Now on the issue of this "Wipe Israel off the Map" thing, as it's been stated/proved many times. The entire meaning was American propaganda.
But fine, let's pretend he did say it, "Wipe Israel off the map", does anyone really think he could or would really do it? and how? All the propaganda people will have you believe that it all would be done with a nuke. But really, basic logic should kick in at this point, I mean a nuke on Israel would kill Palestinians also. You nutters really think that he would do that? Even if he hates Israel so much....
But fine, let's pretend he did say it, "Wipe Israel off the map"
I know your point was to show that either way, it'd make no sense for him to say it, but don't even fall prey to these ridiculous tactics that these people resort to to try to excuse all of Israel's actions, while try to make Iran out to be some rogue nation who wants to kill everyone.
, but don't even fall prey to these ridiculous tactics that these people resort to to try to excuse all of Israel's actions, while try to make Iran out to be some rogue nation who wants to kill everyone.
I'm not and will not fall prey to anything like this, don't worry about me. I'm even confident enough in pretending he said it, bcoz I know that whatever way you look at the issue, it just does not add up (wipe israel off the map)
I know the truth, so I have no worries debating any side and as I stated, we know what was really said and the meaning behind it.
Now on the issue of this "Wipe Israel off the Map" thing, as it's been stated/proved many times. The entire meaning was American propaganda.
But fine, let's pretend he did say it, "Wipe Israel off the map", does anyone really think he could or would really do it? and how? All the propaganda people will have you believe that it all would be done with a nuke. But really, basic logic should kick in at this point, I mean a nuke on Israel would kill Palestinians also. You nutters really think that he would do that? Even if he hates Israel so much....
...
The Iranian Military is a bigger joke than the iraqi Military. The parade around old F-14s and F-4s left over from the Shah days... and they don't even fly. The look cool... getting towed behind a donkey cart... but, they don't fly.
...
And during the 1980-1988 Iran/Iraq Quagmire... their policy was, 'Can you drive a truck? Good. You fly the C-130'. And no one fucking touched them damn helicopters.
Pretty much... Iraq.. Saddam's Iraq... could still... kick their... have a sissy slap fight with them.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I know your point was to show that either way, it'd make no sense for him to say it, but don't even fall prey to these ridiculous tactics that these people resort to to try to excuse all of Israel's actions, while try to make Iran out to be some rogue nation who wants to kill everyone.
Yep, because as you have always stated it is Israel that is the rogue nation that wants to kill everyone, right? Ridiculous tactics indeed.
cincy has a point ... It never ceases to amaze me how the same people who balk at American, Israel, or "Western" military projects get all worked up whenever someone says that the Russians or China should not sell weapons to so-called rogue states. Are you guys anti-military expansion in general, or are you anti-Western/pro-Islamic extremist/whatever ideology lurks beneath the rants? I'd like someone to admit it, come clean already, or else write more carefully ...
I don't have a problem with Iran getting help to protect itself from an attack.
An attack that they must believe is coming, based on all the American/Israeli threats.
I don't have a problem with Iran getting help to protect itself from an attack.
An attack that they must believe is coming, based on all the American/Israeli threats.
I have a problem with Iran acquiring any sort of sophicated weaponry. If they are that worried about an attack, they can take other sorts of action that do not involve further armaments. Sorry, but my general view is that more weapons into an already volatile region is a bullshit response akin to throwing gasoline on a fire. And that goes for arms sales to Israel, too. These nations should not receive more military hardware at this point in time. I find it quite difficult to fathom Russia's motives here, other than a general desire to become the new Soviet Union (i.e., a power capable of flipping the West the bird, so to speak ... That's what Georgia was about).
So you have no problem with the USA putting missle defense shields in Poland, etc then?
Firsty if you want we can break it down issue by issue country by country so at the end I can tie it all up up so you can get a better picture of what's going on.
So let's take Poland. Look at Israel, it has sold Poland hundreds of millions in arms. Or like the contract Poland signed in 2004?
Now, why does America arm most of the countries it does? Why the saudis? why Israel? Has to be a reason right?
---
Now why the threats against Iran?
I have a problem with Iran acquiring any sort of sophicated weaponry. If they are that worried about an attack, they can take other sorts of action that do not involve further armaments. Sorry, but my general view is that more weapons into an already volatile region is a bullshit response akin to throwing gasoline on a fire. And that goes for arms sales to Israel, too. These nations should not receive more military hardware at this point in time. I find it quite difficult to fathom Russia's motives here, other than a general desire to become the new Soviet Union (i.e., a power capable of flipping the West the bird, so to speak ... That's what Georgia was about).
No, Georgia was not about that!...Well not exactly like that. First you know that Irsael was plannig to attack Iran via two Georgian bases? You knew that eh?
Also Iran is getting defensive weapons, which they have a right to recieve, with all the threats by the US and Israel, how can anyone blame Iran for wanting to shield up?
Also the weapons Israel get's are far from only defensive, I mean America sits back and allows Israel to keep a supply of nukes, they don't even push Israel to sign any agreements. Even Iran signed the NPT which by law allows them to have nuclear energy.
No, Georgia was not about that!...Well not exactly like that. First you know that Irsael was plannig to attack Iran via two Georgian bases? You knew that eh?
Also Iran is getting defensive weapons, which they have a right to recieve, with all the threats by the US and Israel, how can anyone blame Iran for wanting to shield up?
Also the weapons Israel get's are far from only defensive, I mean America sits back and allows Israel to keep a supply of nukes, they don't even push Israel to sign any agreements. Even Iran signed the NPT which by law allows them to have nuclear energy.
Iran is allowed to have nuclear energy ... What's less clear is why they seem hell-bent on producing weapons-grade radioactive materials, though, which are not needed for energy purposes. As for the distinction between defensive and offensive weapons ... In this day and age, such a distinction is fairly spurious.
Anyhow, yes, Georgia was about that, at least in part. It was also probably about Russia gaining more territory. Russia would not invade Georgia to prevent an Israeli strike on Iran, that doesn't really make sense to me ... UNLESS, maybe they want a new market for weaponry. "Hey guys, we'll prevent Israel from using Georgian bases IF you buy our shitty SAMs ..." Actually, modern Russian missiles aren't too bad. They'd be unlikely to completely prevent an Israeli airstrike, but they'd inflict some damage.
cincy has a point ... It never ceases to amaze me how the same people who balk at American, Israel, or "Western" military projects get all worked up whenever someone says that the Russians or China should not sell weapons to so-called rogue states. Are you guys anti-military expansion in general, or are you anti-Western/pro-Islamic extremist/whatever ideology lurks beneath the rants? I'd like someone to admit it, come clean already, or else write more carefully ...
cincy has no point.
It's not that hard to get what I'm trying to say. I simply love how the same people who find no reason why Israel and the U.S. giving military support to Georgia is no big deal, but Russia giving military support to Iran or Syria is a big deal. It's just completely hypocritical. Also, like MrBrian said, Iran getting weapons right now while it is constantly being threatened by Israel and the U.S. is perfectly understandable... in fact, did you know an Israeli minister just threatened to kidnap the Iranian president? yep, I'd say Iran has every right to get these defensive weapons.
It's not that hard to get what I'm trying to say. I simply love how the same people who find no reason why Israel and the U.S. giving military support to Georgia is no big deal, but Russia giving military support to Iran or Syria is a big deal. It's just completely hypocritical. Also, like MrBrian said, Iran getting weapons right now while it is constantly being threatened by Israel and the U.S. is perfectly understandable... in fact, did you know an Israeli minister just threatened to kidnap the Iranian president? yep, I'd say Iran has every right to get these defensive weapons.
Really? Cool ... Who'd miss that asshole? Kipnap him, I say, and then imprison him in the basement of some underground gay club in Tehran.
In all seriousness, though, many people do perceive a difference between supplying weaponry to a secular democracy and supplying weaponry to a state run by religious extremists with a known history of making threats. My own view, expressed earlier, is that no more weaponry should get funneled into the Middle East, to ANY state, Islamic or otherwise. Its not a realistic goal, but I do feel that more weapons in that region is just a guarantee that yet more people will die.
Really? Cool ... Who'd miss that asshole? Kipnap him, I say, and then imprison him in the basement of some underground gay club in Tehran.
That's just idiotic, but the Israeli Minister thought he should be kidnapped and tried in court.
In all seriousness, though, many people do perceive a difference between supplying weaponry to a secular democracy and supplying weaponry to a state run by religious extremists with a known history of making threats.
...
there is just so much wrong with that, I don't even know where to begin...
Georgia is a secular democracy? Oh, and how about the U.S. giving weapons to Israel? Is that fine, but Russia giving to Iran isn't? and since when did Iran have a 'known history of making threats'? Iran has never started a war in decades, not to mention the fact that they've never even threatened Israel with anything but self-defense.
My own view, expressed earlier, is that no more weaponry should get funneled into the Middle East, to ANY state, Islamic or otherwise. Its not a realistic goal, but I do feel that more weapons in that region is just a guarantee that yet more people will die.
It's not realistic, you're right. However, right now, do you not think that Iran being supplied with defense missiles is fine, considering the threats it has been receiving?
That's just idiotic, but the Israeli Minister thought he should be kidnapped and tried in court.
...
there is just so much wrong with that, I don't even know where to begin...
Georgia is a secular democracy? Oh, and how about the U.S. giving weapons to Israel? Is that fine, but Russia giving to Iran isn't? and since when did Iran have a 'known history of making threats'? Iran has never started a war in decades, not to mention the fact that they've never even threatened Israel with anything but self-defense.
It's not realistic, you're right. However, right now, do you not think that Iran being supplied with defense missiles is fine, considering the threats it has been receiving?
I'll just ignore the obvious lack of a sense of humour today, not to mention the veiled implication that I am an idiot, and answer your question. No, I do not think Iran is entitled to receive modern anti-aircraft weaponry from Russia.
I'll just ignore the obvious lack of a sense of humour today, not to mention the veiled implication that I am an idiot, and answer your question. No, I do not think Iran is entitled to receive modern anti-aircraft weaponry from Russia.
I'm all hopped up on vicodin right now, not in the mood of laughing, sorry.
basically, you don't think Iran should be allowed to receive defense weapons, even though Israel receives plenty of weapons, and has made threats?
I'm all hopped up on vicodin right now, not in the mood of laughing, sorry.
basically, you don't think Iran should be allowed to receive defense weapons, even though Israel receives plenty of weapons, and has made threats?
Ok.
Yep. In many cases I could justify a nation acquiring so-called defensive weapons, but not in the case of Iran. Sorry. I do not think Iran should acquire/produce weapons-grade nuclear material, and although a military strike should be the last possible resort, said strike is on the table. I think I'd balk at the possibility of full-scale war with Iran under the current circumstances, but an airstrike on key facilities is not full-scale war.
cincy has a point ... It never ceases to amaze me how the same people who balk at American, Israel, or "Western" military projects get all worked up whenever someone says that the Russians or China should not sell weapons to so-called rogue states. Are you guys anti-military expansion in general, or are you anti-Western/pro-Islamic extremist/whatever ideology lurks beneath the rants? I'd like someone to admit it, come clean already, or else write more carefully ...
I think the problem most of us "anti-Semite, pro-Muslims" have is that the western establishment has a long history and a continuing penchant for "warning", strong-arming, or otherwise threatening muslim\eastern\soviet block countries that are doing nothing more or less self serving than the west is doing.
However, because the west has the clear tactical\technological\financial advantage (and because it seems to have a larger network of boobs entangled in its massive propaganda web), it seems to think that it can get away with continuing to outright extort and threaten the "east" and, even worse, it actually twists reality to paint the east as the enemy or the "evil wrongdoer" when in fact it is the West acting out of pure white man's imperialist ambition, and manipulating public opinion to dupe the brown man, the red man, and any one with opposing ideals, really.
THAT is what is really going on.
Its not that we support Russia, or Iran, or Islam, or communism, and that we hate America.
We simply hate how a certain elite power sect has manipulated the American complex, whored out its inhabitants, and turned our own country against the rest of the world in a cruel and perverse grab for global domination.
If Iran ever actually threatened anyone (and i mean legitimately threatened, NOT as a response to provocation by the west) i would be all for stern talk and threats of force.
But all we ever do is go around threatening the little guy simply because he stands in the way of some great white mans plan.
Why do you want to turn our good natured intent in to some sort of weird muslim extremist plot?
Aren't we ever in agreement?
:(
ps.
and why the fuck can't Iran have nuclear POWER?
Don't they have a sovereign right to pursue such PEACEFUL ambitions?
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
ps.
and why the fuck can't Iran have nuclear POWER?
Don't they have a sovereign right to pursue such PEACEFUL ambitions?
I am sure if you sat the two of us down and we talked solutions to the Israel/Palestine dilemma, such that our our solution could actually be implemented (wouldn't that rock?), Palestine would be an actual state and Israel would have to withdraw to pre-1967 borders. So yeah ... We can agree on things.
However, if you were to use a phrase like "white man's plan" during our meeting, I'd have to be persuaded not to leave and to do my utmost to keep taking you seriously.
yikes....I didn't think there anyone still believed the wiped from the map thing was actually said. I thought everyone and their dog knew that was a misconstrued propaganda hit piece...apparently not.
I suppose I also can't be surprised if McCain wins and reinstates the draft...
it's like picking fish in a barrel...says John...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
yikes....I didn't think there anyone still believed the wiped from the map thing was actually said. I thought everyone and their dog knew that was a misconstrued propaganda hit piece...apparently not.
I suppose I also can't be surprised if McCain wins and reinstates the draft...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Firsty if you want we can break it down issue by issue country by country so at the end I can tie it all up up so you can get a better picture of what's going on.
So let's take Poland. Look at Israel, it has sold Poland hundreds of millions in arms. Or like the contract Poland signed in 2004?
Now, why does America arm most of the countries it does? Why the saudis? why Israel? Has to be a reason right?
---
Now why the threats against Iran?
My point being, it seems that one should either be ok with all these countries and their defense missiles, etc...or against them all.
I know that's a little black and white and you have to believe that they are indeed "defense missiles.
It's not that hard to get what I'm trying to say. I simply love how the same people who find no reason why Israel and the U.S. giving military support to Georgia is no big deal, but Russia giving military support to Iran or Syria is a big deal. It's just completely hypocritical. Also, like MrBrian said, Iran getting weapons right now while it is constantly being threatened by Israel and the U.S. is perfectly understandable... in fact, did you know an Israeli minister just threatened to kidnap the Iranian president? yep, I'd say Iran has every right to get these defensive weapons.
I think we are actually saying the same thing, so if I have no point, neither do you. Thanks for reading.
Comments
But fine, let's pretend he did say it, "Wipe Israel off the map", does anyone really think he could or would really do it? and how? All the propaganda people will have you believe that it all would be done with a nuke. But really, basic logic should kick in at this point, I mean a nuke on Israel would kill Palestinians also. You nutters really think that he would do that? Even if he hates Israel so much....
I'm not and will not fall prey to anything like this, don't worry about me. I'm even confident enough in pretending he said it, bcoz I know that whatever way you look at the issue, it just does not add up (wipe israel off the map)
I know the truth, so I have no worries debating any side and as I stated, we know what was really said and the meaning behind it.
The Iranian Military is a bigger joke than the iraqi Military. The parade around old F-14s and F-4s left over from the Shah days... and they don't even fly. The look cool... getting towed behind a donkey cart... but, they don't fly.
...
And during the 1980-1988 Iran/Iraq Quagmire... their policy was, 'Can you drive a truck? Good. You fly the C-130'. And no one fucking touched them damn helicopters.
Pretty much... Iraq.. Saddam's Iraq... could still... kick their... have a sissy slap fight with them.
Hail, Hail!!!
You seriously don;t know why they'd be concerned?
So you have no problem with the USA putting missle defense shields in Poland, etc then?
Yep, because as you have always stated it is Israel that is the rogue nation that wants to kill everyone, right? Ridiculous tactics indeed.
An attack that they must believe is coming, based on all the American/Israeli threats.
I have a problem with Iran acquiring any sort of sophicated weaponry. If they are that worried about an attack, they can take other sorts of action that do not involve further armaments. Sorry, but my general view is that more weapons into an already volatile region is a bullshit response akin to throwing gasoline on a fire. And that goes for arms sales to Israel, too. These nations should not receive more military hardware at this point in time. I find it quite difficult to fathom Russia's motives here, other than a general desire to become the new Soviet Union (i.e., a power capable of flipping the West the bird, so to speak ... That's what Georgia was about).
Firsty if you want we can break it down issue by issue country by country so at the end I can tie it all up up so you can get a better picture of what's going on.
So let's take Poland. Look at Israel, it has sold Poland hundreds of millions in arms. Or like the contract Poland signed in 2004?
Now, why does America arm most of the countries it does? Why the saudis? why Israel? Has to be a reason right?
---
Now why the threats against Iran?
No, Georgia was not about that!...Well not exactly like that. First you know that Irsael was plannig to attack Iran via two Georgian bases? You knew that eh?
Also Iran is getting defensive weapons, which they have a right to recieve, with all the threats by the US and Israel, how can anyone blame Iran for wanting to shield up?
Also the weapons Israel get's are far from only defensive, I mean America sits back and allows Israel to keep a supply of nukes, they don't even push Israel to sign any agreements. Even Iran signed the NPT which by law allows them to have nuclear energy.
Iran is allowed to have nuclear energy ... What's less clear is why they seem hell-bent on producing weapons-grade radioactive materials, though, which are not needed for energy purposes. As for the distinction between defensive and offensive weapons ... In this day and age, such a distinction is fairly spurious.
Anyhow, yes, Georgia was about that, at least in part. It was also probably about Russia gaining more territory. Russia would not invade Georgia to prevent an Israeli strike on Iran, that doesn't really make sense to me ... UNLESS, maybe they want a new market for weaponry. "Hey guys, we'll prevent Israel from using Georgian bases IF you buy our shitty SAMs ..." Actually, modern Russian missiles aren't too bad. They'd be unlikely to completely prevent an Israeli airstrike, but they'd inflict some damage.
It's not that hard to get what I'm trying to say. I simply love how the same people who find no reason why Israel and the U.S. giving military support to Georgia is no big deal, but Russia giving military support to Iran or Syria is a big deal. It's just completely hypocritical. Also, like MrBrian said, Iran getting weapons right now while it is constantly being threatened by Israel and the U.S. is perfectly understandable... in fact, did you know an Israeli minister just threatened to kidnap the Iranian president? yep, I'd say Iran has every right to get these defensive weapons.
Really? Cool ... Who'd miss that asshole? Kipnap him, I say, and then imprison him in the basement of some underground gay club in Tehran.
In all seriousness, though, many people do perceive a difference between supplying weaponry to a secular democracy and supplying weaponry to a state run by religious extremists with a known history of making threats. My own view, expressed earlier, is that no more weaponry should get funneled into the Middle East, to ANY state, Islamic or otherwise. Its not a realistic goal, but I do feel that more weapons in that region is just a guarantee that yet more people will die.
there is just so much wrong with that, I don't even know where to begin...
Georgia is a secular democracy? Oh, and how about the U.S. giving weapons to Israel? Is that fine, but Russia giving to Iran isn't? and since when did Iran have a 'known history of making threats'? Iran has never started a war in decades, not to mention the fact that they've never even threatened Israel with anything but self-defense. It's not realistic, you're right. However, right now, do you not think that Iran being supplied with defense missiles is fine, considering the threats it has been receiving?
I'll just ignore the obvious lack of a sense of humour today, not to mention the veiled implication that I am an idiot, and answer your question. No, I do not think Iran is entitled to receive modern anti-aircraft weaponry from Russia.
basically, you don't think Iran should be allowed to receive defense weapons, even though Israel receives plenty of weapons, and has made threats?
Ok.
What is the United States of America?
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmgphotos/4731512142/" title="PJ Banner2 by Mister J Photography, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1135/4731512142_258f2d6ab4_b.jpg" width="630" height="112" alt="PJ Banner2" /></a>
Yep. In many cases I could justify a nation acquiring so-called defensive weapons, but not in the case of Iran. Sorry. I do not think Iran should acquire/produce weapons-grade nuclear material, and although a military strike should be the last possible resort, said strike is on the table. I think I'd balk at the possibility of full-scale war with Iran under the current circumstances, but an airstrike on key facilities is not full-scale war.
Oh, SNAPPPP ....
The United States is run by corporations, not religious fundamentalists. Duh.
I think the problem most of us "anti-Semite, pro-Muslims" have is that the western establishment has a long history and a continuing penchant for "warning", strong-arming, or otherwise threatening muslim\eastern\soviet block countries that are doing nothing more or less self serving than the west is doing.
However, because the west has the clear tactical\technological\financial advantage (and because it seems to have a larger network of boobs entangled in its massive propaganda web), it seems to think that it can get away with continuing to outright extort and threaten the "east" and, even worse, it actually twists reality to paint the east as the enemy or the "evil wrongdoer" when in fact it is the West acting out of pure white man's imperialist ambition, and manipulating public opinion to dupe the brown man, the red man, and any one with opposing ideals, really.
THAT is what is really going on.
Its not that we support Russia, or Iran, or Islam, or communism, and that we hate America.
We simply hate how a certain elite power sect has manipulated the American complex, whored out its inhabitants, and turned our own country against the rest of the world in a cruel and perverse grab for global domination.
If Iran ever actually threatened anyone (and i mean legitimately threatened, NOT as a response to provocation by the west) i would be all for stern talk and threats of force.
But all we ever do is go around threatening the little guy simply because he stands in the way of some great white mans plan.
Why do you want to turn our good natured intent in to some sort of weird muslim extremist plot?
Aren't we ever in agreement?
:(
ps.
and why the fuck can't Iran have nuclear POWER?
Don't they have a sovereign right to pursue such PEACEFUL ambitions?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Iranians are "assholes"
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/11/bush-iran-assholes/
I am sure if you sat the two of us down and we talked solutions to the Israel/Palestine dilemma, such that our our solution could actually be implemented (wouldn't that rock?), Palestine would be an actual state and Israel would have to withdraw to pre-1967 borders. So yeah ... We can agree on things.
However, if you were to use a phrase like "white man's plan" during our meeting, I'd have to be persuaded not to leave and to do my utmost to keep taking you seriously.
I suppose I also can't be surprised if McCain wins and reinstates the draft...
it's like picking fish in a barrel...says John...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
The best propaganda piece is a conspiracy theory.
apparently so....it's worked on a lot of people.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
My point being, it seems that one should either be ok with all these countries and their defense missiles, etc...or against them all.
I know that's a little black and white and you have to believe that they are indeed "defense missiles.
I think we are actually saying the same thing, so if I have no point, neither do you. Thanks for reading.