Time to kick Iran

[Spins]

Here you go: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB189/

No that link is about the change in posture by the USG with regards to Israel and its nuclear weapons program. Up until that point the USG had actively been trying to prevent Israel from building a bomb but by 1969 they realized that it was inevitable so they decided to seek some "ground rules" which would allow it to live with a nuclear Israel.

BTW the heavy water that was supplied by the Norwegians was probably sold via the Brits, what's interesting is that apparently prior to this shipment the Americans had refused to supply heavy water to Israel without safeguards that it would be used for peaceful purposes only.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4743493.stm

I still stand by the points made in my original post.

 

[Oliver]

One guy is wearing a tie.

One guy has a beard.

Notice anything else in the pictures?

DR

Of course I notice something else: President Bush is a War President who hasn't any scruples to invade countries that aren't a threat to the US.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Of course I notice something else: President Bush is a War President who hasn't any scruples to invade countries that aren't a threat to the US.

What does

A World Without Zionism

mean to you, Oliver?

DR

 

[Spins]

You might want to check out poster "BeAChooser" and have a few jousts. He's rabidly encouraging an attack, air strike, on Iran.

DR

Ah let me clarify, I'm sure there are lots of people that would encourage a preemptive strike on Iran but that doesn't mean he believe's the current USG is going to invade Iran anytime soon. Also by invade I mean akin to the recent Iraq conflict.

 

[Oliver]

What does

A World Without Zionism

mean to you, Oliver?

DR

A "World without Zionism" means a World in which the Zionists Movement died because Israel is finally accepted globally, including the acceptance from their Neighbors.

And what does "Strategy for Victory" means to you, DR?

 

[Darth Rotor]

A "World without Zionism" means a World in which the Zionists Movement died because Israel is finally accepted globally, including the acceptance from their Neighbors.

Did you miss the part in the Der Spiegel article from Mahmoud about Israel being wiped off the map?

And what does "Strategy for Victory" means to you, DR?

How President Bush intends to win, politically and militarily, the war he is fighting in Iraq.

How do you intend to show, or claim, that those two posters are substantively or morally equivalent? Do you understand the context of where Mahmoud was, and what was being said, in that picture? Are you familiar with the Holocaust conference in Iran last year?

Did GW Bush ever threaten to wipe Iraq, and Arabs, from the map? Did GW Bush ever deny the historical truth of the Balfour declaration?

Achmadinejad: We don't want to confirm or deny the Holocaust. We oppose every type of crime against any people. But we want to know whether this crime actually took place or not. If it did, then those who bear the responsibility for it have to be punished, and not the Palestinians. Why isn't research into a deed that occurred 60 years ago permitted? After all, other historical occurrences, some of which lie several thousand years in the past, are open to research, and even the governments support this.

SPIEGEL: Mr. President, with all due respect, the Holocaust occurred, there were concentration camps, there are dossiers on the extermination of the Jews, there has been a great deal of research, and there is neither the slightest doubt about the Holocaust nor about the fact - we greatly regret this - that the Germans are responsible for it. If we may now add one remark: the fate of the Palestinians is an entirely different issue, and this brings us into the present.

Ahmadinejad: No, no, the roots of the Palestinian conflict must be sought in history. The Holocaust and Palestine are directly connected with one another. And if the Holocaust actually occurred, then you should permit impartial groups from the whole world to research this. Why do you restrict the research to a certain group? Of course, I don't mean you, but rather the European governments.

SPIEGEL: Are you still saying that the Holocaust is just "a myth?"

Ahmadinejad: I will only accept something as truth if I am actually convinced of it.

Come on, Oliver, your boy Mahmoud seems to be singing a very familiar song. Do you recognize it?

Ahmadinejad: Let me ask you one thing: How much longer can this go on? How much longer do you think the German people have to accept being taken hostage by the Zionists? When will that end - in 20, 50, 1,000 years?

Talk to me, Oliver. How's your boy doing?

DR

 

[Oliver]

Did you miss the part in the Der Spiegel article from Mahmoud about Israel being wiped off the earth?

How President Bush intends to win, politically, the war he is fighting in Iraq.

How do you intend to show, or claim, that those two posters are substantively or morally equivalent? Do you understand the context of where Mahmoud was, and what was being said, in that picture?

Did GW Bush ever threaten to wipe Iraq, and Arabs, from the face of the earth?

DR

I'm not sure that he actually meant "Israel being wiped off the earth":

Translation of phrase "wiped off the map"

Many news sources have presented one of Ahmadinejad's phrases in Persian as a statement that "Israel must be wiped off the map"[4][5][6], an English idiom which means to "obliterate totally",[7] and "destroy completely", such as by powerful bombs,[8] or other catastrophes.[9]
Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, translates the Persian phrase as:

The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[10]
​

According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian" and "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[11]
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly:

[T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.[12]
​

Iran has repeatedly rejected the allegations that Ahmadinejad has stated 'Israel must be wiped off the map'. [13][14][15] On 20 February 2006, Iran’s foreign minister denied that Tehran wanted to see Israel “wiped off the map,” saying Ahmadinejad had been misunderstood. "Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned," Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference, speaking in English, after addressing the European Parliament. "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognise legally this regime," he said. [16][17][18]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#2005_.22World_Without_Zionism.22_speech

Quite frankly, if Bush would say that he wants to "wipe off" every Regime that doesn't follow the US-Orders, which is exactly what happened dozens of times in the past, it would be as honest as Ahmadinejad's speech in question.

Now I don't agree with Ahmadinejad's speech - in no way, but I rather like to hear straight, disgusting answers than misleading, disgusting answers, if you know what I mean.

And once again: It's a fallacy to claim that Iran is a threat because of that speech.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'm not sure that he actually meant "Israel being wiped off the earth"

I am familiar with Cole's analysis. Interesting.

It doesn't answer the mail on the rest.

Quite frankly, if Bush would say that he wants to "wipe off" every Regime that doesn't follow the US-Orders, which is exactly what happened dozens of times in the past, it would be as honest as Ahmadinejad's speech in question.

Idiot. Bush hasn't wiped much of anyone off the map, save Saddam's Ba'athist regime. Check current events, will you?

And once again: It's a fallacy to claim that Iran is a threat because of that speech.

And who made that claim, Herr Bauer?

DR

 

[Pardalis]

And once again: It's a fallacy to claim that Iran is a threat because of that speech.

Which fallacy would that be?

 

[Pardalis]

What does

A World Without Zionism

mean to you, Oliver?

DR

A "World without Zionism" means a World in which the Zionists Movement died because Israel is finally accepted globally, including the acceptance from their Neighbors.

Now I don't agree with Ahmadinejad's speech - in no way, but I rather like to hear straight, disgusting answers than misleading, disgusting answers, if you know what I mean.

Judging from this conversation you've had with Darth, I think you do agree with Ahmadinejad, Oliver.

Funny how you're willing to bend over backwards and excuse Ahmadinejad's claims while not giving Bush any benefit of the doubt.

You've chosen your Kamp Oliver.

 

[Oliver]

I am familiar with Cole's analysis. Interesting.

It doesn't answer the mail on the rest.


Idiot. Bush hasn't wiped much of anyone off the map, save Saddam's Ba'athist regime. Check current events, will you?

And who made that claim, Herr Bauer?

DR

Well, the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) (Bush's experts) translated it similar to Coles translation. Amazing that the phrase "Wiping something off" doesn't exist in persian, isn't it?

So will you restrain from your obviously misleading statement that he actually meant it the way you love to hear?

And I'm right about military interventions and my neutral assumption that the US is the more dangerous threat to peace. I know it hurts:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22us+military+interventions%22&btnG=Search

Nobody so far made this claim directly - but some in here pointed in this direction:

Which fallacy would that be?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2775020&postcount=71

 

[Oliver]

Judging from this conversation you've had with Darth, I think you do agree with Ahmadinejad, Oliver.

Funny how you're willing to bend over backwards and excuse Ahmadinejad's claims while not giving Bush any benefit of the doubt.

You've chosen your Kamp Oliver.

Are you dumb? Which of my Statements points to your nutty conclusion?

Read again:

"Of course Ahmadinejad is also a nut in some of his views"
"Well, I know his nutty opinions about holocaust and zionism."
"I've read parts of it and believe [*me], it's not amusing at all." [*typo]
"Now I don't agree with Ahmadinejad's speech - in no way"

 

[Pardalis]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2775020&postcount=71

That's not a fallacy, and I never said that. If anything, you're the one making the fallacy in that post, it's called a strawman.

"Of course Ahmadinejad is also a nut in some of his views"

Which of his views do you find insane?

"Well, I know his nutty opinions about holocaust and zionism."

What are his opinions on Zionism and how do you disagree with him?

"Now I don't agree with Ahmadinejad's speech - in no way"

Which part do you disagree with?

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4164

 

[Oliver]

Which of his views do you find insane?

What are his opinion on Zionism and how do you disagree with him?

Which part do you disagree with?

Well, basically I disagree with this part. Plus I consider the "Israel wiped off the Planet" as being a mistranslation.

And again, he's no military threat to Israel and the US.
Wrong? And if so, why?

 

[Pardalis]

Well, basically I disagree with this part.

That's too easy. Read it slowly and tell me which parts you disagree with.

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4164

And again, he's no military threat to Israel and the US.
Wrong? And if so, why?

Ever heard of Hizbollah?

 

[Oliver]

That's too easy. Read it slowly and tell me which parts you disagree with.

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4164

Ever heard of Hizbollah?

Why is that too easy? I agree with none of that - which means: I disagree with all of that. And you know it's against the rules to post an entire article, don't you?

Yes, I heard about Hezbollah and I know they get support from Iran. Just like Israel gets financial and military support from the US.

From a neutral point of view my opinion is: Both of that is wrong and leads to more aggression. And what's your Point about that?

 

[Pardalis]

So the head of state of a powerful country, which is pursuing nuclear technology, which is also supporting terrorist activities against Israel and Iraq, publicly says this garbage and you don't have a problem with that?

That doesn't register as a threat in your mind?

Do you need me to quote any particular bit?

 

[Oliver]

So the head of state of a powerful country, which is pursuing nuclear technology, which is also supporting terrorist activities against Israel and Iraq, publicly says this garbage and you don't have a problem with that?

That doesn't register as a threat in your mind?

Do you need me to quote any particular bit?

Feel free to quote the particular bits - and then please provide a similar military history like the US military interventions before I even start to consider Iran as the threat you falsley (biased) prefer to imagine.

 

[Pardalis]

Feel free to quote the particular bits - and then please provide a similar military history like the US military interventions before I even start to consider Iran as the threat you falsley (biased) prefer to imagine.

I'm sure the US military interventions of 1890 are fascinating, but could you answer my question?

 

[Oliver]

I'm sure the US military interventions of 1890 are fascinating, but could you answer my question?

Let me clarify it for you:

CUBA 1961 CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
PANAMA 1964 Panamanians shot for urging canal's return.
INDONESIA 1965 Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1965-66 Marines land during election campaign.
GUATEMALA 1966-67 Green Berets intervene against rebels.
DETROIT 1967 Army battles African Americans
UNITED STATES 1968 After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in cities.
CAMBODIA 1969-75 Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.
OMAN 1970 U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.
LAOS 1971-73 U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside.
SOUTH DAKOTA 1973 Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas.
CHILE 1973 CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president.
ANGOLA 1976-92 CIA assists South African-backed rebels.
IRAN 1980 Raid to rescue Embassy hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets warned not to get involved in revolution.
LIBYA 1981 Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.
NICARAGUA 1981-90 CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.
LEBANON 1982-84 Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim positions.
GRENADA 1983-84 Invasion four years after revolution.
IRAN 1984 Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.
LIBYA 1986 Air strikes to topple nationalist gov't.
BOLIVIA 1986 Army assists raids on cocaine region.
IRAN 1987-88 US intervenes on side of Iraq in war.
LIBYA 1989 Two Libyan jets shot down.
PHILIPPINES 1989 Air cover provided for government against coup.
PANAMA 1989 (-?) Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed.
SAUDI ARABIA 1990-91 Iraq countered after invading Kuwait. 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel.
IRAQ 1990-? Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; no-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south, large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.
LOS ANGELES 1992 Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising.
SOMALIA 1992-94 raids against one Mogadishu faction.
HAITI 1994 Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup.
ZAIRE (CONGO) 1996-97 Marines at Rwandan Hutu refugee camps, in area where Congo revolution begins.
SUDAN 1998 Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant.
AFGHANISTAN 1998 Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.
IRAQ 1998-? Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.
AFGHANISTAN 2001-? Massive U.S. mobilization to overthrow Taliban, hunt Al Qaeda fighters, install Karzai regime, and battle Taliban insurgency.
YEMEN 2002 Predator drone missile attack on Al Qaeda, including a US citizen.
PHILIPPINES 2002-? Training mission for Philippine military fighting Abu Sayyaf rebels evolves into US combat missions in Sulu Archipelago next to Mindanao.
COLOMBIA 2003-? US special forces sent to rebel zone to back up Colombian military protecting oil pipeline.
IRAQ 2003-? Saddam regime toppled in Baghdad. US and UK forces occupy country and battle Sunni and Shi'ite insurgencies. Clashes on border with Syria.
LIBERIA 2003 Brief involvement in peacekeeping force as rebels drove out leader.
HAITI 2004-05 Marines land after rebels oust elected President Aristide, who was advised to leave by Washington.
PAKISTAN 2005-? CIA airstrikes on Al Qaeda refuge villages kill civilians
SOMALIA 2007 AC-130 strikes; naval blockade and Cruise missile attacks against Islamist rebels

Full Source: http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

... versus "But, but, but, Mahmoud and the "World without Zionists" speech".

Whoooo? is the threat in your opinion?

Do you even realize how stupid your bias-fallacy is?
But to fully understand your Point of View - Do you agree with this? :

One of the most dangerous ideas of the 20th century was that "people like us" could not commit atrocities against civilians.

• German and Japanese citizens believed it, but their militaries slaughtered millions of people.
• British and French citizens believed it, but their militaries fought brutal colonial wars in Africa and Asia.
• Russian citizens believed it, but their armies murdered civilians in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and elsewhere.
• Israeli citizens believed it, but their army mowed down Palestinians and Lebanese.
• Arabs believed it, but suicide bombers and hijackers targeted U.S. and Israeli civilians.
• U.S. citizens believed it, but their military killed hundreds of thousands in Vietnam, Iraq, and elsewhere.

Every country, every ethnicity, every religion, contains within it the capability for extreme violence. Every group contains a faction that is intolerant of other groups, and actively seeks to exclude or even kill them. War fever tends to encourage the intolerant faction, but the faction only succeeds in its goals if the rest of the group acquiesces or remains silent. The attacks of September 11 were not only a test for U.S. citizens attitudes' toward minority ethnic/racial groups in their own country, but a test for our relationship with the rest of the world. We must begin not by lashing out at civilians in Muslim countries, but by taking responsibility for our own history and our own actions, and how they have fed the cycle of violence.


Source: http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html