What will Iran bomb first?

[Oliver]

No, I just want to see how far he'll go defending his translation fantasy. As it stands, the New York Times and Reuters are faking photographs according to Oliver...

Yes, they are. Provide evidence to the contrary. I'm sure there were
a lot of other Photographs at this historic "Israel-wiping" event that
took photos from different perspectives. And yes, I know that Photos
from the Pentagon can fool Americans into believing to go to war. So
I'm not impressed at all. Your point -however- is... ?

And you seem to agree. Ahmadinejad never said "I will wipe Israel off the map".
See, one step closer to the truth.

 

[WildCat]

Yes, they are. Provide evidence to the contrary.

That's not how it works Oliver. You're the one making the claim the photographs by the New York Times and Reuters phoitographer Morteza Nikoubazl were faked, you prove it.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Yes, they are. Provide evidence to the contrary.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, "What if Doomsday scenarios?" isn't any factual point to act on suspicions.

Your thought process is as mangled as your English.

Also, given the fact that they have the right to get Nukes like everyone
else, being a sovereign state,

Uh, no. Clue for the clueless: sovereignty doesn't allow a state to violate its treaty obligations.

what is your problem with that other than
having no evidence whatsoever for them trying to get their hands on a
nuke?

What exquisite incoherence. On the one hand, you say they've got a right to nukes, and on the other, you say that we shouldn't do anything because we can't prove that they're getting nukes. These arguments are not compatible. That you would use mutually contradictory arguments betrays your true objective: all you care about is opposing the US.

Even if: It's not your god-damn business. Especially when your country
owns nukes as well.

Well, no. It very much is our business. It is the business of every signatory of the NPT whether or not another signatory violates that treaty.

It's no basis for any valid argument - well, besides
racist arguments, of course.

Bwahahahahaha! I must confess, I didn't see that one coming. But really, how pathetic can you get? You've devolved into a charicature.

 

[Pardalis]

Why did you quote an article which again makes clear that Ahmadinejad is talking about the regime?

I understand your point, about the distinction between the "regime" and the "country", but is it any way for a head of state to be talking? Are these words the words a head of state should be using at all?

Didn't Bush get reproached about calling Iran, Irak and NK "the Axis of Evil". I'm not sure about you, but Ahmadinejad's quotes about "death to Israel", "Israel is a stinking corpse" (and so on) seem far worst than the "Axis of Evil" quote.

I asked you once in another thread, and you didn't answer: Why the violent rhetoric if Ahmadinejad allegedly wants peace in the region?

 

[RandFan]

If I were Iran I'd much rather have things pointed at me than be invaded.

Nuclear weapons have never stopped conventional war. America has been in war with Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and other skirmishes. Our nuclear weapons won't prevent us from being atacked.

Was getting nukes the dumbest thing Pakistan ever did?

Yeah. It was. I think every nation that has acquired them has a noose around its neck. (see links below)

America isn't criticized so much for its rhetoric about Saddam being a madman, terrorist, false claims, etc., we're criticized because we invaded the country.

The rhetoric scared and pissed people off. People were marching in the streets BEFORE the invasion.

Can you guarantee that if Iran ceases working for nukes the US will neither invade, nor foment internal strife for say, the next 20 years?

There are no guarantees but what pretext will the US use for invasion? What good would it do America?

Take away all the rhetoric and all the ideology. A country already allied with one of two nuclear powers in your area quickly allies with the other one (which is a dictatorship at the time), and invades a non-nuclear country on your border as a result of an attack on them. During the following year it calls you one of an "Axis of Evil", another member of which, also on your border, it invades using dubious justification, against most international wisdom. It begins testing the waters for similar justifications it just used to invade your neighbor. It puts part of your armed forces on its FTO, which move could be argued to give justification for an invasion. Surely there's a rather simple national security equation to make here. Get nukes.

I think there is a much safer equation. Focus on governing your country and stop giving the people with nukes and large armies a reason to ramp up an arsenal against you. Nuclear weapons aren't going to save Iran and they are idiots if they honestly think they will.

It rather sucks knowing someone has thermo nuclear devices pointed at you.

I wish like hell America never got them. I wish we could figure out away not be a nuclear power and stop playing world police. I'm not an isolationist but playing last emperor hasn't done us much good.

Fail-Safe (1964)

Fail-Safe (2000)

Dr. Strangelove

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[FireGarden]

I understand your point, about the distinction between the "regime" and the "country", but is it any way for a head of state to be talking? Are these words the words a head of state should be using at all?

Didn't Bush get reproached about calling Iran, Irak and NK "the Axis of Evil". I'm not sure about you, but Ahmadinejad's quotes about "death to Israel", "Israel is a stinking corpse" (and so on) seem far worst than the "Axis of Evil" quote.

So Bush talks softly but hits other nations on the head with a big stick. Ahmadinejad's rhetoric isn't helpful from the point of view of getting the problems to go away. You want to decide who is worse? Go ahead.


ETA:

I asked you once in another thread, and you didn't answer: Why the violent rhetoric if Ahmadinejad allegedly wants peace in the region?

Some of his comments are to make clear that attacking Iran will be expensive. Others simply crow about things going badly for America and Israel.

Why did Bush talk about WW3 if Iran even gains the knowledge of how to build a nuclear weapon?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/10/20071017.html

we got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.

Neither actually wants to start a war, because both know it will be expensive.

 

[FireGarden]

Nuclear weapons have never stopped conventional war. America has been in war with Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and other skirmishes. Our nuclear weapons won't prevent us from being atacked.

Yeah. It was. I think every nation that has acquired them has a noose around its neck. (see links below)

Having nuclear weapons brings problems. But it also solves others. Compare Iraq and N Korea.

And, regardless of what Bush said above, Iran simply having the technical ability to build nuclear weapons has made America think twice about attacking. At least by openly doing it themselves, or by openly letting Israel do it -- there are some reports of American support for terrorist groups which attack Iran, unproven so far.

The NIE has said that Iran has the ability to build a nuke, it would just take time and resources. It's a bit of a deterrent. It means that an attack on Iran can't just be a one-off bombing campaign -- regardless of how Iran responds to the initial attack.

 

[Dragoonster]

Nuclear weapons have never stopped conventional war.

I beg to differ. Most recent example may be Pakistan, whether vs. us or vs. India.

America has been in war with Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and other skirmishes. Our nuclear weapons won't prevent us from being atacked.

No, our thousands-mile wide oceans to either side will. None of the countries you mentioned had nukes at the time either. We've never invaded a nation with nukes.

Yeah. It was. I think every nation that has acquired them has a noose around its neck. (see links below)

So we should let Iran have nukes?

The rhetoric scared and pissed people off. People were marching in the streets BEFORE the invasion.

Because they knew the US would make good on its rhetoric. Iran never sided with the other Arab countries during their wars with Israel. And it's never started a war.

There are no guarantees but what pretext will the US use for invasion? What good would it do America?

I wondered the same before Iraq, and it didn't matter.

I think there is a much safer equation. Focus on governing your country and stop giving the people with nukes and large armies a reason to ramp up an arsenal against you.

Which could apply as well or more to the United States.

Nuclear weapons aren't going to save Iran and they are idiots if they honestly think they will.

It rather sucks knowing someone has thermo nuclear devices pointed at you.

I wish like hell America never got them. I wish we could figure out away not be a nuclear power and stop playing world police. I'm not an isolationist but playing last emperor hasn't done us much good.

It's not hard to figure out how to stop playing world police. Hundreds of other countries have and are doing fine.

Be careful what you wish for.

I'm not sure what you think I am wishing for. As an American, I wish my country would end the rhetorical hypocrisy, propping up of dictators while espousing democracy, switching loyalties on a dime, invading and staging coups, and supporting Israel with $billions a year with no conditions. I wish we would stop screwing up the Middle East. Not try to fix it--we've proven we suck at that too. Just back off and view it as a trading area and not much more.

As for what I wish for Iran, I wish them health. Same as Israel and any other country.

 

[DC]

Yes, they are. Provide evidence to the contrary. I'm sure there were
a lot of other Photographs at this historic "Israel-wiping" event that
took photos from different perspectives. And yes, I know that Photos
from the Pentagon can fool Americans into believing to go to war. So
I'm not impressed at all. Your point -however- is... ?

And you seem to agree. Ahmadinejad never said "I will wipe Israel off the map".
See, one step closer to the truth.

http://www.shawnbaldwin.com

the guy that took the picture in question.
look at his other pictures, i dont have the ompression he faked it. Nor do i have the impression he had an agenda while taking pictures.

 

[Pardalis]

So Bush talks softly but hits other nations on the head with a big stick. Ahmadinejad's rhetoric isn't helpful from the point of view of getting the problems to go away. You want to decide who is worse? Go ahead.

"Axis of Evil"

"Death to Israel"

Which is worse, from a diplomatic view? I think the answer is obvious, you obviously have a bias if you think the latter is inoffensive.

Some of his comments are to make clear that attacking Iran will be expensive. Others simply crow about things going badly for America and Israel.

This doesn't answer my question.

Why did Bush talk about WW3 if Iran even gains the knowledge of how to build a nuclear weapon?

This doesn't answer my question, again.

In the Bush quote you just posted, he speaks of Ahmadinejad's violent rhetoric. So it's Ahmadinejad rhetoric that starts all the trouble. If he wants peace, then why does he uses these words?

With that quote you've just shot your argument in the foot. Your quote proves Ahmadinejad is the agent provocateur in this conflict.

 

[Oliver]

"Axis of Evil"

"Death to Israel"

Which is worse, from a diplomatic view? I think the answer is obvious, you obviously have a bias if you think the latter is inoffensive.


This doesn't answer my question.

This doesn't answer my question, again.

In the Bush quote you just posted, he speaks of Ahmadinejad's violent rhetoric. So it's Ahmadinejad rhetoric that starts all the trouble. If he wants peace, then why does he uses these words?

With that quote you've just shot your argument in the foot. Your quote proves Ahmadinejad is the agent provocateur in this conflict.

Oh, what Rhetoric did others use that made little Bush invade their countries?

So it all comes down to "My free speech is good. Your free speech
is evil"? - despite history being in disagreement regarding the facts?

And who the **** said "Death to Israel"??? I still didn't read anything
about the Iranian Regime saying that. And you thinking they "mean"
this or that is Trooferish, at best.

 

[Pardalis]

So it all comes down to "My free speech is good. Your free speech
is evil"? - despite history being in disagreement regarding the facts?

It's not about free speech, it's about a certain decorum and protocol in world diplomacy. Heads of state can't just call for the death and destruction of another country without any consequences.

If Ahmadinejad's rhetoric wasn't this vile and aggressive the US might be less aggressive in return.

And who the **** said "Death to Israel"??? I still didn't read anything
about the Iranian Regime saying that. And you thinking they "mean"
this or that is Trooferish, at best.

http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showpost.php?p=4046433&postcount=26

It doesn't really matter if he meant the "regime" or the "country", it's bad enough that he used that kind of language, and keeps using it given the present tensions.

 

[Oliver]

It's not about free speech, it's about a certain decorum and protocol in world diplomacy. Heads of state can't just call for the death and destruction of another country without any consequences.

If Ahmadinejad's rhetoric wasn't this vile and aggressive the US might be less aggressive in return.

http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showpost.php?p=4046433&postcount=26

It doesn't really matter if he meant the "regime" or the "country", it's bad enough that he used that kind of language, and keeps using it given the present tensions.

What death and destruction of what country? What are you dreaming
about here?

If I say that Israel will collapse due to taking a dead end road, are
you going to say that I want to destroy Israel?

Ahmadinejad said exactly that: The Zionist movement will vanish due
to a self-inflicted collapse.

Where the heck does that mean: "Die Jews, die! I nuke you. Genocide
much!!!111! I kill you - and you, too!".

But seriously: Ahmadinejad isn't a westerner like you. He does not
have to take a western point of view. He is not a member of the
western world. You understand such simple things, don't you?

I'm asking because you behave like if you assume that Middle-Eastern
people have to act in a western way. Which, of course, is idiotic - at best!

 

[Pardalis]

What death and destruction of what country? What are you dreaming about here?

But seriously: Ahmadinejad isn't a westerner like you. He does not
have to take a western point of view. He is not a member of the
western world. You understand such simple things, don't you?

Are you saying that since he's not a westerner, he's not bound by international treaties and regulations?

You really like to bend over backwards for this guy that much?

 

[Oliver]

Are you saying that since he's not a westerner, he's not bound by international treaties and regulations?

You really like to bend over backwards for this guy that much?

What the ...! Goury, are you telling me that because the Videos
subtitle says "Death to Israel", that's exactly what Ahmadinejad
said? ... You are a truther!

Funny that the Media around the world missed that Youtube video.

And what do you mean by "international treaties and regulations"?
Iran is member of the international IAEA - they didn't have to join
them, but they did. And they are providing all information the IAEA
have a right to know. Therefore, they are allowed to have a reactor,
no matter what Isreal or America wants.

So who exactly seems to be unbound to "international treaties and
regulations" here?

Also, Iran is an independent, sovereign country. If they don't want
French-Canadian Germans in their country, so be it. That's what
sovereignty is all about - and no matter if both of us are complaining
about it or not.

 

[FireGarden]

"Axis of Evil"

"Death to Israel"

Which is worse, from a diplomatic view? I think the answer is obvious, you obviously have a bias if you think the latter is inoffensive.

I really don't care which rhetoric is worse.
The actions of Bush are far worse than the actions of Iran. That matters much more.

Heads of state can't just call for the death and destruction of another country without any consequences.

But they can go around bombing other nations? Bush talks softly and very nicely. But he's a barstool. Out of Ahmadinejad and Bush, who is the closer to Hitler? Bush. By a few 100,000 deaths.

This doesn't answer my question.

This doesn't answer my question, again.

It does answer your question.
Iran doesn't want to be attacked. So they talk tough. Or, at least, they get some of their politicians to talk tough. If you can't see that as an answer, then you have a big problem.

In the Bush quote you just posted, he speaks of Ahmadinejad's violent rhetoric. So it's Ahmadinejad rhetoric that starts all the trouble. If he wants peace, then why does he uses these words?

With that quote you've just shot your argument in the foot. Your quote proves Ahmadinejad is the agent provocateur in this conflict.

America's rhetoric has always been sweetness and light but translates into "Our way or the highway". And it has always been backed up with war. Name the years in which America did not bomb a foreign country and stop judging things as a poetry contest.

I couldn't give a damn whose rhetoric is worse.

 

[Pardalis]

I really don't care which rhetoric is worse.

But that's what my question was about. Thanks for not answering again.

But they can go around bombing other nations? Bush talks softly and very nicely. But he's a barstool. Out of Ahmadinejad and Bush, who is the closer to Hitler? Bush. By a few 100,000 deaths.

Thanks for the Godwin point, and therefore making me win this argument.

It does answer your question.
Iran doesn't want to be attacked. So they talk tough. Or, at least, they get some of their politicians to talk tough. If you can't see that as an answer, then you have a big problem.

It's not an answer, it's a pathetic apologetic excuse.

You're trying to make it seem "normal" for a head of state to be using such words. The "He's just talking tough" BS doesn't work, he is accountable for the words he uses, especially in such a volatile region, especially in such tense times.

I couldn't give a damn whose rhetoric is worse.

I couldn't give a damn about what you don't give a damn, it only is obvious you don't want to answer the question, and are making gymnastics to excuse Ahmadinejad and bring this always back to the US' fault.

This is not about the US, we're talking about Iran.

Besides, your Hitler reference has made you lose all credibility.

 

[gtc]

IBecause they knew the US would make good on its rhetoric. Iran never sided with the other Arab countries during their wars with Israel. And it's never started a war.

But they fund and equip Hamas and Hezbollah who have regularly attacked Israel.

But they can go around bombing other nations? Bush talks softly and very nicely. But he's a barstool. Out of Ahmadinejad and Bush, who is the closer to Hitler? Bush. By a few 100,000 deaths.

What a stupid comparison.

 

[RandFan]

I beg to differ. Most recent example may be Pakistan, whether vs. us or vs. India.

Speculating is always fun.

So we should let Iran have nukes?

"Let?" I'm not so presumptuous. It amazes how much people like Oliver and others speak with such confidence as to what will happen given A or B.

Because they knew the US would make good on its rhetoric. Iran never sided with the other Arab countries during their wars with Israel. And it's never started a war.

Oh, well.... are you serious? All I can say is I guess the concern over at the UN is for naught then... on the other hand... yeah, I'm going to go with the UN and the others that say this is something that ought to concern us.

I wondered the same before Iraq, and it didn't matter.

Again, serous? You didn't know anything about 12 years of WMD? I don't know about you but I could see that pretext coming a mile away.

Which could apply as well or more to the United States.

Duh! Sorry. But I'm not at all happy about the US beating the war drums.

I wish we would stop screwing up the Middle East. Not try to fix it--we've proven we suck at that too. Just back off and view it as a trading area and not much more.

Sounds good. I don't think we've screwed up the Middle East. I'm quite confident it is, was and likely will be screwed up plenty without the US. I think in some ways we help. In some ways we exacerbate. If you honestly think all of the problems in the Mid-East are America's making then you've been drinking the Kool-Aid.

FTR: America isn't really just a boogey man. These nations that bitch and moan about America are happy to take our money when we hand it out. And having a Democracy in the Mid-East isn't really the worst thing in the world. I'm not happy with America's role as world police but don't get drunk on the idea that the problems of this world are all due to America or that the world would break out in peace and prosperity if America were simply to go away. That's such tired old propaganda that has no basis in reality.

As for what I wish for Iran, I wish them health. Same as Israel and any other country.

Don't hold your breath if America turns its back. Perhaps we should turn our back but don't think for a moment that Iran wishes for Israel's health.