Iranian reports say supreme leader’s health worsening

[skye]

The 74-year-old Khamenei, who has not been seen in public since giving an address in Tehran three weeks ago, was said by Iranian sources to be suffering from increasingly acute health problems.

Citing Iranian sources, The Times of London reported Thursday that Khamenei, who has served as Supreme Leader since 1989 and who has yet to appoint an heir, may have suffered a relapse of a chronic illness and that he was convalescing after collapsing during a private meeting.

October 31, 2013,
Iranian reports say supreme leader's health worsening | The Times of Israel



In Nov 2010 cables released by online whistle-blower WikiLeaks include remarks from an Iran source in 2009 saying Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has cancer and he is in terminal stage of leukemia.


There is no official confirmation of this news of course.

 

[High_Gravity]

Thats fine but theres another America hating ass wipe waiting in the wings to fill his shoes, probably even worse for all we know.

 

[skye]

Thats fine but theres another America hating ass wipe waiting in the wings to fill his shoes, probably even worse for all we know.

Yes. And their quest for the bomb is not going to stop either.... we will still have to see how this all ends.

 

[TheBarber]

Thats fine but theres another America hating ass wipe waiting in the wings to fill his shoes, probably even worse for all we know.

Yes. And their quest for the bomb is not going to stop either.... we will still have to see how this all ends.

How can a country like the US ask others not to make what they already have? Maybe if they got rid of their own nukes...

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Thats fine but theres another America hating ass wipe waiting in the wings to fill his shoes, probably even worse for all we know.

Yes. And their quest for the bomb is not going to stop either.... we will still have to see how this all ends.

How can a country like the US ask others not to make what they already have? Maybe if they got rid of their own nukes...

Hilarious...have fun in your sophomore political theory class.

 

[skye]

Thats fine but theres another America hating ass wipe waiting in the wings to fill his shoes, probably even worse for all we know.

Yes. And their quest for the bomb is not going to stop either.... we will still have to see how this all ends.

How can a country like the US ask others not to make what they already have? Maybe if they got rid of their own nukes...

The fanatical theocratic and terrorist supporting behavior of Iran doesn't inspire confidence.

Their aggressive attitude towards their enemies presents the problem that some unhinged, disastrous decision could be made any time they are in possession of nuclear capability.

 

[TheBarber]

Yes. And their quest for the bomb is not going to stop either.... we will still have to see how this all ends.

How can a country like the US ask others not to make what they already have? Maybe if they got rid of their own nukes...

The fanatical theocratic and terrorist supporting behavior of Iran doesn't inspire confidence.

Their aggressive attitude towards their enemies presents the problem that some unhinged, disastrous decision could be made any time they are in possession of nuclear capability.

The US are the aggressive ones, attacking Iran and Afghanistan for no reason. Iran hasn't attacked anyone in a really long time.

 

[skye]

How can a country like the US ask others not to make what they already have? Maybe if they got rid of their own nukes...

The fanatical theocratic and terrorist supporting behavior of Iran doesn't inspire confidence.

Their aggressive attitude towards their enemies presents the problem that some unhinged, disastrous decision could be made any time they are in possession of nuclear capability.

The US are the aggressive ones, attacking Iran and Afghanistan for no reason. Iran hasn't attacked anyone in a really long time.

Iran sponsors terrorism and attacks by proxy....didn't you know that? The terrorist group Hezbollah conducts operations around the world at Iran's behest.

Iran hasn't attacked anyone in a really long time?????? think again ...

 

[Harry Dresden]

How can a country like the US ask others not to make what they already have? Maybe if they got rid of their own nukes...

The fanatical theocratic and terrorist supporting behavior of Iran doesn't inspire confidence.

Their aggressive attitude towards their enemies presents the problem that some unhinged, disastrous decision could be made any time they are in possession of nuclear capability.

The US are the aggressive ones, attacking Iran and Afghanistan for no reason. Iran hasn't attacked anyone in a really long time.

no reason to attack Afghanistan?.....ok if you say so...

and when did the US attack Iran?....

what Country are you from?.....that may clear up why you have the position you have....

 

[R.C. Christian]

The fanatical theocratic and terrorist supporting behavior of Iran doesn't inspire confidence.

Their aggressive attitude towards their enemies presents the problem that some unhinged, disastrous decision could be made any time they are in possession of nuclear capability.

The US are the aggressive ones, attacking Iran and Afghanistan for no reason. Iran hasn't attacked anyone in a really long time.

Iran sponsors terrorism and attacks by proxy....didn't you know that? The terrorist group Hezbollah conducts operations around the world at Iran's behest.

Iran hasn't attacked anyone in a really long time?????? think again ...

The United States supports terrorism by proxy every day. Has done so for decades. The United States and Britain are COMPLETELY responsible for Iran.

I'm not trying to be an ass, just pragmatic. Most people can't handle it.

 

[TheBarber]

The fanatical theocratic and terrorist supporting behavior of Iran doesn't inspire confidence.

Their aggressive attitude towards their enemies presents the problem that some unhinged, disastrous decision could be made any time they are in possession of nuclear capability.

The US are the aggressive ones, attacking Iran and Afghanistan for no reason. Iran hasn't attacked anyone in a really long time.

no reason to attack Afghanistan?.....ok if you say so...

and when did the US attack Iran?....

what Country are you from?.....that may clear up why you have the position you have....

I meant Iraq, sorry. Attacking Afghanistan to get Osama is like attacking Italy to get at the mafia, makes no sense.

 

[Connery]

Thats fine but theres another America hating ass wipe waiting in the wings to fill his shoes, probably even worse for all we know.

Yes. And their quest for the bomb is not going to stop either.... we will still have to see how this all ends.

How can a country like the US ask others not to make what they already have? Maybe if they got rid of their own nukes...

Your are suggesting that the US give their security and defense in deference to an enemy state. That simply does not make sense.

How can a country like the US ask others not to make what they already have? Maybe if they got rid of their own nukes...

The fanatical theocratic and terrorist supporting behavior of Iran doesn't inspire confidence.

Their aggressive attitude towards their enemies presents the problem that some unhinged, disastrous decision could be made any time they are in possession of nuclear capability.

The US are the aggressive ones, attacking Iran and Afghanistan for no reason. Iran hasn't attacked anyone in a really long time.

Iran cannot support a war much less engage in the sophisticated operations necessary to maintain this type of operation.

 

[Bloodrock44]

How can a country like the US ask others not to make what they already have? Maybe if they got rid of their own nukes...

The fanatical theocratic and terrorist supporting behavior of Iran doesn't inspire confidence.

Their aggressive attitude towards their enemies presents the problem that some unhinged, disastrous decision could be made any time they are in possession of nuclear capability.

The US are the aggressive ones, attacking Iran and Afghanistan for no reason. Iran hasn't attacked anyone in a really long time.

Please stick to cutting hair. Just sayin

 

[irosie91]

Yes. And their quest for the bomb is not going to stop either.... we will still have to see how this all ends.

How can a country like the US ask others not to make what they already have? Maybe if they got rid of their own nukes...

Your are suggesting that the US give their security and defense in deference to an enemy state. That simply does not make sense.

The fanatical theocratic and terrorist supporting behavior of Iran doesn't inspire confidence.

Their aggressive attitude towards their enemies presents the problem that some unhinged, disastrous decision could be made any time they are in possession of nuclear capability.

The US are the aggressive ones, attacking Iran and Afghanistan for no reason. Iran hasn't attacked anyone in a really long time.

Iran cannot support a war much less engage in the sophisticated operations necessary to maintain this type of operation.

Iran can and does do all kinds of mischief Iran can INSPIRE the whole "SHIITE"
world . -----there are shiites here and there and everywhere ----thruout the islamic world.

I learned something about this subject in my youth------even before I understood
what I was learning and what sunni and shiite is. SHIITES---no matter from where---
look to IRAN ---------for shiites there is something "holy" about iran in fact---
for shiites FARSI is something like a holy language. Right now---there are SHIITES
lining the border between Yemen and Saudi Arabia------at the ready to invade
saudi arabia pending an INFLUX of -------shiites from around the world ---under the
direction of Iran who needs "sophisticated"???

 

[Connery]

How can a country like the US ask others not to make what they already have? Maybe if they got rid of their own nukes...

Your are suggesting that the US give their security and defense in deference to an enemy state. That simply does not make sense.

The US are the aggressive ones, attacking Iran and Afghanistan for no reason. Iran hasn't attacked anyone in a really long time.

Iran cannot support a war much less engage in the sophisticated operations necessary to maintain this type of operation.

Iran can and does do all kinds of mischief Iran can INSPIRE the whole "SHIITE"
world . -----there are shiites here and there and everywhere ----thruout the islamic world.

I learned something about this subject in my youth------even before I understood
what I was learning and what sunni and shiite is. SHIITES---no matter from where---
look to IRAN ---------for shiites there is something "holy" about iran in fact---
for shiites FARSI is something like a holy language. Right now---there are SHIITES
lining the border between Yemen and Saudi Arabia------at the ready to invade
saudi arabia pending an INFLUX of -------shiites from around the world ---under the
direction of Iran who needs "sophisticated"???

Sophisticated means keeping up with US technology, funding for such an undertaking and the staying power to complete the task at hand.

 

[sambino510]

Yes. And their quest for the bomb is not going to stop either.... we will still have to see how this all ends.

How can a country like the US ask others not to make what they already have? Maybe if they got rid of their own nukes...

Your are suggesting that the US give their security and defense in deference to an enemy state. That simply does not make sense.

The fanatical theocratic and terrorist supporting behavior of Iran doesn't inspire confidence.

Their aggressive attitude towards their enemies presents the problem that some unhinged, disastrous decision could be made any time they are in possession of nuclear capability.

The US are the aggressive ones, attacking Iran and Afghanistan for no reason. Iran hasn't attacked anyone in a really long time.

Iran cannot support a war much less engage in the sophisticated operations necessary to maintain this type of operation.

What this person is asking is that the U.S. make a concession on their nuclear arsenal, and give up their obvious advantage they have as a nuclear state. Such could be said about any nuclear state, especially the U.N. security council, pretty much all of which possess nuclear weapons.

Tell me how it makes logical sense, diplomatically, to demand of someone what you are not willing to do yourself? Yes, it would make us weaker, but it would be a sign of good faith to accelerate our disarmament process in earnest, rather than just talk a big game.

 

[Connery]

How can a country like the US ask others not to make what they already have? Maybe if they got rid of their own nukes...

Your are suggesting that the US give their security and defense in deference to an enemy state. That simply does not make sense.

The US are the aggressive ones, attacking Iran and Afghanistan for no reason. Iran hasn't attacked anyone in a really long time.

Iran cannot support a war much less engage in the sophisticated operations necessary to maintain this type of operation.

What this person is asking is that the U.S. make a concession on their nuclear arsenal, and give up their obvious advantage they have as a nuclear state. Such could be said about any nuclear state, especially the U.N. security council, pretty much all of which possess nuclear weapons.

Tell me how it makes logical sense, diplomatically, to demand of someone what you are not willing to do yourself? Yes, it would make us weaker, but it would be a sign of good faith to accelerate our disarmament process in earnest, rather than just talk a big game.

Where does your term "logic" come into play and how do you define that?
Diplomatically, it would not be a sign of good faith at all. There is no advantage in making us weaker.

 

[idb]

Your are suggesting that the US give their security and defense in deference to an enemy state. That simply does not make sense.



Iran cannot support a war much less engage in the sophisticated operations necessary to maintain this type of operation.

What this person is asking is that the U.S. make a concession on their nuclear arsenal, and give up their obvious advantage they have as a nuclear state. Such could be said about any nuclear state, especially the U.N. security council, pretty much all of which possess nuclear weapons.

Tell me how it makes logical sense, diplomatically, to demand of someone what you are not willing to do yourself? Yes, it would make us weaker, but it would be a sign of good faith to accelerate our disarmament process in earnest, rather than just talk a big game.

Where does your term "logic" come into play and how do you define that?
Diplomatically, it would not be a sign of good faith at all. There is no advantage in making us weaker.

True, but why deny another state access to the same weapons?

 

[TheBarber]

Your are suggesting that the US give their security and defense in deference to an enemy state. That simply does not make sense.



Iran cannot support a war much less engage in the sophisticated operations necessary to maintain this type of operation.

What this person is asking is that the U.S. make a concession on their nuclear arsenal, and give up their obvious advantage they have as a nuclear state. Such could be said about any nuclear state, especially the U.N. security council, pretty much all of which possess nuclear weapons.

Tell me how it makes logical sense, diplomatically, to demand of someone what you are not willing to do yourself? Yes, it would make us weaker, but it would be a sign of good faith to accelerate our disarmament process in earnest, rather than just talk a big game.

Where does your term "logic" come into play and how do you define that?
Diplomatically, it would not be a sign of good faith at all. There is no advantage in making us weaker.

Giving up nukes can't make the US weaker since you don't even use them, in fact, nobody has used nukes since the US dropped 2 on japan.

 

[sambino510]

Your are suggesting that the US give their security and defense in deference to an enemy state. That simply does not make sense.



Iran cannot support a war much less engage in the sophisticated operations necessary to maintain this type of operation.

What this person is asking is that the U.S. make a concession on their nuclear arsenal, and give up their obvious advantage they have as a nuclear state. Such could be said about any nuclear state, especially the U.N. security council, pretty much all of which possess nuclear weapons.

Tell me how it makes logical sense, diplomatically, to demand of someone what you are not willing to do yourself? Yes, it would make us weaker, but it would be a sign of good faith to accelerate our disarmament process in earnest, rather than just talk a big game.

Where does your term "logic" come into play and how do you define that?
Diplomatically, it would not be a sign of good faith at all. There is no advantage in making us weaker.

"Logically", a country would expect us to give up our weapons program if we are to demand that they give up their weapons program. However, "logically", the U.S. would not want to do this because we and the other nuclear states enjoy having an advantage over the international community.

It is blatant hypocrisy to maintain our arsenal, the largest in the world, much of which is on CONSTANT STANBY, while we absolutely cripple an economy like Iran's just because we SUSPECT they are developing a weapon.