advertisement

The world-famous Internet site of the Nationally Syndicated Neal Boortz Show!

Search Boortz.com
Enter search terms:
Browse Boortz.com
Today's Nuze

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it."

Frederic Bastiat

THE MAD MULLAHS OF IRAN LAUNCH MISSILES

By
Neal Boortz
@ September 28, 2009 8:46 AM Permalink | Comments (33) | TrackBacks (0)

Over the weekend, Iran successfully test-fired short-range missiles. This news comes just days after we find out that Iran has an underground nuclear facility that was being secretly constructed. This also comes just days after the United Nations issued a firm warning that said, "We do not like this, but we will never do anything to stop it." What a joke. This also comes after our president, Barack Obama, stands up in front of the UN (including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) and declares his dreams for a nuclear-free world. And ... this news comes just weeks after the United States decided to pull its plans to build a missile shield in Eastern Europe. One of the reasons cited was because Iran did not pose a serious threat.

You are following this, aren't you? Barack Obama cancels a project to install missile defense systems in Poland and The Czech Republic. Obama tells the world that he has determine that the Iranian threat is not quite so bad as was supposed. Days later we find that Iran has a second facility for the production of nuclear-grade plutonium soon to come on line. Then these maniacs start test firing missiles.

There ... do you feel safer now? Once again, and all together now ... elections have consequences. I know you're glad that the president looks like you. Big whoop. And you liked the word "change," especially when you added the "you can believe in" thing to the back. And Obama was so trim! So confident! So eloquent! Well, eloquent as long as he had a teleprompter in front of him. And he wrote such a wonderful book! Well, those parts that Bill Ayers didn't write, anyway.

Aren't you just so happy things have turned out so well?

Categories:

Tags:

Main Index | Archives | RSS feed

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: THE MAD MULLAHS OF IRAN LAUNCH MISSILES.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://boortz.com/blogging/mt-tb.cgi/44734

Jamie Dupree's Blog

If you enjoy Neal's daily chat with Jamie Dupree, you'll love Jamie's Blog! Check it out for analysis of the campaigns and goings on in Washington D.C.

Cristina Gonzalez and Laura Nunemaker assist in the daily preparation of Nealz Nuze!

Avg. rating: N/A

What others are saying

  • t-shirt
    The oil embargo was due to cap and trade legislation from the dummycrats and carter soon to be obamys.
    As for foreign oil from the middle east we only get 9% get your facts straight.
    Creek Woman
    By Jamsey Comes Looking @ 09/29/09 02:43:01 PMreport abuse
  • The missle shield
    in eastern Europe was idiotic. Not only should we not be spending more to try and build this shield in such a way as to defend other countries, but it's a flat-out lie to say it had anything to do with Iran. Really? Iran? But not North Korea or China or Russia? Come on, that's nonsense.

    Yeah, they had a secret facility. So what? There's still no evidence, from our agencies or the UN atomic agency that so much as an ounce of plutonium or uranium has gone missing; it's all accounted for.
    By BWM @ 09/28/09 11:33:26 PMreport abuse
  • @red leader
    gasoline contains a huge amount of energy potential per volume so until such time as someone invents something which can equal or better it...and is safe to use...we will stay with what we have. I don't know the answer and I definitely don't like being a slave to the pertroleum gods but that is life as we know it. I do wish the environmentalists would get off the don't drill ANWAR warpath. I have been there and seen it and I want to tell you there is a whole lot of nothing up there.
    By Jeff @ 09/28/09 03:48:26 PMreport abuse
  • Obama has abandoned Israel
    Or has he? He might just be distancing himself from a pre-emptive strike when it happens. And it will happen.
    By $mooth Operator @ 09/28/09 02:43:24 PMreport abuse
  • Red I think you are missing my point
    Iran could very well be putting missiles or at least bombs in Venezuela. They are discussing an exchange of oil for nuclear capability. That is close enough to Mexico to fit your analogy.

    Our border is wide open, like you, me and a lot of others keep complaining about. But I AM concerned about the growing relationship between Chavez and Imadinnerjacket. Throw in Israel threatening to take out Iran into the mix and hell we are in the middle whether we like it or not. And Brazil has been lying about their nuclear developments.

    There is no easy solution that's for sure.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 09/28/09 02:23:47 PMreport abuse
  • iran
    why do you think iran is going to nuke israel? be cause they said so? that's the one thing you believe is the truth, everything else are lies?

    i think the military knows that if the nuke israel, israel will nuke them back.

    all you people who want israel to nuke iran, i hope you've a electric car, cause we'll not get any gas from the middle east for a long time. i guess yall ain't old enough to remember the oil embargo back in the 70's.
    By tshirt-doctor.com @ 09/28/09 02:11:21 PMreport abuse
  • I wanna see the................
    sumbuddy said the towel heads in iran are trying to provoke the beenie wearers in isreal.........

    well if they keep it up I want to see the 'xpression on they're (carpet pilots) faces just before the first mushroom cloud maker arrives.......

    and how about the last conversation.......would it sound kinda like this....... aaaaaaw camel crap!!!
    By butt neckid @ 09/28/09 01:57:42 PMreport abuse
  • When will we wake up?
    I don't get it. Over a year ago we saw (a suspected) underground site being built next to a legitimate site that was to enrich Uranium for power. We knew it then and Left said, "possible but we cannot be sure" they were also saying "don't worry Iran is still 8 to 10 years from any nuclear capabilities." Back then the right was saying it may be closer to 3 to 5. Currently I'm hearing reports Iran may be ready in less than 2 years. Send in the Israelis and let them do what we seem to have lost the guts to do.
    By John @ 09/28/09 01:57:20 PMreport abuse
  • And an "Amen!" from me to Big Africa
    Thanks for the "amen", Red Leader. I'll give mine to Big Africa:

    "Also, if conservatives claim to not like welfare, then why keep an entire country on it (Israel)."

    Interestingly, the billions of dollars in aid to Israel, which does nothing except to make dangerous people in the world ate us, comes from a strange alliance of three constituencies:
    1. Northeastern liberals.
    2. Jesus-freak conservatives who want to hasten "end times".
    3. The so-called "neocons".

    And these factions are very effective in shutting down debate on this topic by playing the "anti-Semitic" card.
    By America Firster @ 09/28/09 01:49:17 PMreport abuse
  • @ Jeff
    Certainly an interesting take. Why not then if its all about oil, move America towards a free market (which we haven't really seen in America for some time), with less regulations on cars and vehicle fuels and allow someone to come up with an invention that runs cars off of some type of house hold item maybe so oil is not depended upon. Think about it you know that car maker lobbyists are in bed with the govt and will do everything they can to try to monopolize car fuels and keep the cash coming into them. America is still an imaginative country, why not make a car that runs on water, or lift any regulations on sun powered cars, to make it easier for invention with less regulation. Then let states decide whether it is safe to drive, rather than the federal govt probably disallowing use of the vehicle because the oil lobbyists are against it?
    By Red Leader @ 09/28/09 01:39:16 PMreport abuse
  • @ Joyce
    I think every country in Central and South America would need to be concerned if Iran were to put missiles in Mexico aimed at the U.S. Particularly if the U.S does trade with a number of those countries. If Iran did that in Mexico it would be nice to see south American countries unite to take out Iran presence in South America.....although maybe they wouldn't as of now America is trying to spread its failed drug policy and world policing into South America.

    But again would the U.S like Iran pointing missiles at America by means of Mexico? If not, then why would they expect any other country to put up with that?
    By Red Leader @ 09/28/09 01:32:54 PMreport abuse
  • Israel is the guard dog stuck on the chain
    War should always be a last resort, but how many times are we going to stand around and say "Stop! Or I'll say stop again!"

    They played this footsie game with N. Korea, and now they're going to do it with Iran. What is it going to take for these moonbats to realize how serious the threat really is? I think we all know the inevitable answer to that one. I just hope that when it happens, it's DC that gets it first, with Congress in full session.

    As for Iran, personally I feel it's time to let the dog off the lead chain. Give them our blessings and let them take it to whoever is threatening them. At least they have balls enough to do it, unlike our own gutless representatives.
    By VanHorne @ 09/28/09 01:19:20 PMreport abuse
  • short range missiles
    It is about the oil in the region always has been and always will be. if the oil flow out of the middle east stops the world will stop right along with it. we are there to keep that from happening. the comment about how are short range missiles a threat to the US...well they can target Israel which may start a huge war in the area thereby shutting off the oil flow which in turn means our economy suffers greatly. just my opinion.
    By Jeff @ 09/28/09 01:03:50 PMreport abuse
  • An interesting thing I read about this...
    ...somewhere on the net...or maybe it was "On the Record"...

    Anyway, supposedly, according to whatever variety Islam that Amadinahandjob and the Mullahs subscribe to, their version of the messiah (I think it's called something like the 18th Imam, Imran, something) will appear in a time of total chaos. I'm wondering if they aren't going to try to create this chaos all on their lonesome. Two birds with one stone...wipe out Israel and entice their messiah to show up.

    If this is the case, no amount of sanctions or sternly worded memos is going to stop these fanatics from their self-appointed date with destiny. Any talks Iran has with anyone else are going to amount to nothing but stalling tactics.

    *sigh* Why does the UN even try to reason with these people? You can't reason with a mad dog, and I suspect China and Russia are going to veto any actual attempts to accomplish anything. Not that I'm holding my breath there, either.
    By I. Moyer @ 09/28/09 12:10:59 PMreport abuse
  • Nuke 'em
    The Iranian nuclear facilities are supposed to be buried so deep that a nuke can not destroy them. So...here's an idea. Just nuke the entrance. That way, noone can get in or out without receiving a fatal dose of radiation. Let me know what you think.
    By Listener @ 09/28/09 11:38:25 AMreport abuse
  • Nuclear Iran: No Big Deal
    The threat that Iran presents to the US isn’t direct at the moment, that is sure. The problem is with our trading partners. Judging from Iran’s past behavior, once Iran has the blackmail of the bomb, they will likely use it against our trading partners within their reach, either as leverage to separate them from our trade, or literally at least once to prove they will use them. Reports have indicated that that reach could extend as far as the Mediterranean nations and central Europe once the Iranians work out a few minor glitches with their multistage missiles. Also, if history is any teacher at all, we set the first A-bomb off in the 40’s, and by the 50’s we had nuclear warhead ARTILLERY shells. Imagine a terror supporting regime with a nuclear artillery round that could be placed in a container heading for a busy US port. Even if the round only set off a small nuclear event, the port would take a very long time to clean up, disrupting trade the whole while. It took us 10 years or so to develop those rounds; it could take the Iranians 20 due to fewer resources, but that is what this is about.

    On the issue of our now long defunct nuclear artillery rounds, I have one question: How the heck do you convince someone to fire the blamed thing?!!! Artillery range is a little close for nuclear explosions in my opinion.
    By Owen @ 09/28/09 11:34:30 AMreport abuse
  • Jack in Dayton
    Wow Jack you have already had 2 beers by 9:16 am?
    By Fred @ 09/28/09 11:20:40 AMreport abuse
  • nukes
    At this point I'm ready for the bombs to start flying and let God sort out this mess.
    By tom @ 09/28/09 10:50:42 AMreport abuse
  • America Firster...
    AMEN!!!!! Those who want to provide military welfare to the planet are the neo-cons, they are NOT traditional conservatives, they like large centralized govt and have infiltrated the Republican party, and try to fight anyone who opposes that agenda. these are people like Bush,Mccain,Giuliani and Romney. Too bad Neal has swallowed the neo-con pill of adventurist anti-logic foreign policy and detests the true traditional conservative non-interventionist foreign policy that Thomas Jefferson spoke of. Which is what a lot of these neo-cons do once the question of foreign policy comes up....they somehow believe America has the money to police the world despite 11 trillion dollar debt. They (including Boortz)actually believe the politicians when they say there is a threat, all while the same politicians leave the border WIDE open, and send more troops to Afghanistan. A red flad must go up in people's minds if the Korean border was better protected with American tax payer dollars on 9/11 than the Mexico/America border. One day Boortz is going to have to wake up and see the irony as to what is happening. Boortz should start listening to Glen Beck. If the GOP doesn't start listening to people like Ron Paul and incorporating his message of logic into party platform, Obama WILL have another 4 years.....guaranteed.
    By Red Leader @ 09/28/09 10:48:17 AMreport abuse
  • Red asked
    "If Iran or Saudi Arabia struck a deal with Mexico to place missiles in Mexico aimed at the U.S should Americans be fine with that?"

    Is Venezuela close enough to be concerned? Think they'll get them from their new buddy in Iran?
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 09/28/09 10:23:30 AMreport abuse
  • Short Range Missile
    And how is a short range missile a threat to the US?
    By Corbett @ 09/28/09 10:11:59 AMreport abuse
  • Obama Was So Eloquent
    I am sure many liberals think so. But I bet if there was research done back in what was it, 1939, I bet Neville Chamberlin's failure to stand up to Hitler was viewed just as eloquently. That did not work well for Europe because you can't appease bullies.

    You have to tell them that if they try and take the lunch money again, you are going to punch them in the nose. And you have to be ready to follow through.

    Iran should have one week to get with the program and failing that we begin to blockade their access to gasoline. The UN Security Council will do nothing. I would think, and believe me, I know this WON'T happen, but if the US were to announce that I think China would get with the program in a hurry.

    I am just glad I have no relatives in Israel.
    By Kevin @ 09/28/09 10:03:18 AMreport abuse
  • Looks like Iran
    is deliberately trying to provoke an attack from Israel.

    I just hope it's MASSIVE!
    By Ben Dover @ 09/28/09 09:42:40 AMreport abuse
  • Didn't President Obama know
    About this reactor before Monday? I have heard that we knew about it for anywhere from 18 months to 3 years ago. Why did we mollycoddle and minimize these people (the ones in charge) and not help those that were protesting the election?

    I forgot, we don't meddle in other contries affairs (unless Chavez approves it, and it is Constitutionally permitted under that country's charter - See Honduras).

    Elections do have consequences. Think about that when some almost Democrat (McCain) runs against a conservative (Paul) in the primaries. But then again, as evidenced, Republican=Democrat=Progressive=Marxist=Fascist. It's just a matter of degrees.
    By Francisco Danconia @ 09/28/09 09:40:37 AMreport abuse
  • Really? Are you sure?
    The Iranians haven't been telling the truth about their nuclear program. Really? Are you sure? The Iranians lied?
    These are the same people who, some years back, were mining the Persian Gulf. (That means big floating bombs in the water.) Despite photos showing them doing it, the government in Teheran kept saying they weren't. And, golly, Obama was caught off guard.
    By Jim Smith @ 09/28/09 09:37:05 AMreport abuse
  • Military Budget
    To all you folks who think America's job is to police the world and provide the defense for every "friendly" region of the world, including "socialist Europe": how much do you think the U.S. defense budget should be? And how do you intend to pay for it? And why is it the job of the U.S. to spread its military all over the world? What is wrong with securing our borders and protecting our homeland?

    I get very very frustrated when conservatives, who love to tout themselves as fiscally responsible, will easily cast fiscal conservatism aside when it comes to spending money on the military and wars.
    By America Firster @ 09/28/09 09:36:56 AMreport abuse
  • do you feel safer now?
    i don't know why you're asking that. i don't live in Poland or Czech Republic.

    U.S. President Barack Obama replaces a system that did not work against a threat that did not exist with weapons that can defend against the real Iranian missile capability. Better still, he NATO-izes the system to strengthen the alliance, not divide it.

    The system that former President George W. Bush was rushing to build in Eastern Europe did not work. The interceptors slotted for Poland have not yet been built, let alone tested, and their sister systems deployed in Alaska have demonstrated serious operational problems. The radar intended for the Czech Republic has been shown to have major shortcomings, as documented by Theodore Postol of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and other independent experts. In short, it could not see the warheads it was suppose to track.

    There was no "shield." There was no defense capability to "give up." It did not exist. Fortunately, neither did the Iranian missile threat that the system was supposed to counter. Iran does not have a long-range missile that can strike Central Europe, let alone the United States, and is unlikely to develop one over the next 10 years, if ever. Nor does it have a nuclear warhead to put on a future missile.

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/09/17/the_new_defense_realism?print=yes&hidecomments=yes&page=full

    once again, please tell me the reasons that i have to give up my money so that European's don't have to give up their own money.

    Once again, and all together now ... talk show hosts are entertainer's.
    By tshirt-doctor.com @ 09/28/09 09:20:08 AMreport abuse
  • notional Iranian threat la de da
    Let me ensure I understand your priorties rightly: you expect us FN to worry about this zionist foreign crap when so far only 1 census jerker has paid for his effrontery? I got news for you, dude, the SOLE reason the Iranian government can launch a missile is because the infernal illuminati, Bank of England, bilderbergers & zionists WANT it to launch a missile even as it allegedly works on developing an atomic bomb so properly nativist, isolationist & right-populist Americans will be distracted from their vital domestic terrorist tasks of helping Ron Paul fight the federal reserve system, deal condignly with snoopy census jerkers, spread racist lies about incumbent administration socialized medicine schemes, support Alex Jones & other conspiracists & of course cling bitterly to their guns & reactionary doctrines as I do. I have had but 2 of the 4 beers I will down before bed & I am just too FN smart for you! your lame-o ruse FAILED, baby.
    By Jack in Dayton, Ohio @ 09/28/09 09:16:10 AMreport abuse
  • Iran Launch after PresBO caves on Missile Defense
    "Iran... test-fired short-range missiles...just days after we find out that Iran has an underground nuclear facility that was being secretly constructed."

    And just days after PrezBO announced that the US will renege on its promise to provide a missile defense shield for Eastern Europe.

    In exchange, the Russians agreed to "consider" sanctions against Iran... just as they have agreed to "consider sanctions for the past five years.

    Great job negotiating, PresBO!
    By Adakin Valorem @ 09/28/09 09:14:16 AMreport abuse
  • Iran is not a threat...
    What airforce is Iran going to use to deliver a bomb to the U.S mainland? Which Iranian army can invade mainland America? None. If the Iranins DO have something like that then why are American troops stationed every in the world and not on American borders?

    If Iran cannot militarily bomb the American mainland, then terrorism becomes a border/passport security issue and we see the govt lacks attitude towards the massive problem of illegal aliens in this country. Some of which could very well be islamic fascists. Something not adding up...Neal you HAVE to wake up bud, you're drinking the kool-aid.

    There are countries in Africa persistently launching missiles at each other, militias fighting each other, but the U.S says nothing about that. The hard undeniable truth is that Iran (a developing nation) is about as much a threat to mainland America as the Congo, Ivory Coast or Burundi is. In other words no threat at all. Sorry just the painful truth of it.

    Iran does not seem to accept America as the world police, that's why the neo-con mystics out there are desparately trying to pretend that Iran is a threat to mainland America.

    Also, if conservatives claim to not like welfare, then why keep an entire country on it (Israel) ?
    By Big Africa @ 09/28/09 09:13:00 AMreport abuse
  • SuperObama
    Obama needs to watch Superman 4 the quest for peace... If getting rid of Nuclear weapons can't even be accomplished in a fictional movie by none other than superman, then how does his highness Obama think he can do it in reality... Where o where is this Presidents mind?
    By Jason @ 09/28/09 09:12:47 AMreport abuse
  • some things to remember...that Neal doesn't mention
    The U.S tests weapons in Okinawa much to the dislike of the people that live there. Maybe the U.S should stop participating in the behavior they want other countries to halt.

    Where does America get the authority to tell Iran what to do with its weapons considering the constitution does not allow the U.S to police the world? Does Iran then have authority to tell the U.S what to do with its weapons?

    With 11 trillion dollar debt America does not have the money to police the world much less build defenses in other people's countries.

    Why not defend mainland America first and foremost (invasion of illegals) instead of setting up defenses in other peoples' countries?

    If you were the leader of a country and the only country that ever used nukes to kill people asked you to stop making
    weapons...would you trust them?

    If Iran or Saudi Arabia struck a deal with Mexico to place missiles in Mexico aimed at the U.S should Americans be fine with that?

    If you were the only person in the room that was unarmed, would you be fine with everyone else being armed?

    What is America waiting on to withdraw 'aid' from both Israel and middle eastern countries?

    Iran is not a threat to mainland America if they were we would see the borders secured and illegals heading home in droves. ANY talk of amnesty at all defeats the idea that a 'war on terror' actually exists.

    Why does the U.S give money to some countries that have nukes and that violate human rights (Pakistan,China) then condemn others? Why the inconsistancy in principle and the selective outrage?
    By Red Leader @ 09/28/09 09:02:41 AMreport abuse
  • There Must Be Some Mistake
    Obama will ostensibly 'condemn' Iran...again and again...right up to the point that Israel smolders in ash. Then he'll give them a stern talking-to while he laughs into his sleeve.
    By Randy @ 09/28/09 08:56:42 AMreport abuse
send to a friend  view as printer-friendly  RSS feeds
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement