to do. But from personal experience, you grow more as a person when you admit (if only to yourself) that you were wrong.

    23. Re:Student of American History by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [citation needed]

    24. Re:Student of American History by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      People generally care more about their friends and neighbors and spouses and children than they do about their enemies.

    25. Re:Student of American History by jps25 · · Score: 1

      Then it's time for you to grow again and judging by your behaviour you still have a lot of growing to do.
      Don't misinterpret my apparent lack of arguments. It's merely a lack of interest in debating with you.
      You obviously believe that your opinion is the gospel and people who disagree with you are mentally challenged.
      I wonder why you feel the need to win a debate with someone who's mentally challenged. After all, you clearly have no issues.

    26. Re:Student of American History by trawg · · Score: 1

      That's what I would have thought. Until I started watching the republican primaries.

      Except the only candidate that doesn't want to go to war with Iran is Ron Paul. As far as I can tell (from Australia) he is not really in the race.

        unfortunately I have to conclude that America is not yet tired enough of war to even select a non war mongering republican candidate. :(

    27. Re:Student of American History by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "and the US army isn't ready for it either"

      It's had twenty-plus YEARS Middle Eastern combat experience, is finished with Iraq, and nation-state war is different from "nation building".

      The lesson is not to build nations, but to defeat your opponents then sign a peace treaty (remember those???).

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    28. Re:Student of American History by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      But now Iran did it, so we have to attack them.... omg..

      Iran has always been responsible for 9/11. Stop spreading your crimethink.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    29. Re:Student of American History by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      And, hey, it worked. Democracy in Iraq

      Yes, I hear Sunni and Shia are getting pretty good at democratically killing each other there.

      Arab Spring

      The one that brought hardline Islamists to power in Tunisia and Egypt, and plunged Libya in a civil war (that's still going on - militia have started fighting it out between themselves now) that is most likely to also end up in an Islamist regime?

      too early to say how it will all end but this democracy fad might just catch on.

      It's catching on, alright. The only problem is that democracy does not equal freedom, equality and human rights. If the majority of the populace want back to Middle Ages, democracy lets them do just that.

      At some point you have to ask: does it matter if an innocent person is torture-killed on the orders of a brutal dictator, or according to a democratically enacted law?

    30. Re:Student of American History by blueforce · · Score: 1

      close to 0 public support for another war

      You should try skimming the comments on Fox.com sometime.

      --
      If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
    31. Re:Student of American History by blueforce · · Score: 1

      foxnews.com that is. O_o

      --
      If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
    32. Re:Student of American History by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You are simply wrong...because I say so."

      Respond to his post if its so easily refuted. Otherwise keep on trollin..

    33. Re:Student of American History by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming you live the in the US: what exactly did normal Iranians living their lives do to you to deserve being called your enemy?

      (For that matter, what did non-normal Iranians do either?)

    34. Re:Student of American History by Archtech · · Score: 1

      We have always been at war with Eastasia.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    35. Re:Student of American History by lgw · · Score: 1

      It's often the case that people, when given a chance at democracy, elect a dictator-for-life because that's what they know. But not always - and everyone deserves that chance.

      The early days of American democracy were full of conflict and morally questionable positions. Perfection is not required here. Democracy in the Islamic world simply won't look like Western democracy, but that doesn't mean it won't work.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  14. Wow, how amazing! by lacaprup · · Score: 0

    ...and after Israel bombs them, they'll move the clock to midnight. They're so brilliant. Color me unimpressed.

  15. You frightend me to the death... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's 11:06 Here in Tehran and as I was reading the title there was a explosion near my apartment. I thought US/Israel have started the war and they are blowing Mehrabad Airport (as in Battlefield 3)

    It was just an end-of-the-year fireworks explosive...

    1. Re:You frightend me to the death... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I think your clocks are off a bit.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:You frightend me to the death... by fnj · · Score: 1

      A lot of things are a bit "off" in Tehran.

    3. Re:You frightend me to the death... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Iran uses its own calendar.

    4. Re:You frightend me to the death... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Huh, you learn something every day. I figured it was some kind of traditional new year celebration but wouldn't have guessed they actually use a different calendar system. That must make it a PITA to work with the outside world.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  16. Re:War with Iran == war with Russia (and maybe Chi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Russia who? The same Russia that doesn't have enough oil to fuel all of its 1940's tanks and planes? Get real and get some facts first.

  17. My father was a watch maker. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    He abandoned it when Einstein discovered that time is relative. I would only agree that a symbolic clock is as nourishing to the intellect as photograph of oxygen to a drowning man.

    1. Re:My father was a watch maker. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      He abandoned it when Einstein discovered that time is relative.

      Ha ha?

      Watches are more important than ever in a Relativistic universe, since to accurately track time in your reference frame you need a clock in your reference frame. Okay technically it could be calculated using a reference clock and intimate knowledge of your frame's relationship to the frame the reference clock is in but owning a watch is easier!

      Those femtoseconds add up, eventually!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  18. Come on now by Jiro · · Score: 1

    Claiming that we're 10 minutes to war, even a figurative 10 minutes, is like claiming that we're 20 years from nuclear fusion.

    It's not something you can sensibly calculate, and any attempt is going to be based more on personal prejudices. They will also have an incentive to constantly keep the clock near doomsday for the same reason that the Homeland Security threat level never goes down to green.

  19. Clock? by gura · · Score: 1

    I'm on my 33rd Iran War Calendar.

  20. How about no? by ZorinLynx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How about we just stop playing world police? I don't want to send our youngsters out there to die in another shithole just because of overly paranoid people in government.

    Leave Iran alone. If they actually *ATTACK* our allies, *THEN* I can understand going to war. But let's not fucking START one.

    1. Re:How about no? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Iran has attacked Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan by supplying weapons to the insurgents, and via its Lebanese puppets it indiscriminately sends rockets into Israel.

    2. Re:How about no? by elrous0 · · Score: 2

      And the CIA has been supplying weapons and support to the Green movement trying to overthrow the government in Iran and Israel has been assassinating their scientists. See, it cuts both ways.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:How about no? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "How about we just stop playing world police?"

      You mean stop looking after US interests such as cheap access to resources outside of the US?
      I'm all in favor but i don't see it happen any time soon.

    4. Re:How about no? by fnj · · Score: 1

      Dude. The Americans are out of Iraq from a fighting perspective, and getting damn close to skedaddling from Afghanistan. In the process the nation has gone flat broke and confidence in the government is at an all time low. Would you suggest we lash out at Iran in spite?

      There are real issues at play here, and arguments for various options, but none of what you said touches on any of them.

    5. Re:How about no? by linatux · · Score: 1

      Israel can't afford to risk a nuke attack. Even if Iran build a viable bomb they may not use it, but Israel can't take that risk. Disrupting centrifuges & even killing a few scientists is a lot more palatable than a major military assault, but I have no doubt Israel will do everything they can to stop Iran building a nuclear bomb - with or without US support.

      Would you wait for a nuke to be launched at your hometown before taking action?

    6. Re:How about no? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Would you wait for a nuke to be launched at your hometown before taking action?

      Are you intentionally paraphrasing George Bush's "We don't want our wake-up call to be a mushroom cloud" speech in 2003 are are you truly unaware of how funny what you just said was?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    7. Re:How about no? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Israel can't afford to risk a nuke attack.

      Only because they'd have to retaliate, thus finally admitting that they have nuclear weapons themselves.

      Would you wait for a nuke to be launched at your hometown before taking action?

      Well see now, and this is funny, that's basically the exact same thing that Iran are asking themselves right now...

    8. Re:How about no? by I+Read+Good · · Score: 1

      I think he was referring to the Israeli perspective.

    9. Re:How about no? by qxcv · · Score: 1

      How about we just stop playing world police? I don't want to send our youngsters out there to die in another shithole just because of overly paranoid people in government.

      The millions of people screaming "KONY2012!!!!" at the top of their lungs disagree with you.
       
      America is going to be the world police as long as Americans keep demanding it be. If you don't like it, become a history teacher.

      --
      "The most dangerous enemy of a better solution is an existing codebase that is just good enough." -- Eric S. Raymond
    10. Re:How about no? by Avarist · · Score: 1

      Iran has attacked Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan by supplying weapons to the insurgents, and via its Lebanese puppets it indiscriminately sends rockets into Israel.

      And guess who attacked Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place?

      --
      In Capitalist US, the commerce controls the Government.
    11. Re:How about no? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      And guess who attacked Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place?

      You have it backwards. The proper question is, what country did Iraq and Afghanistan attack in the first place?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    12. Re:How about no? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Israel can't afford to risk a nuke attack.

      Only because they'd have to retaliate, thus finally admitting that they have nuclear weapons themselves.

      Dude, have you looked at a map of Israel and noticed how freaking small it is?

      Honestly, even a relatively-small nuke blast's total-destruction radius would cover a large percentage of the whole country, and likely also take out the West Bank & Gaza as well. This would be like nuking freaking New Jersey for chrissakes, only Israel isn't quite as big!

      For most countries, the threat of a small number of nukes, although very, very grave, would not be sufficient to actually destroy the entire country, even if dropped all at once.

      What would you do if you knew that the religious-fanatic sworn and proven-by-actions-&-history mortal enemy of your country, religion, society, and culture, whose stated purpose is to wipe out your country and kill every last one of you including women and infants, was only months away from a bomb big enough to destroy your entire country and kill probably 90%-plus of your fellows in one blast?

      As horrible as it would be, if Paris, Berlin, London, or Washington DC were nuked, most of the country's population would survive and likely the core government as well. If a country slightly smaller than N.J. is nuked just about anywhere, that country is (almost literally) entirely toast.

      Since you bring up the probability that Israel has nukes, it's probably the only thing that's prevented a coordinated attack by the surrounding Muslim countries to wipe Israel out. For being painted as so evil, Israel certainly hasn't been out there waving their nukes around and threatening to commit nuclear genocide to wipe out an entire culture and religion as Iran's leadership has. Now there's a religious fanatic in Ahmadinejad who is not only willing, but feels it's his and Iran's destiny and duty to Allah to kill all the Jews and wipe out Israel to bring forth the Twelfth Imam, even if that means their own deaths and the destruction of Iran.

      There's just no reasoning with such fanatic hatred, and ignoring plainly-stated plans and goals of such fanatics always ends badly. I'm frankly astonished at Israel's restraint.

    13. Re:How about no? by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

      Iran can't risk nuking Israel. If they did, the retaliation would wipe Iran off the map as well.

      It's much like the cold war. Mutually assured destruction keeps everyone in line. A preemptive strike would just INCREASE the chance of a nuclear attack.

  21. Schwarzkopf didn't say that. by xx_chris · · Score: 3, Informative

    It was a Bush underling, Jed Babbin. Schwarzkopf was honored as a Honorary First-Class Private in the French Foreign Legion in 1991. France sent 18,000 troops to that war.

    1. Re:Schwarzkopf didn't say that. by Haffner · · Score: 1

      I knew that already just was too lazy to change it. It's funny, not relevant.

      --
      "Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without your accordion." ~General Norman Schwarzkopf
  22. Too late by pianoman113 · · Score: 0

    Iran has been at war with us since the revolution. Its time Americans started recognizing that fact and speak/act accordingly.

    --

    Free as in speech, free as in beer, or free as in lunch?
    1. Re:Too late by busyqth · · Score: 1

      Iran has been at war with us since the revolution. Its time Americans started recognizing that fact and speak/act accordingly.

      No kidding... I went out for some persian the other night and the next day I was as sick as a dog. I'm never going back to that joint.

      Let's nuke 'em.

    2. Re:Too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      the US has been at war with the iranian people since the cia overthrough the democratically elected government in '53 and installed the shah who was a brutal, totalitarian who squandered the oil wealth of his country. when the shah was finally thrown out the cia got their friend saddam to start an 8 year war that left over a million iranians dead and saw the use of nbc used on iranian military personnel and civilians.

      clearly the iranians are to blame.

      read All the Shahs Men for a first-hand account of the '53 coup

    3. Re:Too late by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Iran has been at war with us since the revolution.

      More like America has been at war with Iran since 1953, when the CIA overthrew their popular democratically elected leader for oil profits. Learn some history. The 1979 revolution was payback after years of being under an American puppet leader.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    4. Re:Too late by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      Iran has been at war with us since the revolution. Its time Americans started recognizing that fact and speak/act accordingly.

      I hope you're posting that from your barracks, tough guy. Since you're so eager for us to "act accordingly" and all.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    5. Re:Too late by Aardpig · · Score: 1

      Hush now - don't go confusing him with facts. All he needs to know is that Iranians = A-rabs = Bad.

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    6. Re:Too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've got a bizarre conception of what "payback" is. The kids who were getting killed in the streets in '09 by the current regime didn't give a rat's rear about the US. In case you didn't notice, there is nothing democratic about the regime in Iran. But none of that matters, because Iran isn't Egypt.

    7. Re:Too late by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      there is nothing democratic about the regime in Iran.

      Quite the opposite. Iran is a classic example of tyranny of the majority. Kids "getting killed on the streets" are not one - they're just better at having their voice heard in the West, who can understand them better than the conservative rural folk.

      Make no mistake, if Iran is attacked, you won't see their soldiers surrendering en masse. If anything, it will just give them more excuse to brutally suppress the few who'd still keep dissenting by that point once and for all, and the rest would rally around the present government for the lack of any other organizing force capable of resisting foreign aggression.

    8. Re:Too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Main stream Americans are the most thick minded people on this globe. They don't even learn lessons of "20" minutes ago in Iraq and hours ago in Vietnam.

      Compare them to the people of Russia or China or India and the wisdom they carry.

  23. Moonbats by schwit1 · · Score: 1

    Looking for attention

  24. Chances for a conflict? by Compaqt · · Score: 1

    That makes it seem like it's entirely random, like the chances for an asteroid collision.

    In fact, though, the decision to go war or not will be made by a handful of people or just one: Obama.

    And since this is going to be a preventive war (preventing Iran from enriching nuclear fuel for its power and medical reactors), it's an at-will decision.

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    1. Re:Chances for a conflict? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you knew anything about Hari Seldon's research in psychohistory, you'd know that large groups of people become statistically predictable even if individuals tend to be chaotic and unpredictable. Something about social momentum once certain memes, economic biases, and other related factors are inoculated into large enough of a population. Given the variables available in the most recent analysis, the forecast for a crisis event in the current timeline is above 90% probability.

      Just keep in mind that some crises are unavoidable, such that it's probably better to work towards ameliorating the effect rather than wasting resources attempting to stop it in the first place. How effective that is also depends on how far into the timeline you are once the trend is identified. If you nudge things early enough in the timeline, a crisis might end up only as a diplomatic or economic gaffe rather than a full-out war. It's even possible to make it work out in your favor without wasting a lot of resources. (Yes, even the resources of the opposition are more useful if redirected rather than destroyed.) So unavoidable crises aren't always terribly bad if you're on top of the game.

  25. Missing the point of the clock metaphor? by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

    I always thought that the whole point of the Doomsday Clock was to demonstrate the brinkmanship of the Cold War, ie that we were always near the point of outright conflict, and that certain events could bring us closer to or further away from that point. Our relationship with Iran is vastly different than ours was with the Soviets, and we are much further away from an outright war than we were with the Soviets. To me, 10 minutes to midnight means that Israel has already loaded the bombs on the wings and Iran has blocked off the Strait of Hormuz and we can expect a war soon unless people back down, not a 50% chance of war with both sides posturing but still talking. Their choice of 20 minutes=0% means they are simply exaggerating the implications of their results and trying to make the situation seem worse than it really is. It's a very disingenuous move designed to grab headlines and generate publicity, nothing more. "10 minutes to midnight" sounds a lot scarier and more headline-worthy than "5:45pm". But 5:45pm is much more accurate to where we are, using a clock model (assuming noon is 0% and midnight is "holy shit World War 3 just started").

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re:Missing the point of the clock metaphor? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but 5:45 PM sounds like we've still got time to stop by the 7-11 for a six pack and the video rental place for a couple of porn DVDs.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  26. Do *not* follow Israel to Masada by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Every Israeli is require to serve in the military (or equivalent public service). And when those soldiers finish basic, they do it on top of Masada. Pretty powerful message. Better to take on the Roman Empire and be completely wiped out than to compromise, even in the slightest.

    If Israel wants to jump off the cliff and start a war, that's their business. If they would rather all die than to compromise with the Palestinians or Iranians in any way, that's their call. Build all the provocative settlements on Palestinian land you like, put up more walls to ghettoize them even more, kill all the Iranian nuclear scientists you like. Keep being pricks all you want.

    But this American doesn't want to follow them off the cliff that they seem DETERMINED to jump off of. I don't want to see my President start World War III out of some foolish bullshit belief that Israel is looking out for ANYONE else but Israel, that we're BFF's. Find another way to get the Jewish vote, Mr. President.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Do *not* follow Israel to Masada by Dan667 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      israel is the drunk girl at the bar that starts fights, but expects you to fight them.

    2. Re:Do *not* follow Israel to Masada by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2

      israel is the drunk girl at the bar that starts fights, but expects you to fight them.

      That's not really fair; the Israeli military has probably been in more combat over the 64 years since the foundation of the country than has any other army on the planet. It's more like your crazy friend who goes out to the bar with you and gets both of you into fights. Which may be a sign that it's time too say, "Dude, it's been great, but I just can't hang out with you any more."

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    3. Re:Do *not* follow Israel to Masada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Odd, I'm an Israeli vet and I've never been to Masada as a soldier. Have been to the wailing wall at my end of bootcamp ceremony though.
      What makes you think we Israelis are so suicidal? we wouldn't have made such progress in mere decades if we didn't value life.
      Yes, there is a certain sense of paranoia in us Jews. But you're not paranoid if they are really after you ;-)
      We have to come up with a credible threat against Iran otherwise no sanctions at all would be placed against Iran's insane regime. Obama was falling all over himself trying to approach them when the forged elections and subsequent slaughter of demonstrators forced him to give up that pipe dream. Do you seriously want them to obtain nuclear weapons? Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt (if they don't all starve by then) have made it clear they will join the nuclear club if that happens. How is that in America's interest?
      I think an actual strike on Iran will end badly. Ending that psycho regime via sanctions will be good for everyone.

    4. Re:Do *not* follow Israel to Masada by PPH · · Score: 1

      "Dude, it's been great, but I just can't hang out with you any more."

      Israel is like your alcoholic brother-in-law. You are going to back him up. Or you aren't welcome back home again (i.e. AIPAC will cut you to pieces come the next election).

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:Do *not* follow Israel to Masada by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah, there is that.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    6. Re:Do *not* follow Israel to Masada by EvilBudMan · · Score: 2

      --Better to take on the Roman Empire and be completely wiped out than to compromise, even in the slightest.--

      Uh, I don't think this statement is totally true and besides it was around 2000 years ago. I also find the remark slightly racist and I'm not even Jewish I don't think. Israel in 1948 accepted the UN resolution on the matter and the Arabs refused. The UK was in charge of Palestine then. So it's all their fault.

    7. Re:Do *not* follow Israel to Masada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think probably a lot higher than 48% - the key date is the presidential elections, not year-end. After the elections, assuming Obama wins, he has the leisure to make a decision as to whether or not to strike Iran based on American interests, and whether it would actually accomplish anything. Doesn't mean no strike, but much more likely. But before the election, what happens if Israel goes in?

      If the US stays out, it's a huge campaign win for the Republicans - all you'll hear 24/7 will be "stand by our friends" "cut and run" "man up" "betraying the cause of freedom" blah blah blah. They'll probably even roll out the "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" thing again and imply that he's a crypto-islamist who wants to help Iran get the bomb.

      If the U.S. does go in, it puts America into a permanent state of war with Iran, regardless of whether or not they get all the nuke plants. Sucks for the U.S. but basically a win for Israel - polarize the entire middle east, with Israel and the U.S. on one side, and everyone else on the other. Nice and simple, and they never have to worry about the U.S. getting friendly with newly democratic governments in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, or wherever the Arab Spring breaks out next (Palestine?).

      So basically they destroy any chance of an American rapprochement with anyone in the M.E., and undermine Democrat chances in the election - from Netanyahu's point of view, what's not to like?

      The only way it doesn't happen is if the Republican party implodes and Obama has a cakewalk to re-election. Then Israel has to work with him in the longer term, and trying and failing to manipulate him or cut him off at the knees won't earn any brownie points.

      So yeah, war before the fall - you heard it here first...

    8. Re:Do *not* follow Israel to Masada by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      First of all, Jewish isn't a race, moron (and don't say anti-Semitic either, because the Palestinians are Semites too). Secondly, the Palestinians and Jews are both descendents of the same people who claimed that land thousands of years ago (before the Zealots came to prominence and decided to take on the aforementioned Roman Empire). And the Israelis have been oppressing the Palestinians VERY hard since the 67 war. They've been stealing their land, walling them off, and building settlements that they KNOW are on Palestinian land. And that's fine, but they shouldn't come crying for the U.S. to back them up when they're picking a fight and they damn well know it.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    9. Re:Do *not* follow Israel to Masada by SacredNaCl · · Score: 1

      Do we really want an Iran that funds terrorism around the globe to have the trump card of nuclear weapons? Right now Iran is mostly an annoyance, but an Iran with a capable nuclear weapons stockpile, and delivery platform is a serious, destabilizing problem that is more akin to lymphoma than to a bar brawl.

      Israel can be a PITA, and I'm no fan of many of their actions over the past 40 years. However, once in awhile they are right. They were right about Iraq, and they are right about Iran. The problem is, they truly lack the capability to tackle the problem on their own. The United States is a little better off in that regard, but not a lot. We gave up the strategic position of being able to use Iraq as a spring board, and we don't have much capability in Afghanistan (the topography is very poor for any ground based invasion). The only weapons in our inventory capable of delivering the blows needed would be B2's, nuclear weapons, or a sustained ground invasion. Fighter-bombers just doesn't have the payloads necessary to truly destroy hardened facilities (meaning Israel really can't do a lot here on their own without a cooperative neighbor that shares a border). [I've seen some very interesting photos of facilities the United States targeted in Iraq -- one of them was hit with more than 60 cruise missiles, and bombed with more 20 1000lb bombs. The damage on the inside was rather unimpressive. If Iran has hardened its nuclear facilities -- cruise missiles, and non-nuclear weapons launched from fighter-bombers are not going to be enough to do the job.]

      Your argument is basically: We should give up the idea of nuclear containment because the world is a lot safer, and less likely to blow itself up if everyone has a bomb -- including the truly crazies of the world.

      My argument: Iran has funded all kinds of terrorism in the world, and has a track record of being a persistent thorn in the side of the United States, and much of the civilized world. An Iran with a nuclear trump card is far more likely to act even more poorly, and to spread nuclear weapons all over the region, and beyond. They might also spread chemical, biological, and other types of weapons all over the world since they would be beyond the reach of the United States to deal with barring an extremely costly exchange of weapons I would prefer don't come out of storage.

      We can deal with a little bit of pain now with some air strikes, or even a full scale invasion (though I would hope it doesn't come to this) --- or we can deal with a world where every single conflict has the potential to go nuclear, and the next set of terrorists may be wielding nuclear materials.

      I'm sorry the Iranians have poor leaders. I'm sorry the United States has an incompetent president. I'm sorry the Palestinians got a raw deal, and I'm sorry that Israel has some poor leadership as well. I have anguish for the Iranians that will have to die to fix the problems their leaders are creating. However, I'll take a world without a nuclear, chemical, and biological threat on every street corner over one that has it. Its a lot cheaper to deal with the problem now than to try to deal with it later; not just for us, but for every citizen of the globe.

      Sometimes playing "world police" IS in our national interests, and in the interests of the world at large.

      --
      Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
    10. Re:Do *not* follow Israel to Masada by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      Uhm. Israel was right about Iraq? About what?

    11. Re:Do *not* follow Israel to Masada by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Every Israeli is require to serve in the military (or equivalent public service). And when those soldiers finish basic, they do it on top of Masada [wikipedia.org]. Pretty powerful message. Better to take on the Roman Empire and be completely wiped out than to compromise, even in the slightest.

      Straight from your link:

      'The ceremony ends with the declaration: "Masada shall not fall again."'

      Sounds like the message is not to "take on the Roman Empire and be completely wiped out".

    12. Re:Do *not* follow Israel to Masada by chrb · · Score: 1

      Iran has funded all kinds of terrorism in the world

      And how many democracies has the U.S. government overthrown? How many dictators supported? How many civilian airliners shot down? How many scientists murdered?

      People in glass houses....

    13. Re:Do *not* follow Israel to Masada by krysith · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think the situation can be well described with two words:

      Scrappy Doo

    14. Re:Do *not* follow Israel to Masada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Israel in 1948 accepted the UN resolution on the matter and the Arabs refused.

      Well, yeah: The Arabs were going from 100% to 50%. And the Jews from 0% to 50%, so, of course they would have accepted.

    15. Re:Do *not* follow Israel to Masada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iran has funded all kinds of terrorism in the world

      What would that be? Is Iran killing scientists at Lawrence Livermore Labs via motorcycle bomb?

      Or has Iran downed a US civilian airliner? (Hint: the US has, and then called it an honest mistake.)

      Or were you referring to the Lebanon war? Or is it terrorism when Lebanese send bombs to Israel and self-defense when Israel bombs Lebanon? A neutral standard would condemn border violations from both sides.

    16. Re:Do *not* follow Israel to Masada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are so full of shit it is not even funny. Let me just correct your idiotic "facts". Not every basic training ends in Masada.

      Now go worship your pistol.

    17. Re:Do *not* follow Israel to Masada by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Christianity REQUIRES America suicide for Tel Aviv if necessary.

      Christian superstitious Jew-worship is the problem. Too bad we can't take all who believe in Middle Eastern superstitions and let them fight it out IN the Middle East, then kill the survivors.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    18. Re:Do *not* follow Israel to Masada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There must be some history regarding taking soliders to the top of masada and having them swear "never again".

      What makes you think we Israelis are so suicidal?

      Because Israel is an active cause in its own problems. It /could/ take the high ground, but instead plays the bully. The mimophant, that dishes it out, but cannot take it.

      And then there is the history. Three wars against the Romans? What were the Israelites thinking? That the Romans /wouldn't/ crack down?

      Funny thing about attacking people and taking their land: they don't like it.

    19. Re:Do *not* follow Israel to Masada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all, Jewish isn't a race, moron

      Who's the moron exactly? Probably the person who apparently can't read the dictionary:

      3) race noun
      2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock

      Jew noun
      1 a : a member of the tribe of Judah
      b : ISRAELITE

      Israelite noun
      : a descendant of the Hebrew patriarch Jacob; specifically : a native or inhabitant of the ancient northern kingdom of Israel

      And it's quite clear that you're not anti-Semitic. Just anti-Jew, and likely also anti-Israel, although asking which of those hatreds came first is somewhat like asking the chicken and egg question.

    20. Re:Do *not* follow Israel to Masada by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      So all Palestinian land has been stolen. By who? The British? They didn't exactly control that place in the first place. Before the British it was the Ottoman Empire. I believe the Roman Empire worked off of stolen land and slavery. There has never been a Palestinian state in the first place. I don't think you know shit because you are damn well not up on your history. Before the Roman Empire controlled that area the Jews did so you can say the Romans controlled their land. Maybe Israel ought to handle the Palestinians just like the Romans handled the Jews and the problem would be solved. There also is no Arab state that is a democracy. There are Arab citizens that get to vote because they are citizens.

      Personally I don't give a damn about any Arab preaching how bad the Jews are treating them when they themselves would do much worse to the Jews if given the chance. Iran would Nuke the US and Israel if they could. AND another thing you don't have one reliable link that justifies your position.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War

      It seems like the Arabs were offered lots of land. Many Jews bought their land before the war in 1948. You are just another stupid echo boomer that don't know shit because your parents and/or school didn't teach you and obviously don't have the ability to learn on your own. There is nothing there to do with DNA. It's religion.

      The Jews didn't kill Jesus either. Pilate did. He was Roman and in control. Actually many peoples DNA can be traced back to Mesopotamia WTF does that matter.

    21. Re:Do *not* follow Israel to Masada by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      The Jews were there too way before the 1948 war and guess what they were called Palestinians. So recheck your percentages. Jews also owned land in that area. I just don't understand why so many a racist on this especially when the Arabs refused democracy and decided to fight that. The ones that stayed get to vote there now.

      Where else would you put the Jews? The Arabs and Jews weren't in control of Palestine as the UK got that after WWI. Plenty of Jews lived there under the Ottoman Empire.

  27. Follow the Moolah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Atlantic is owned by David G. Bradley, who (according to wikipedia) "considers himself a centrist,[1] although he has also described himself as "a neocon guy" who was "dead certain about the rightness" of invading Iraq."

    Hmmm......

  28. Doomsday? by fred911 · · Score: 1

    Does this mean the use of a nuclear weapon is more probable?

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  29. 'Distinguished'?? by RenderSeven · · Score: 1

    Not the Secretary of State, not Assistant Secretary of State, not Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, not even Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, but 'Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iran'. If that isnt a made-up title it ought to be. As distinguished as the title of Junior Interim Alternate Representative for Regional Greensward Eliminations that I gave my dog.

  30. That is one hell of a complicated way of saying by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Eh... it could go either way (waggling hand).

    The world isn't about right and wrong and anyway, what you consider right and wrong is considered rather silly by 6 billion people. It is about trying to ensure that tomorrow won't be a hell of a lot worse then today. And a Muslim run world would be a hell of a lot worse? Want to proof me wrong? Reverse the migration streams. As bad as some claim the west is, a lot of people would risk a dangerous crossing in tiny boats for a living as toilet cleaners rather then be anywhere else.

    What does migration have got to do with it? Libya used to help Europe in stemming the tide of immigrants from further south. Further uproar in that area will not help stem further migration, it was one of the reasons actions against Libya were opposed in the west by a lot of people (because they were for peace you thought? How silly).

    Iran is a lynch pin in a very complex scenario where all the actors and their lines are unknown and performed in the dark for a blind audience. You could say it is playing a game but what game? With what rules and with which cards? The west has learned the hard way that enforcing its values on another culture doesn't work, Iraq and Afghanistan are disaster areas. Libya is too early to tell so going into Iran is unlikely be a quick easy win. But as long as Iran remains, Syria remains. Sudan remains, Northern Nigeria remains... gutting Iran would send a strong message but is also unacceptable... so what to do?

    Nothing? Then you keep having to react to whatever it pulls next... Iran not hostile? Yeah, the mass murdering in Sudan and Nigeria are just for laughs. Iran knows Muslims soldiers have the military value of they regimental donkey so they fight their wars by proxy.

    What do YOU propose is done in Syria? Nothing? Deny anything is wrong? Somehow blame it all on Israel? Well nothing you can do it about it without upsetting Iran. So thousands of Muslims die at the hand of Muslims and you do nothing? Speak up when you say that... no, that is not acceptable either.

    Politicians are often said to think as this, "people say something must done, this is something, so it must be done". That is true enough... but people keep shouting "something must be done". YOU come up with something better.

    Ideally, war should be the last answer, it often is. The pity is that it often also is the only answer. Will Iran be attacked by the end of the year? No idea. To many interest, not always as you expect, many conflicting and a lot of actors who are pulling unseen strings. It is not just about testing the west by proxy, those pulling those strings would also not want to be seen to fail again, so they might force their puppet to relax. (If Iran backed by China fails and the Chinese economy suffers are the oil now moves west again without China buying it cheap thanks to the Iran embargo limitting competition for it would the Chinese people realize they can rebel as well) Overly complex but that is how it is all connected.

    War happens when those pulling the wires loose control of them. It has been happenig quite a lot really and by definition of loosing control, you can't predict it.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:That is one hell of a complicated way of saying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting as AC so I don't get somebody I know in trouble.

      A "person" I know is in the Army. Has spent the last year and half learning Arabic. This person got their orders the other day to go to a new base and to expect to be deployed when boots hit the ground. He can't go to Afghanistan, Irag is almost done with. So that only really leaves one possibility left.

    2. Re:That is one hell of a complicated way of saying by busyqth · · Score: 5, Informative

      They don't speak arabic in Iran.

    3. Re:That is one hell of a complicated way of saying by geckipede · · Score: 1

      And a Muslim run world would be a hell of a lot worse? Want to proof me wrong? Reverse the migration streams.

      I don't disagree with the point you're trying to make there, but just take a look at how many people there are trying to get into Saudi Arabia and the UAE to find work. Migrants go where there is money.

    4. Re:That is one hell of a complicated way of saying by nospunzone · · Score: 1

      WHAT! You dirty piece of lying republican filth. I bet next you'll try telling me is that they don't speak Arabic in Afghanistan either!

      --
      "[Andrew Breitbart] is a liar, and he's going to jail, fool." - spun #363314
    5. Re:That is one hell of a complicated way of saying by teaserX · · Score: 3, Insightful

      By and large they speak Farsi in Iran. Saying they don't speak Arabic is like saying we don't speak Spanish in America.

      --
      We really need your help
      http://www.gofundme.com/help-sherry
    6. Re:That is one hell of a complicated way of saying by LifesABeach · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Arabic is one of the finest languages for telling someone what they can do to themself. It's sad that it's wasted on the Arabs.

    7. Re:That is one hell of a complicated way of saying by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      I just had this flash back of watching South Park and how Martha Stewart ate a Turkey.

    8. Re:That is one hell of a complicated way of saying by Gordo_1 · · Score: 1

      Say this is true. What does it prove? Would it surprise you that the army is thinking a few steps ahead when they know that a theocratic dictatorship in the region is quite possibly capable and interested in building nuclear weapons that could trigger a new nuclear arms race?

    9. Re:That is one hell of a complicated way of saying by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      Except by speaking Arabic instead of Farsi they will think he is a foreigner. Wait, that is the idea. Carry on.

    10. Re:That is one hell of a complicated way of saying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do, sort of.
      10% arabic, 40% farsi, 35% Turkish, 10%kurdish, 15% others..

      Govt is controlled by Farsi.

    11. Re:That is one hell of a complicated way of saying by couchslug · · Score: 2

      They are, however, infected with the Arab-centric superstition called "Islam" which informs their every action and political worldview.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    12. Re:That is one hell of a complicated way of saying by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Yes, but look at where those people are coming from.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    13. Re:That is one hell of a complicated way of saying by siddesu · · Score: 1

      Two friends I got left good jobs in Boston and LA for Riyadh. So, they're coming from a lot of different places.

    14. Re:That is one hell of a complicated way of saying by donscarletti · · Score: 2

      Shia Islam is sort of like 'we'll call Ahura Mazda "Allah" and the Arabs will leave us alone', it is very Persian and un-Arabic in its doctrine and mindset. That part of the world is still very much business as usual, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Khamenei are no crazier than Xerxes, and it is the exact same form of crazy. These are the same guys that Crassus and Leonidas fell to and that's the problem, while many Arabs tend to be a little bit on the thick side, I have never met a stupid Iranian and I've met quite a few. Also, while smart Arabs tend to be not particularly religious or crazy, I've met an Iranian engineer who used the phrase "praise Allah" multiple times during his doctoral defense at a top western university and got his PhD anyway.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    15. Re:That is one hell of a complicated way of saying by theNAM666 · · Score: 1

      Si cabron. Nadie habla español en los Estados Unidos. Sobre todo la 30 millones de mexicanos que viven en territorio de EE.UU.. Culo!

    16. Re:That is one hell of a complicated way of saying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong! The percentage of spanish speaker in US is far more than arabic speaker in Iran. Only a minorities at Persian Gulf speak Arabic. But there are about 50-60% Arabic words in Persian.

    17. Re:That is one hell of a complicated way of saying by rtb61 · · Score: 0
      Doesn't a racist apartheid government already have nuclear weapons in the region, a nation that denies all access by nuclear regulatory authorities and has between 100 and 300 warheads, far more than is required for threats within that region and would seem to be targeted far beyond the middle east. This being the nation that triggered the nuclear arms race and that has spent decades lying, prevaricating, disrupting all attempts at peaceful diplomacy.

      A country that is the epitome on having an ally that is for more an abusive enemy than an ally.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    18. Re:That is one hell of a complicated way of saying by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Also, it's a country that has had thousands of rockets shot at it's cities, but didn't unleash it's nuclear weapons in retaliation. And it's also a country with many non-Jewish voting citizens as part of it's democratic process.

    19. Re:That is one hell of a complicated way of saying by madhi19 · · Score: 1

      As oppose to our Christian Evangelic crazies who think the end of the world is close and something they should work to achieve. Or our Mormons weirdos who have recently baptised Anne Frank. Not to mention the Pro "lifers" who think it ok to shot doctors!

    20. Re:That is one hell of a complicated way of saying by Protosotme · · Score: 2

      No one in the world could spare on frickin bomb when those bombers flew over Aushwitz in WWII. Just one bomb to destroy the furnaces. So pardon us if we don't trust anyone but ourselves.
      Israel is a small country, a tank column can cross it in a day, so we can't allow Aushwitz happen again (and that's exactly what will happen when the same armies who conduct massacres in Syria, Eygpt and Lybia come to us), no matter what ignorant hypocrites like you say. Check what your dictionary / encyclopedia say about apartheid. Did you know that in Israel there is an arab in the supreme court? in the parliament? Save us your ignorance..

    21. Re:That is one hell of a complicated way of saying by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I know the whole world can burn. Which is why such a tiny nothing country causes so many problems. As for institutionalised racism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy. Idiots like you are poison for multi-culturalism.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    22. Re:That is one hell of a complicated way of saying by SteamDot · · Score: 1

      >>As oppose to our Christian Evangelic crazies who think the end of the world is close and something they should work to achieve >Or our Mormons weirdos who have recently baptized Anne Frank >-Not to mention the Pro "lifers" who think it ok to shot doctors!
        (In the U.S., violence directed towards abortion providers has killed at least eight people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort. The American Life League issued a "Pro-life Proclamation Against Violence" in 2006. Other pro-life groups to state their opposition to violence include the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform and Pro-Lifers Against Clinic Violence. The pro-life organization National Coalition for Life and Peace has also rejected violence as a form of opposition to abortion.)

        From what I gather you consider the above totally comparable to what donscarletti posted among which is:

        --....and it is the exact same form of crazy. These are the same guys that Crassus and Leonidas fell to and that's the problem...
        --I've met an Iranian engineer who used the phrase "praise Allah" multiple times during his doctoral defense at a top western university and got his PhD anyway.....
        --------------------
        Marcus Licinius Crassus was a was a Roman general who went into Syria, where he was defeated and killed in the Roman defeat at Carrhae against a Parthian Spahbod The Parthians would get within shooting range, rain a barrage of arrows down upon Crassus's troops, turn, fall back, and charge forth with another attack in the same vein.
        And Leonidas referring to the the Greek hero-king of Sparta, who fought the Persians, who amassed an army of 50,000 to 200,000 at Battle of Thermopylae with four to seven thousand Greeks.

  31. Clock? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clock? Wouldn't a war meter be better?

  32. But what about our clocks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this in anyway take into account DST? Does this mean Monday we will be "50 minutes" into a war?

  33. Perfect timing by ch-chuck · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just in time for daylight savings time, after which the clock will be 10 minutes until 1AM, crisis averted.

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  34. One more such article and I'm off Slashdot by robi5 · · Score: 1

    "If there is a zero percent chance of war, the clock hand is at 20 minutes to midnight."

    Just posting something remotely like this is an insult to the readers.

  35. Geeky! by MrJones · · Score: 1

    Wow, really nerdy/geeky news! Kudos Soulskill, you're the new FoxNews!

    --
    Get my e-mail after a captcha test in: http://tinymailt
  36. you cannot have war profiteering by Dan667 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    with out new wars.

    1. Re:you cannot have war profiteering by artor3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sure you can. You just need the threat of a war, which will let you justify designing and building all sorts of new weapons, hiring new advisers, conducting field exercises, etc. You need a war every decade or two so that the threats seem valid, but we've already had plenty, so there's no need for another. All the profiteers need right now is saber-rattling, and they've got that in spades.

    2. Re:you cannot have war profiteering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Profiteering and prophet-tearing. Kind of silly that the branches of the Islamic and Jewish communities are working so hard to prove the Christian Revelations correct as perceived by many elements of their communities.

    3. Re:you cannot have war profiteering by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      you cannot have war profiteering with out new wars.

      "War profiteering" isn't what it used to be. The percentage of GDP devoted to defense spending has been on an overall long downward trend for quite some time.

      Clearly the "Military-Industrial Complex" doesn't have much real power.

      Defense Spending as Percentage of GDP Well Below Historical Average

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    4. Re:you cannot have war profiteering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. The US needs a credible conflict. Eg. Best Buddy Israel loses their nuclear monopoly over the middle-east.
      2. The US appoints itself boss of another country. Eg. Demanding that Iran be forbidden nuclear weapons just like Israel was.
      3. The afflicted country protects their own interests and sovereignty. Eg. Iran saying it needs nuclear energy and the US/UN is being sectarian/racist.
      4. The US continues demanding action to force its politics upon said conflict. Instead, Obama is working his arse off to keep an exhausted military out of conflict.
      5. The US and allies bomb/invade the dissenting country. Since the US industrial/military complex is a big part of US politics this is difficult to avoid.
      6. The US under-estimates the resources/anger of the victimised citizens and suffers a lengthy and bloody occupation.

      The questions become "Are the US and allies prepared to escalate a war against a well-armed country?" and "What will the neighbouring oil-rich countries do?"

  37. Re:War with Iran == war with Russia (and maybe Chi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    -100, stupid as all hell

  38. If only it were that simple by yog · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What about Iran's continuing threats to destroy Israel, not just the supposedly mistranslated rhetorical device "wipe from map" but also the very real and unmistakable threats to destroy the country? What about their continued stockpiling of advanced missiles in Lebanon, manned by Iranian technicians, with the sole purpose of bombing Israel from just over the border, in direct violation of the 2006 UN-mediated armistice? What about Iran's continued sponsorship of terroristic activities all over the world? The large number of American soldiers blown up by Iranian-supplied bombs and armor-piercing ordnance in Iraq?

    You can cluck about peace all you want, and both a mercantile/high tech Israel and a war-weary U.S. would love it to be a peaceful world, but unfortunately the real world simply is not so, and Iran least of all. Most of the Iranian people doubtlessly want peace just as we do, but they are ruled by crazy mullahs who have an apocalyptic vision of a golden cloud over Jerusalem. They are planning to nuke Israel, and idiots in the West ignore this at their own peril. Not only would Israel undoubtedly retaliate and destroy most of Iran's cities, but the conflagration would probably spread. Tens (if not hundreds) of millions of people are going to die if we don't stop them, by sanctions or by espionage or by outright war.

    My gut feeling is that while the Israelis are talking war, they are actually planning more devious steps to halt the Iran nuclear project. For one thing, they have hinted all along that they have resources deeply embedded in Iran who have been sabotaging the nuclear projects since the 1980s. This may be a kind of disinformation, but Israel has thousands of Iranian immigrants to draw on, who are fluent in Farsi and the culture.

    Probably, Mossad is hoping to detonate a dirty nuke of some sort deep inside the enrichment facility that would render the place unusable, kill minimal bystanders, and set the Iranians back by several years. It would be hard to trace the cause, and Iran would be faced with either admitting it was building nukes, or else try to cover it up while trying to rebuild, a daunting prospect given the tightening noose of sanctions. This would be the most appealing outcome to the situation.

    --
    it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
    1. Re:If only it were that simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love the justification

      Iran talks about attacking Israel. This in itself provides the imperative for Israel to attack Iran. But wait, this talk of the need for an attack on Iran, is't that a justification for Iran to attack Israel? And if anyone actually brought this up, would provide a justification for Israel to attack Iran.

      Pro Tip: Defense is just that: defense. Once you start thinking about pre-emptive attacks, it is you that are on offense.

  39. How ridiculous is this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Midnight is hour 24 of the day. On a scale of 0-24, ten minutes to midnight is, let's see ((24*60)-10)/(24*60)=0.993055556 or 99%

    BUT

    If there is a zero percent chance of war, the clock hand is at 20 minutes to midnight. Each extra 5 percent chance of war moves the hand one minute closer to midnight.

    ...meaning that the chance of war is actually 10/20=.5 or 50%

    Of all the needlessly dramatic and inaccurate metaphors..... sheesh!

  40. Follow the money by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    This is just designed to scare people (for whatever reason) into thinking war is more probable than it really is.

    Oil companies would love for us to go to war with Iran, but the threat itself will do. Gasoline prices going through the roof lines their pockets, and they don't give a rat's as that it will destroy the already fragile recovery of a recession that was caused mostly by gasoline prices. $1.05 here when oil man Bush took office in 2000, $4.65 when the economy collapsed eight years later. That money that goes in the gas tank is money that doesn't go to the clothing store or restaraunt.

    There are other people who would benefit from another collapse of the economy -- those who want to inhabit the White House or be elected to Congress. High gasoline prices are Obama's biggest threat right now, and America's as well.

  41. Ides of March by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    except the US has now been at war for almost 11 years and most people are tired of it and the 5000 or so dead soldiers. there is close to 0 public support for another war

    The Iraq war stared on March 20th and the Libyan War started on March 19th.

    This can go one of four ways:

    1) it happens now, in the hopes that it's over by the election
    2) it happens shortly after Obama is re-elected
    3) it never was going to happen - it's all a ruse to get the Republicans spitting crazy so that come election season, Obama can look like the reasonable voice on War (assuming Dr. Paul isn't the nominee)
    4) Israel goes nuts at a random date and the US has to decide whether to light off WWIII.

    I suggest erring on the side of not killing more brown children for political agendas.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Ides of March by lgw · · Score: 2

      Israel will likely move sooner rather than later - they have no desire to get nuked, and no illusions about Iran's attitude towards them. I'm not sure we'll be a part of it. There's no real need for boots on the ground in Iran: the government is quite dependent on shoveling oil money to the citizens to keep control, that if someone bombed the oil platforms the government would collapse. And if that happens, it won't be $5/gallon gas at the pumps that Obama has to worry about in November.

      Israel has plenty of military power for this. I'd like to think we'd go along as a show of support, but I wouldn't bet on it with the current administration (has Obama ever visited Israel as president?).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Ides of March by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Informative

      they have no desire to get nuked

      Fortunately for them Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program, just a civilian nuclear energy program. Even Israeli intelligence feels attacking Iran is a bad idea. Though, it'd be real good for the military industrial complex and the financiers.

      I'd like to think we'd go along as a show of support

      Really, we should kill people in far off lands who don't threaten us because some war-mongers are creating propaganda about fake weapons of mass destruction? Didn't we just learn this lesson?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:Ides of March by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A five year old story from the NY Times? Really?

      Iran doesn't have the energy needs to justify a civilian nuclear program.

      I trust Israeli intelligence in the middle east far more than I trust the NYT. Apparently President Obama feels the same way.

      I'll also ask this: If Iran's program is peaceful, then there's no reason for them to limit access to UN inspectors. Yet, they are limiting access to UN inspectors. Why would they do that? Occam's Razor --> Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

    4. Re:Ides of March by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I'll also ask this: If Iran's program is peaceful, then there's no reason for them to limit access to UN inspectors. Yet, they are limiting access to UN inspectors. Why would they do that? Occam's Razor --> Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

      Is that an exact quote from the lead up to the Iraq war or just a paraphrase?

      Not everybody acknowledges the sovereign supremacy of the UN, you know. Kinda like how the US won't let the UN people talk to Bradley Manning.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    5. Re:Ides of March by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You use a 5 year old article and quote a single Mossad agent, and think this is somehow a compelling argument?

      By the way, the two things you cite are quite conflicting. The Mossad agent you linked to is quite convinced that Iran is working on a bomb.

    6. Re:Ides of March by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortunately for them Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program, just a civilian nuclear energy program.

      Right, and they are only enriching uranium to and past 20% because it gives them a radioactive hardon. While everyone else is burning oil, a country swimming in it is spending billions and facing severe sanctions to build a civilian nuclear energy program because environmental consciousness and scientific curiosity are central goals of the radical islamists running the place.

      We can talk about whether Iran would be dumb enough to use a nuke (or give it to one of its friends in Hezbollah or Hamas), but if you take their "peaceful energy" statements at face value, I have a bridge to sell you.

      I know it's cool to bash the US and we are partly responsible for the mess there, but posts like the parent show perspective is in short supply.

    7. Re:Ides of March by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a bridge to sell you.

      I know it's cool to bash the US and we are partly responsible for the mess there, but posts like the parent show perspective is in short supply.

      Sorry dude, he can't afford your bridge because he's been buying large amounts of Iranian propaganda.

  42. War is Inevitable by koan · · Score: 1

    By creating the clock you have given more validity to the pro war meme currently being circulated in the republican debates and MSM, the fact that Israel just asked us for a "bunker buster" bomb is telling, and the fact they were forced to promise not to use it this year (due to elections?) is more telling.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/08/us-iran-nuclear-israel-usa-idUSBRE82717220120308

    Israel uses the US as a proxy army, utilizing the power of AIPAC to further it's own goals through lobbying and manipulation of American politics, one need only watch a republican debate and see how the candidates stumble over each other is their pledge to support Israel, this has really gone far enough don't you think?

    Israel has nukes and refuses to sign non-proliferation treaties, Iran has no nukes (yet) and no one in their right mind would think Iran would attack Israel if they did have a nuke, it would bring the World down on them and Israels retaliation would be swift.
    Iran with nukes presents a different sort of problem, not one of using the nukes but one of political implications and Israeli paranoia is dragging the US into another "war" we can't afford.

    Currently all 3 countries involved in this fiasco are gearing up for elections so what does that tell you about all the rhetoric?

    Enough is enough.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  43. Re:Fascist Theocracy by koan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wow your ignorance of the Iranian people and culture is mind boggling, that you actually believe what you wrote is terrifying.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  44. Re:War with Iran == war with Russia (and maybe Chi by afidel · · Score: 1

    Not enough oil?!? Russia is the largest producer accounting for 13% of total world production. And by 1940's tanks do you mean the late 80's T80U or the 1990's T90?

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  45. Re:Fascist Theocracy by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

    TEHRAN (FNA)- The wife of Martyr Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan Behdast, who was assassinated by Mossad agents in Tehran in January, reiterated on Tuesday that her husband sought the annihilation of the Zionist regime wholeheartedly.

    "Mostafa's ultimate goal was the annihilation of Israel," Fatemeh Bolouri Kashani told FNA on Tuesday.

    Bolouri Kashani also underlined that her spouse loved any resistance figure in his life who was willing to fight the Zionist regime and supported the rights of the oppressed Palestinian nation.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  46. They got it wrong... by Temujin_12 · · Score: 1

    It would have been funnier if it counted towards Dec. 21, 2012 rather than just midnight.

    --
    Faith is a willingness to accept something w/o complete proof and to act on it. Reason allows you to correct that faith.
  47. That's OK by PPH · · Score: 1

    Self destruct clocks are always stopped with 3 seconds to go.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  48. And i'm sure the panel will keep winding it up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given that the panel is full of Jews and CFR members, i'm surprised they didn't set the clock at 10 past.

  49. Israel is not our BFF by way2trivial · · Score: 1

    that's reserved for our favorite nation,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_favoured_nation#United_States

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  50. 50% chance of conflict ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think we've had that "possible but not probable" gut feeling for quite some time. These idiots didn't bring anything worth while to the table.

  51. Very Biased by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The idea that this is unbiased is bullshit. The very *idea* of a "countdown clock to Ultimate DOOM" carries an inherent psychological bias against the Doomy event happening. The point here is obviously to push an anti-war point of view. Further, setting up the whole scale of 0-100% as the final 20 minutes of a 24-hour clock cycle is also incredibly misleading. The current article title mentions "10 minutes to midnight", which sounds bad. My gut reaction was that some experts thought we were 95% likely to go to war. Turns out this just means 50% likely on their stupid scale. "20 minutes to midnight" sounds pretty bad too, but we're "20 minutes to midnight" on the war indicators for, say, invading Canada :P.

    What a crock this all is.

  52. Toaster invasion by digitalsolo · · Score: 1

    So, by this metric, the sentient toaster invasion clock is at 20 minutes to midnight.

    And who thought this was a reasonable metric?

    --
    Just another ignorant American.
  53. Nope by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    Didn't we just learn this lesson?

    LOL

    --
    Deleted
  54. The decision to go to war has already been made by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2

    They are only negotiating the dates and times. Before or after the election.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:The decision to go to war has already been made by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      The sad thing is that anybody would negotigate any point with Big Ears that will fall after the election. Mr. Mulatto is not going to be elected.

  55. Re:Fascist Theocracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Women who's husband has just been murdered by Jews hates Jews. Film at 11.

  56. There will be no war with Iran. by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

    There have been stern warnings about war with Iran since about 2005. Every time we hear about how "All options are on the table" and similar threats. Some sanctions that Russia and China ignore are enacted, etc.

    If there was going to be war on Iran it would have happened already. It hasn't. It won't.

  57. 15 Till by eternaldoctorwho · · Score: 1

    If the clock never goes earlier than 15 till midnight, why don't they just scale it out to 60 minutes? That way a change from 10 minutes to midnight to 5 minutes to might midnight would instead be a change of 20 minutes (11:20 -> 11:40). That would be a much more noticeable difference!

  58. So Actually its around Noon??? by jvkjvk · · Score: 1

    At approximately a 50% chance, it's around noon.

    That is a day clock for you.

    Or, it can be 1 millisecond to midnight!! OMHFGAAAAHHH! If you only use the last 1.1 msec of the day.

    bah.

  59. Ugh Clock People Again by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    Did they account for leap seconds? How about daylight savings time? Does the imminent war spring forward and fall back?

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  60. It's always been about Iran by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    I've been telling people since the war in Iraq started that it's been about Iran all along. Establishing bases in Afghanistan and Iraq was just a stepping stone. Delaying major victories in both countries was to help stretch US presence until this juncture was reached.

  61. If it were that simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, smoke much crack?
    Interesting how you conclude 'They are planning to nuke Israel, ...' When the US and EVEN THE ISLAELI intelligence services have publicly stated that Iran has not yet decided to build Nuclear weapons. Would you care to cite a source for you conclusion, other than your own delusions of course and the rantings of right wing US war-mongers ? Or are you still too busy compiling the definitve proof of Saddam's WMDs? That little mistake only cost the lives of 1.5 million innocent Iraqi's (but it might only be as few as half a million if you believe US propaganda, guess that's ok so, half a million people dont really count?). The dirty little truth about the whole Zionist project is that it is a US puppet state DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY to foment unrest in the Middle East. Peace in the Middle East would be disasterous for US and Zionist interest. The Israeli's themselves are well aware of this, Israel has been the single largest receipient of US foreign 'aid' totalling ~100 billion to date. This money is not free, it is contingent on furthering the US military/colonial agenda in the region. To put it simply the Zionist colonist know if they are no longer threating, bullying, attacking and offending the natives of the Middle East then they are of no further use to US and no more money will be forthcoming. If you are ashamed about this you should be, but rather than trying to cover it up how about educating yourself and standing to your corrupt war-mongering government?

  62. the real reason behind all this by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    the saber rattling, the threats of war against Iran is because the globalists/banksters dont want Iran to have nuclear power, they want Iran to stay on the petroleum production treadmill so keep opec supplied with petroleum, If Iran builds nuclear power plants then they will rely less on petroleum for their power plants (electrical generation), i really doubt the news when it says iran wants to wipe Israel off the map i think it is propaganda.

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  63. Relativistic nonsense by kbolino · · Score: 1

    English has a word with the same meaning: truce.

    1. Re:Relativistic nonsense by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      No. Hudna is a deliberately temporary truce for the sole purpose of rearming to continue the war. It goes back to the time of Muhammad. This is the first google result for Muhammad and hudna. Not sure what this site is, but this description seems pretty accurate, or at least consistent with the history I have read in a couple of books (disclaimer: I am an Intelligence Analyst, and track this kind of stuff for a living).

      http://www.wnd.com/2005/02/28857/

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  64. The Clock is Confusing, John Asscroft is Simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The Iran War Clock is not designed to be pro-war or anti-war."

    Yeah, right. That's why they picked the totally neutral imagery of a ticking clock and called it the Iran War Clock. All those pictures of Ashcroft hooting "Threat Level Orange!" were pretty effective, so since we're looking to justify bombing Iran, why not just go with what worked before?

  65. Lying to start a war is treason. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Secrecy is treason in a democracy. The people cannot help control the government if they have no trustworthy knowledge. Whoever controlled the U.S. government lied to start a war with Iraq. Now the evidence is that they are lying to start a war with Iran.

    Another war will make us poor. There are fewer Jewish people in Israel than in the United States. Somehow they have enough political power to get the U.S. taxpayer to pay for the security of Israel.

    The Bush and Cheney families had investments in weapons companies. Those in control hid their involvement.

  66. Wideband delphi by blueforce · · Score: 1

    So, basically Iran just stumbled upon Wideband Delphi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wideband_Delphi and thought they'd give it a go.

    --
    If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
  67. OMG ennui by epine · · Score: 1

    People will see "20-minutes to midnight" and think OMFG!@!@!@!@!11111@@@@@

    You completely missed the memo on ironic detachment. 90% of what passes for OMG over-reaction comes from bored (not frightened) Chicken Littles. "I'm bored. What should I do? I know, let's start a game of OMG! Tag, you're it."

    The other 10% comes from an industrious soul with OCD paranoia who has misplaced his meds (if no two electrons can be distinguished, and an electron travels backwards and forward in time, Occam's razor decrees that there is only one very busy electron).

    Clearly this group is targeting the rile factor, however insignificant the ignorant response.

    I might actually give up Google for a search engine where I could search on queries such as "/OMG 911" or "/OMG nuclear" or "/OMG GM" or "/OMG paid to have sex". If you click "I'm feeling lucky" it comes back with an error page: "Code Blue: server hyperventilating". If you press your luck, it comes back with the actual query results.

  68. Clocks by Avarist · · Score: 1

    The Doomsday clock is such a joke. Right now it's at 5 minutes to midnight, 7 minutes closer to midnight than at the Cuban Missile Crisis. How can anyone take this seriously?

    --
    In Capitalist US, the commerce controls the Government.
  69. Re:Fascist Theocracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another priceless contribution from the peanut gallery.

  70. Re:Fascist Theocracy by couchslug · · Score: 1

    Wake me when Iranians butcher their Mullah slavemasters and burn their mosques.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  71. Re:Fascist Theocracy by Archon-X · · Score: 1

    Yeah, you're an idiot.

    Not so much in regards to the fact that the iranian government is fucked up, but completely in regards to male-female interactions, and the iranian people in general.

    And yes, I've actually been there.

  72. The best solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is for France, India, Russia, China... anyone... to send a few nukes into Israel and blow them off the face of the planet.

  73. Granted by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    And I suppose the stories about Saudi princes beating said immigrants is just the same as immigrants not being all that well like in the west. Except it isn't.

    What about Kuwait? Liberated by the west, it ranks very high in GDP per person, that is because in Kuwait, only the natives are counted. Immigrants are not. Even legal immigrants who are needed to actually do the work that makes the country so rich. Palestinians? Kuwait has a lot of them but of course the Palestinians choose wrong with supporting Saddam and they are now treated by their fellow Muslims as scum...

    But you are right, migration is not just to the west. A lot of Africans go to South Africa for jobs... where they are totally not hated by the South Africans (black) with regularly exploding violence on a scale and brutality not seen for not nearly long enough in the west.

    In many ways, you add to my point. Yes, there are migration patterns to other parts of the world and ALL of them end up with worse results for the migrant then in the west. We WIN again, even if it is just because we suck less (which is not a way to win at all).

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  74. Straw man by shiftless · · Score: 1

    So you care as much about the old guy who just this second passed away (and another this second, and yet another this second) as you would (did?) about your own father passing?

    If "caring for" means "not supporting the killing of/blowing to kingdom come in an airstrike", then yes, I do care about that man just as much as anyone else.

  75. Looks like you could use an update by tinkerton · · Score: 1

    US intelligence
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/us-agencies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html

    and Israeli intellence, first paragraph
    http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-iran-still-mulling-whether-to-build-nuclear-bomb-1.407866

    Both saying Iran has not made any decision to make a bomb. And yes, I know you expected another angle :)

    1. Re:Looks like you could use an update by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the current references.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  76. Terrorism by shiftless · · Score: 1

    if someone bombed the oil platforms the government would collapse

    Yes, and that "someone" would be a terrorist.

    1. Re:Terrorism by lgw · · Score: 1

      Sure, if you accept the definition of "terrorist" proposed in the UN every year: Jew. Otherwise, not so much. The distinction between "soldier" and "terrorist" is the uniform and chain of command back to recognized political leadership, not the methods or goals.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Terrorism by shiftless · · Score: 1

      No, bombing another country's civilian oil platforms is most certainly terrorism, no matter who commits the act.

    3. Re:Terrorism by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. Oil platforms and fuel reserves are perfectly valid targets. Ironically enough, almost all of the US's fuel reserves in the pacific conflict were stored mere miles from Pearl Harbor; if the Japanese had thought of targeting that rather than blowing easily-repaired holes in the hulls of our fleet, we'd have figuratively been sunk - it'd have been infinitely more effective than sinking actual ships. Learn from history, or repeat it: pick one.

      Recall the saying "all's fair in love and war". If you're going to do a war, at least do it properly. You don't attack your opponent's fists; if you want to end the conflict, you go for the jugular.

      Or the saying "you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs" - it is NOT referring to "collateral" damage. The eggs are the entire fucking target; you unapologetically destroy them.

  77. Also known as by shiftless · · Score: 1

    I'll also ask this: If Iran's program is peaceful, then there's no reason for them to limit access to UN inspectors

    "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide"

  78. Destiny? by Flipstylee · · Score: 1

    The panel's first estimate puts the odds of war in the next twelve months at 48 percent, consistent with predictions market Intrade.com, which estimates a 40 percent chance of a U.S./Israeli strike by December 2012."

    Every time we believe what we are told without fact, we create what we fear.
    With that said, lets start acting like a 1st world country, and, the mayan calendar doesn't end, although this baktun was significant (?), it's not the end of the world, let's not make it so.

    It's gotta be a zombie apocalypse. bright lights and thats it would suck.

  79. Re:Fascist Theocracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please, PLEASE, actually do go out into your community and actually find Mr. J. Random Iranian. I think you will be very surprised. I just hope you're not too thick/racist to learn your lesson.

  80. let me know when it reaches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two Minutes to Midnight.

    Then, I'll care.

  81. Obama's October Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In order to become the USA's first Dictator, President Obama will order Air Force strikes against Iranian population centers in early October followed by ground assualts from Army and Marine units while Isreali forces concentrate on using Air Force units against Iranian nuclear power and reseach (university) centers.

    In mid-October, Obama will declare Marshall Law, suspending all Constitutional, Federal, State and Local laws, abolishment of the Congress and the Federal Court system, and the incarceration of former Congress, Judges and staff employees, followed shortly by the abolishment of all election systems.

    By early November, Obama Forces will have either killed or incarcerated former State Governers, Legislators, Judges and key former State employees. This will be followed by Executive Order to assassinate all major city Mayors and staffs.

    On December 1, Obama will make a news announcement declaring himself the ruler of America (the United States part was outlawed by secret Executive Order in October) for perpetuity.

  82. One thing to remember by gelfling · · Score: 1

    Is that 99% of the noise that absolutely positively the Dreaded Zionist Menace (tm) is going to bomb the peaceful peace loving Persians of peace are a) the same people who want to see Israel wiped off the map and b) have been promising us this every single day for the last 15 years.

  83. 88% chance of going to war with Iran by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is their way saying we have a 88% chance of going to war with Iran in the next 12 months.

  84. Divide USA by luk3Z · · Score: 0

    USA should be divided on smaller countries because today USA is too aggressive.

    --
    Recipes for USA bankrupt - http://tinypaste.com/0d66f dd = dollar deluge (printed in the infinity)
  85. OMG by shiftless · · Score: 1

    Wow! A totally foreign and shocking concept to my Western mind! I am QUITE certain NONE of my ancestors have ever engaged in such a vile, deceitful tactic! You sir, have just blown my mind!

  86. If we were at war, sure by shiftless · · Score: 1

    Except Iran isn't our "opponent." It's a country on the other side of the world that's minding its own business. They have done nothing to provoke or warrant our aggression. Bombing their oil platforms, thus ensuring chaos in their society while their population quite possibly starves to death unless they capitulate to their demands, is indeed terrorism. Bombing an airstrip or fortified position is one thing. These are civilian facilities run by innocent people.

    I mean, what would you call it if were done with Al Qaeda suicide bombers or a truck bomb instead of U.S. bombers? It's terrorism, plain and simple, on an international level.

    1. Re:If we were at war, sure by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 1

      You're moving the goalposts. You originally said:

      [if someone bombed the oil platforms,] that "someone" would be a terrorist.

      Now you're talking about "OUR" opponent and "OUR" aggression.

      Iran may not be a threat to "us" (I assume you mean the United States) but that doesn't mean it's not a credible threat to other countries in that region of the world.

      If "someone" bombed Iran's oil platforms, it would probably be one of the countries who consider Iran (and the Iranian nuclear program) a threat, e.g. Israel. And it would be an act of war, not terrorism.