U.S. Draft Call - War with Iran

slightofjeff · July 2008

_outlaw wrote:

It was one time, and yes, he was COMPLETELY and KNOWINGLY misquoted. In fact, he was QUOTING someone else while saying that, and the ridiculous media misquoted that.

One time? He's been saying it for years. It's practically his goddamn middle name. Listen, if you want to continue to believe Iran actually wants to be big buddies with Israel, and only plans to use its nuclear program to bake cookies to take to Ehud Olmert's grandson's bah mitzvah ... well, I don't know what to tell you.

Unfortunately, I don't decide to bomb people based on what I "think" most of them want. Not only that, but just because they don't agree with the occupation does not mean they deserve to be bombed.

Nobody (on this thread anyway) is saying Israel should bomb Iran based on what they "think" Iran might do. We're saying you can understand the skittishness and uncertainty that would lead to this sort of macho posturing on Israel's part. As of now they haven't launched anything but words.

rebornFixer · July 2008

_outlaw wrote:

WRONG. HE NEVER SAID THIS.

In fact, the idiot media translated it COMPLETELY wrong.
First of all, he was quoting a senior muslim scholar, he wasn't using his own words.
Second of all, he DID NOT call for Israel to be wiped off the map... he said "one day the Zionist regime [WHICH IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAT ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT THE COUNTRY OF ISRAEL] will be wiped from the pages of history."

Referring Israel to the "Zionist regime" is like referring the US to the "Bush administration." Ahmadinejad is against the illegal occupation. THat last quote you put was perfect:
Israel "is an illegitimate regime, there is no legal basis for its existence," he said.

He doesn't mean all Israelis deserve to die and go to hell. He means that Israel, in its current state, is illegal to exist. It's as simple as that.

EDIT: I'm at work. Can someone else please post that George Galloway video?

I think you're speculating about what this guy actually meant just as much as his detractors (myself included) are speculating. And who is George Galloway, and why would anyone possibly wish to go to bat for the president of Iran, assuming that's what this video does? "No guys, no ... He's just misunderstood!!!" ... fuck.

fuck · July 2008

reborncareerist wrote:

Like slight said, different universes. Hezbollah is grounded in fundamentalist doctrine, and the Lebanese government "works with them" because it has no choice. I do not view them as a legitimate resistence group. If they were, Israel would actually have to had conquered and occupied Lebanon. They invaded in 1982 and again more recently to battle militants. Then they left. What does Hez continue to resist? Answer: The existence of Israel. I don't view this as a legit political or social goal.

Israel, at various points in history, occupied many parts of Lebanon. In fact, Israel's troops didn't officially leave until, what, 2000?

Hezbollah does not only live to "destroy" Israel as you put it. They are not against the existence of Israel. I love how you only focus on the most extreme views possible. Either Hezbollah wants them completely out of Lebanon or completely out of the world. It's not possible that Hezbollah wants Israel to give up the illegal occupied territories or anything (much like 90% of the world does).

Hezbollah also is still alive because they've become a legitimate political and social group in Lebanon. One can also argue that they are alive to resist Western dependence. You can see that the Western powers keep interfering in Lebanese politics, and the people of Lebanon simply don't like it. That's why Hezbollah has so much support.

And saying the Lebanese government works with them because they're forced to is just a cheap argument. The fact of the matter is that Hezbollah politically and socially supports many people in Lebanon.

EDIT: Oh, and just cause Israel "left" Lebanon does not mean that they still don't hold hundreds of prisoners or anything.

fuck · July 2008

reborncareerist wrote:

I think you're speculating about what this guy actually meant just as much as his detractors (myself included) are speculating. And who is George Galloway, and why would anyone possibly wish to go to bat for the president of Iran, assuming that's what this video does? "No guys, no ... He's just misunderstood!!!" ... fuck.

I'm taking the literal meanings for what they are.

slightofjeff · July 2008

I kind of wondered what happened to Baghdad Bob after the invasion.

Now I know.

fuck · July 2008

slightofjeff wrote:

One time? He's been saying it for years. It's practically his goddamn middle name. Listen, if you want to continue to believe Iran actually wants to be big buddies with Israel, and only plans to use its nuclear program to bake cookies to take to Ehud Olmert's grandson's bah mitzvah ... well, I don't know what to tell you.

He's never said "Israel should be wiped off the map."
And I never said Iran wants to be big buddies with Israel... I said that they don't support Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine... how is that anywhere near t he same thing?

You guys focus on extremes WAY too much. Either someone wants to wipe someone off the map, or he wants to be "big buddies" with them. :rolleyes:

Nobody (on this thread anyway) is saying Israel should bomb Iran based on what they "think" Iran might do. We're saying you can understand the skittishness and uncertainty that would lead to this sort of macho posturing on Israel's part. As of now they haven't launched anything but words.

You have no proof of anything you've been saying. No proof they have nukes, no proof they wanna wipe Israel off the map, or attack it... nothing... it's all based on what you THINK. And Israel/the US wanna bomb Iran if and when it feels "threatened"...

rebornFixer · July 2008

_outlaw wrote:

I'm taking the literal meanings for what they are.

Is the exact literal translation "The Isreali people have a right to exist, I just disagree with their government's policies and think they need a regime change"?

fuck · July 2008

reborncareerist wrote:

Is the exact literal translation "The Isreali people have a right to exist, I just disagree with their government's policies and think they need a regime change"?

The exact literal translation is: I disagree with the government policies and their current regime is oppressive and illegal.

Even IF Ahmadinejad THINKS all Israelis should die (which is just ridiculous to assume), you can't accuse him of that because he never even HINTED at that.
Ahmadinejad, like everyone else, deserves the benefit of the doubt, and he actually has said on several occasions that he loves the American people, it's just our governments (the US and Israel) that he does not like.

slightofjeff · July 2008

_outlaw wrote:

You have no proof of anything you've been saying. No proof they have nukes, no proof they wanna wipe Israel off the map, or attack it... nothing... it's all based on what you THINK.

No, it's all based on what the president of Iran has SAID. Except you don't believe he has ever said that. Which is why this argument is pointless.

rebornFixer · July 2008

_outlaw wrote:

The exact literal translation is: I disagree with the government policies and their current regime is oppressive and illegal.

Even IF Ahmadinejad THINKS all Israelis should die (which is just ridiculous to assume), you can't accuse him of that because he never even HINTED at that.
Ahmadinejad, like everyone else, deserves the benefit of the doubt, and he actually has said on several occasions that he loves the American people, it's just our governments (the US and Israel) that he does not like.

Well, if that's really the literal translation, he's guilty of being an extreme hypocrite, which I suppose is better than being an advocate of genocide. As has been mentioned before, he's made the "map" remarks on several occasions. Have they been mistranslated each time?

fuck · July 2008

slightofjeff wrote:

No, it's all based on what the president of Iran has SAID. Except you don't believe he has ever said that. Which is why this argument is pointless.

I believe in facts, and it's a pure fact that he never said that.

fuck · July 2008

reborncareerist wrote:

Well, if that's really the literal translation, he's guilty of being an extreme hypocrite, which I suppose is better than being an advocate of genocide. As has been mentioned before, he's made the "map" remarks on several occasions. Have they been mistranslated each time?

several occasions? It only sounds like that because everytime the media talks about Ahmadinejad they bring up that quote, but he never said it.

lastexit78 · July 2008

I think this whole Iran topic shows how fucked up our media has become. Both sides use Iran as a scare tactic. People actually buy into this crap and the next thing we know we have posts about a Draft for a war that will likely never take place. The Liberals write articles daily describing how Bush is sending us to war with Iran before the end of his term. They've been saying it for at least 3 years and still nothing. Chances are unless Iran does something completely stupid it's not going to happen. Weren't these same people telling you how war with North Korea was unavoidable?

Meanwhile we have the Republians who use Iran to scare us in a different way. They keep telling us Iran is a huge threat to the world despite the fact that they've yet to make a hostile act towards any other country in the region. They claims all of Iraq's problems are a result of Iran and people actually buy this garbage as well. It helps push support for the mess in Iraq and people eat it up.

Meanwhile the truth is on neither side. Iran much like Iraq of 6 years ago is not the problem that both sides claim. They're a country run by a juvenile leader who enjoys the Worlds attention more than anything else. Were not attacking them and they're not going to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Besides an attack on Iran would probably drive oil prices up around $200 a barrell according to OPEC. A move that would probably officially send our economy into the worst mess since the Great Depression. Not to mention war for Iran would mean getting bombed and mutilated 10x worse that what Iraq got. It's just not going to happen. Neither side has anything to gain from war and as we know war only happens when it's profitable for one side or both.

rebornFixer · July 2008

_outlaw wrote:

several occasions? It only sounds like that because everytime the media talks about Ahmadinejad they bring up that quote, but he never said it.

Well, the controversy about what the man did or did not say remains, and for the record, I have issues with his policies and fundamentalism that go way beyond the specific Israel issue. This is the man who claimed that homosexuals do not exist in Iran, and who has a known history of strongly suppressing political dissenters in Tehran, a city known for education, free thinking and secularism. He is popular with those who think that women should not go to school, and who think that infidels deserve nothing better than a fiery death, and this is itself rather telling. Nope, not a fan of the guy.
I'd give him the benefit of the doubt on Israel if all of his other behaviors led me to believe that he deserves said benefit of the doubt.

fuck · July 2008

reborncareerist wrote:

Well, the controversy about what the man did or did not say remains, and for the record, I have issues with his policies and fundamentalism that go way beyond the specific Israel issue. This is the man who claimed that homosexuals do not exist in Iran, and who has a known history of strongly suppressing political dissenters in Tehran, a city known for education, free thinking and secularism. He is popular with those who think that women should not go to school, and who think that infidels deserve nothing better than a fiery death, and this is itself rather telling. Nope, not a fan of the guy.

Do any of those ideas make Iran a threat?

I'd give him the benefit of the doubt on Israel if all of his other behaviors led me to believe that he deserves said benefit of the doubt.

How can you compare someone saying "we don't have homosexuals" to someone wanting to wipe a country off a map?

fuck · July 2008

lastexit78 wrote:

I think this whole Iran topic shows how fucked up our media has become. Both sides use Iran as a scare tactic. People actually buy into this crap and the next thing we know we have posts about a Draft for a war that will likely never take place. The Liberals write articles daily describing how Bush is sending us to war with Iran before the end of his term. They've been saying it for at least 3 years and still nothing. Chances are unless Iran does something completely stupid it's not going to happen. Weren't these same people telling you how war with North Korea was unavoidable?

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh

rebornFixer · July 2008

_outlaw wrote:

Do any of those ideas make Iran a threat?

How can you compare someone saying "we don't have homosexuals" to someone wanting to wipe a country off a map?

Nope, and note that no where did I say that "Iran is a threat and must be bombed now". For the record, I do think Iran having nuclear weapons is a bad state of affairs, but I am willing to concede that they probably do not possess them as we speak.
As for your second point, no direct comparison was intended. My point was that the man's religious/political ideology maps perfectly onto the ideology of those who really DO admit to wanting to wipe Israel off the map, so its not such a huge stretch to assume that he thinks likewise, especially when he persists in mkaing these suggestive, controversial comments that are apparently quite open to interpretation. If he outright states "Hey, I never meant to say that Israel per se should be destroyed", I'll concede your point. Until then, his remarks remain open to interpretation. He hasnt exactly tried hard to clarify things. What's ironic is that there are people in the West who rush to his defense ... I can understand the desire to avoid war with Iran. I have more trouble with understanding the views of the apologists for Iran's fundamentalist government (see Baghdad Bob comment from an earlier post).

fuck · July 2008

reborncareerist wrote:

Nope, and note that no where did I say that "Iran is a threat and must be bombed now". For the record, I do think Iran having nuclear weapons is a bad state of affairs, but I am willing to concede that they probably do not possess them as we speak.

Well, you've pretty much been saying that Iran is a threat or has made threats... I agree that you never said they should be bombed obviously, but my whole argument is that Iran is not a threat.

I think ANYONE having nuclear weapons is a bad idea, which I think is something everyone can agree with.

As for your second point, no direct comparison was intended. My point was that the man's religious/political ideology maps perfectly onto the ideology of those who really DO admit to wanting to wipe Israel off the map, so its not such a huge stretch to assume that he thinks likewise, especially when he persists in mkaing these suggestive, controversial comments that are apparently quite open to interpretation.

It is a pretty long stretch because what you're doing now is creating a stereotype... well not "creating" it, but you're basing your opinion off one.

And it's not open to interpretation. it has 1 translation that is correct, and that is it. Also, he was quoting someone.

If he outright states "Hey, I never meant to say that Israel per se should be destroyed", I'll concede your point. Until then, his remarks remain open to interpretation. He hasnt exactly tried hard to clarify things.

Actually, the very next day someone in his council went public and corrected the mistake. The media just simply avoided it.

What's ironic is that there are people in the West who rush to his defense

How is that ironic at all?

... I can understand the desire to avoid war with Iran. I have more trouble with understanding the views of the apologists for Iran's fundamentalist government (see Baghdad Bob comment from an earlier post).

Religious =/= Fundamentalist

RolandTD20Kdrummer · July 2008

reborncareerist wrote:

And ... Iran could also consider ceasing all efforts to fund, train, and equip Israel's Islamic fundamentalist enemies ... You know, if they're serious about Israel backing off and all.

Do have any proven to be true links for this? All I've seen so far are ongoing accusation type articles that didn't pan out.

rebornFixer · July 2008

Nasrellah has stated that Hezbollah received arms and tech support from Iran prior to the last war. Why he would state this and not mean it is not clear to me. Israel recovered such weapons from the bodies of Hezbollah fighters during said war, and even claimed that Iranians were among the combatants. These are of course media reports, and one can just state that any given media report is wrong if one doesn't like what it says. One man's legit sources are another man's propaganda.

U.S. Draft Call - War with Iran

Comments

Categories