[Diligent]

So drooling, "DA-A They Are Really, Really Trying Tah Get A NOOOK-YUH-LERR Bomb!!" every five minutes is a completely meaningless and idiotic statement. We're really, really trying to seize control of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran too but trying doesn't mean much for us does it? Now, if we just had an excuse to bomb the whole region back to the fucking stone age and save the oil resources we'd be getting somewhere, huh? Hey, I know!
DA-A, They Are Really, Really Trying Tah Get DUH NOOOK-YUH-LERR BOMB!!!

But Ahkmadinejraidaad said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map. Fox told me so.

[Eauz]

"Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian," remarked Juan Cole, a Middle East specialist at the University of Michigan and critic of American policy who has argued that the Iranian president was misquoted. "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse." Since Iran has not "attacked another country aggressively for over a century," he said in an e-mail exchange, "I smell the whiff of war propaganda."

Link

According to the Middle East Media Research Institute:

"'Imam [Khomeini] said: 'This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.' This sentence is very wise. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise.

Link

In other words, the phrase was based in the same concept in regard to the Soviet Union, East Germany and the Apartheid regime in South Africa that have vanished. This concept of wiping Israel off the map is more of a translation in regard to Western war propaganda than it actually has any truth to it.

[redcarpet]

Israel has never threatened Iran

Netanyahu, or whomever represents Israel, when talking about Iran does nothing but threaten to attack it.

saying she poses an existential threat to other arab nations is just moronic, nor is there a single piece of evidence to support such a claim

Israel is the regional superpower of the Middle-East, has one of the best land forces(in most respects) in the region, WMD and the most advanced air force compared to any NATO power(except the US). To refuse to recognise Israel a a major military threat to any Arab nation in the region.

[monad]

who wants peace when you can profit from wars... the truth is really ugly.
you achieve peace if you approach in peace.
fox,cnn, abc,nbc,cbs ----> lies lies lies
most americans are in a state of deep trance.
democrats and republicans are actually one big party.
if you can see it.
i honestly think it is worse than "1984"!

[Genghis Khan]

Israel's threats are designed to preempt the rise of any potential competitor to it in the middle east, and are not a reaction to any threats made against it by Iran.

That's your opinion, and it's wrong.

Iran has never threatened Israel, and Israel has threatened Iran

Iran has indeed threatened Israel, and Israel has a right to make clear that she will not accept a scenario in which a country that wants it wiped off the face of the earth, has nukes.

Your point is wrong.

Iranian leaders use "death to [object of scorn]" very often, and have not followed it up with any sort of action

They've never built nuclear bombs before. If you fail to see how that changes things, then there isn't much left to be said.

Yes, chanting Death To Israel should be ignored

Again, not when the side chanting is building nukes.

And, No. Ahmadinejad did not say he would destroy Israel.

If I said that you should die and wiped off existence and I was getting a few guns, you would not be wrong to call the police on me.

Netanyahu, or whomever represents Israel, when talking about Iran does nothing but threaten to attack it.

Only in response to Iran's words and deeds. Israel DID NOT start this.

Israel is the regional superpower of the Middle-East, has one of the best land forces(in most respects) in the region, WMD and the most advanced air force compared to any NATO power(except the US).

Yes. For its size, the IDF is one of the strongest armies on earth. However, Israel has never said that another country should be wiped off the map.

Nor has the U.S, Russia, China or any other nuclear super power, which is why nobody's confronting any of them.

Iran has.

[redcarpet]

Iran has indeed threatened Israel

Prove it

Again, not when the side chanting is building nukes

There is no evidence of weaponisation of uranium. If you have any, let's see it

Israel DID NOT start this

Yes it did. It backed the Shah with money and arms from day one. If it didn't there'd certainly be less animosity.

Iran has

No it hasn't. If you look at the translated paragrapgh, you've clearly misrepresented what he said. After that sentence, talking about how one day the Palestinians may launch a wave of violence that topples the Israeli government, clearly indicates he means he anticipates Palestinians may do so in the future. He didn't say "we will wipe them off the map".

[Genghis Khan]

Prove it

If Iran says things like death to Israel and "with the help of god, the zionist regime will be destroyed", Israel has every right not to ignore it, and it takes a real moron to say that those kind of statements cannot, in anyway shape or form, be viewed as threats.

There is no evidence of weaponisation of uranium. If you have any, let's see it

What about the facility recently uncovered in Qom? On August 20th, Iran has permitted U.N inspections into a water reactor and a Uranium enrichment site.

Iran says it was originally intended for peaceful purposes. I say they're full of shit.

Yes it did. It backed the Shah with money and arms from day one. If it didn't there'd certainly be less animosity.

Stupid answer. If I go back long enough, I can say the Egyptians started it when they enslaved the Israelis to build pyramids.

No it hasn't.

They have said everything but directly that. If that's enough for you to say: "they're obviously peaceful", I have the right to seriously question your judgment.

[redcarpet]

If Iran says things like death to Israel and "with the help of god, the zionist regime will be destroyed", Israel has every right not to ignore it

Lol

What about the facility recently uncovered in Qom? On August 20th, Iran has permitted U.N inspections into a water reactor and a Uranium enrichment site.

Iran says it was originally intended for peaceful purposes. I say they're full of shit.

So you have no evidence? Not surprising

Stupid answer.

Ask the Iranian foreign ministry then, lol.

They have said everything but directly that.

Then shut it.

I have the right to seriously question your judgment

My judgment is the same as every intelligence agency in the world, including Israel's. There is only evidence of of a nuclear energy program, Iran is in full compliance with the IAEA and the voluntary Additional Protocol of the NPT

[Suska]

Stupid answer. If I go back long enough, I can say the Egyptians started it when they enslaved the Israelis to build pyramids.

is this a joke? Genghis you have entirely too much pride in your intelligence for it to be so inaccurate. You ought to learn to stop yourself before you say something uninformed - look it up on wiki.. something, read a book once in a while.

[Genghis Khan]

So you have no evidence? Not surprising

So the world has no right at all to voice concern about this until they know for a fact? That's stupid.

Ask the Iranian foreign ministry then, lol.

Because they're such reliable people who have no interest to lie?

Then shut it.

Make me.

My judgment is the same as every intelligence agency in the world, including Israel's. There is only evidence of of a nuclear energy program

Iran had a nuclear efforts stopped in 2003 and then continued in mid 2007. The size and number of plants they have from satellite footage is inconsistent with a peaceful energy program, which in itself doesn't prove anything.

They've also used extremely powerful and hateful language towards Israel.

Besides, just the fact that Iran is developing a nuclear program, peaceful or otherwise, could get more countries wanting to get onboard the nuclear arms race. Look at Venezuela.

Your apparent lack of ability to put 2 and 2 together is your problem.

If there are conclusive evidence that Iran wants peaceful nuclear program, then we should help them, but some people wanna make sure first.

[Suska]

Your apparent lack of ability to put 2 and 2 together is your problem.

lol. what are you suggesting anyways?

[Demosthenes]

No real offense here Genghis because on most domestic policies I have agreed with you, but on this issue you show your liberalness and it saddens me greatly.

Our new friend said it well:

democrats and republicans are actually one big party.

You are proving that true. When it matters most, like say...preventing yet another excursion in yet another foreign nation, Democrats/Liberals beat war drums just as loudly as Republicans do.

You repeatedly source the already countered claim that Iran wants "to wipe Isreal off the map" but haven't even tried to deal with the same level of rhetoric people here use when they say "We should turn the Middle East into a parking lot". Where's the IAEA on that one?

I'm only going to address one of your posts since you seem to be blowing off everything the others are saying anyway.

That's your opinion, and it's wrong.

Not really. I probably would have characterized Iranian attitude slightly differently, but he's essentially spot on. Calling something wrong, and having it actually BE wrong are two different things. I just wish you would pay closer attention to the western anti-Iranian propaganda that gets called news here. Its all "shoulds", "woulds" and "coulds". Not "Has", "has PROVEN", or "Does". Those little words mean very, very much to the discriminating reader sorting out an ad for war from actual news.

Iran has indeed threatened Israel, and Israel has a right to make clear that she will not accept a scenario in which a country that wants it wiped off the face of the earth, has nukes.

You double standard is breathtaking. Israel and the US HAVE nukes. Isreal and US want to wipe several countries off the map. (Again, using what appears to be a mistranslated, and misunderstood phrase). So, where is the self-determination and sentimentality for those nations? Shouldn't it be equal if we're making an argument for defense? I could use your own words here: That's your opinion, and it's wrong.

They've never built nuclear bombs before. If you fail to see how that changes things, then there isn't much left to be said.

So, lemme get this straight. A nation that has been repeatedly invaded by western nations, has had its democratically elected process subverted to western business interests, had a brutal dictator installed who supported said business interests, overthrew him, then began a complete modernization and overhaul of it's entire nation running the gamut from peaceful technology to modern weapons, suddenly, on the say so of two obviously self-interested nations (and throw in some Euro nations for good measure) will use these modern weapons in an aggressive manner like it HASNT done in more than 100 years?

That's a whole lot to take in order to support your position. I'm very disappointed that someone who passionately argues the correct side domestically, can be so utterly off base internationally. Frankly, though I'm not fond of the Libertarian domestic agenda, I find them to be more reasonable here than you.

Again, not when the side chanting is building nukes.

The US chants loudest, and actually does something when it chants. There are no "coulds" and "woulds" when it comes to the US. Aliens COULD be arming themselves with a giant proton cannon right now, made from ore they secretly mine using cow labor, that MIGHT destroy the entire planet. Should we now start ramping up rhetoric about developing space marines? Even though its been proven that aliens are just curious space proctologists?

If I said that you should die and wiped off existence and I was getting a few guns, you would not be wrong to call the police on me.

THAT isn't an accurate picture of what's going on. If you were already far better armed than I was, were continually receiving more and more arms, were not afraid of kicking your neighbors out of their houses and putting your friends in their place, had already attacked several of my friends (even though some of my friends are somewhat unsavory), and have a big brother that is the epitome of a belligerent bully, then if I say you should be wiped out of the anals of time (or whatever the more accurate quote is) and start buying guns, then you calling the police on me is yet another example of you and your bullying friends fucking with me because you want to use my natural resources for yourself.

Only in response to Iran's words and deeds. Israel DID NOT start this.

You're right. Britain did about a 100 years ago.

Yes. For its size, the IDF is one of the strongest armies on earth. However, Israel has never said that another country should be wiped off the map.

You're right. They don't "say" much. They just shoot.

There's another concept at play here. I read an article about nuclear weapons once that made a really good point. Nuclear weapons are more than just weapons. They are political capital. A nation that has nuclear weapons joins an elite world club that includes all the major players. When a nation announces that it is seeking these weapons and takes steps to begin producing them (A major, major undertaking, building nukes isn't like building a tank) it's a political move. On the other hand, when a nation produces these weapons in secret, and never announces that they actually have them...well, why do you suppose they would do that? The article pointed to an actual intention to use them militarily. Makes perfect sense to me.

Nor has the U.S, Russia, China or any other nuclear super power, which is why nobody's confronting any of them.

Iran has.

You're hanging your hat on a mistranslation and giving a free pass to an America and Russia that have historically been some of the most aggressive and expansive nations in modern history. Yet a nation with little history of expansion is suddenly a threat? China is another story I'll leave to those a little more knowledgeable than me.

:eek: wow. I never thought I'd be agreeing with Demo so much

I know...I really didn't even intend to defend the positions I now defend. *Sigh* But whatever, facts are what they are, and truth is what it is. I'm not going to be so unreasonable that I will cut off my nose to spite my face.

Demo just demolished the non-issue

I agree. He gave the answer I was looking for and more. I was not aware of the IAEA and our agreement to help with nuclear reactors. Thanks Demo.

Thank you gentlemen, I appreciate that.

[Genghis Khan]

but on this issue you show your liberalness

Aren't liberals for the "make love not war" thing and conservatives for the "let's protect Israel from evil Iran now" crowd? How am I a liberal on this?

I just wish you would pay closer attention to the western anti-Iranian propaganda that gets called news here.

Nobody is against Iran thriving as a peaceful nation. I am sure as hell not. If they want nuclear energy to power their homes, goody for them.

Isreal and US want to wipe several countries off the map.

Name one, and prove it.

So, where is the self-determination and sentimentality for those nations?

Both the U.S and Israel are basically peaceful nations, with the once-in-a-while stupid leaders that make them look like they're not, Bush and Netanyahu. Both nations have NEVER, not once, advocated for the complete destruction of another nation.

has had its democratically elected process subverted to western business interests, had a brutal dictator installed who supported said business interests,

Israel hasn't done any of those.

Frankly, though I'm not fond of the Libertarian domestic agenda, I find them to be more reasonable here than you.

Ahh.. yeah, sure.. whatever..

The US chants loudest

Show me one example of U.S leaders chanting "death to X", or "with the help of god, the x regime will be wiped off".

Aliens COULD be arming themselves with a giant proton cannon right now, made from ore they secretly mine using cow labor, that MIGHT destroy the entire planet.

Show me an alien leader chanting what I just wrote, and I'll talk about him then.

THAT isn't an accurate picture of what's going on.

Really? Ahmadinejad has spoken in very very very hateful terms about Israel. About how great it is if they were gone. How they are a stain on the Islamic world. Death to Israel and blah blah blah.

Every time Ahmadinejad speaks overseas, people walk out on him. Either that's because he has a huge BO problem, or it's because of the things he said about Israel, which are considered more extreme than what any other nation has said about any other nation in any recent time in history.

He then moves on to accelerate the nuclear program in his country, and financially supports Hezbollah, an organization who has already attacked Israel more than once.

A U.N report that came out today suggests that: "Iran has acquired “sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable” atom bomb." (Funny... I thought they didn't want one.. they're all about peaceful purposes, aren't they?)

Are you seriously telling me that after all this, Israel has absolutely no reason to look at Iran as a threat? Really? None? At all? Not even a little bit? Itsy bitsy teenie weenie?

If you were already far better armed than I was, were continually receiving more and more arms, were not afraid of kicking your neighbors out of their houses and putting your friends in their place

Israel isn't stronger than Iran. Whatever superior skill Israel has militarily, Iran more than makes up for in sheer quantity. They have 70 million. Israel has 7.

Besides, just because I have guns, doesn't mean I shouldn't be nervous if my neighbor who really really hates my guts and shows no effort in hiding it and refuses to show regret when saying it, is arming himself.

A nation that has nuclear weapons joins an elite world club that includes all the major players. When a nation announces that it is seeking these weapons and takes steps to begin producing them (A major, major undertaking, building nukes isn't like building a tank) it's a political move. On the other hand, when a nation produces these weapons in secret, and never announces that they actually have them...well, why do you suppose they would do that? The article pointed to an actual intention to use them militarily. Makes perfect sense to me.

If one guy, who wishes I was dead, is buying a gun openly and another, who never showed any intention of killing me is buying it secretly, I'd be more worried about the first.

America and Russia that have historically been some of the most aggressive and expansive nations in modern history.

Check my Bush comment a few lines ago.

Yet a nation with little history of expansion is suddenly a threat?

When they're investing so much time and money in a nuclear program while leaving many of their people unemployed and starved, saying off-the-charts hateful things about Israel and refusing to directly answer the question: "would you like to destroy Israel?" when speaking abroad... YES.

[Demosthenes]

Aren't liberals for the "make love not war" thing and conservatives for the "let's protect Israel from evil Iran now" crowd? How am I a liberal on this?

Of course if you want to go by internal American mythology then these two slogans might be true, but to the rest of world, particularly places like Cuba, Colombia, Honduras, Somalia, Bosnia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, the entire Pacific basin, and southeast asia you're one and the same. You both strongly support interventionism, imperialism, and tough war talk.

The liberal-conservative alliance: Spreading US business interests since 1776.

Nobody is against Iran thriving as a peaceful nation. I am sure as hell not. If they want nuclear energy to power their homes, goody for them.

And yet the very people you take your information from, their only slightly hidden agenda wants very much to deny Iran this self-determination. Once Iran learned they were being treated as a pawn in yet another western power play, they began to realize the need to arm up and at least make it painful enough for the west that they couldn't just waltz in a-la Iraq and take what they wanted.

Name one, and prove it.

How about a hundred or so?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations

You'll note this doesn't even include the black ops or CIA funded "interventions". Yeah...but Iran is the threat...cause they are developing a defensive military.

Both the U.S and Israel are basically peaceful nations,

That's completely and totally false. I give you one example from each country from this website: War Angel is anything but peace loving, and Dave is the epitome of American swagger and "rugged individualism". These two, whether inadvertently or not serve well enough a microcosm of the two nation's collective zeitgeist that I'm quite comfortable citing them as avatars for their two nations basic principles, understanding, and attitudes.

Israel hasn't done any of those.

If you think Isreal is about anything other than US and other western business interests...well, I can't say much other than to suggest you look more into who has benefitted from Israel's existence. I mean specifically follow the money. I wanna note, I'm not anti-Jewish, nor really anti-Israeli. I don't participate in hardly any middle east debate cause it's just one clusterfuck after another. No one over there has clean hands and pretending anyone does is pure futility. BUT, there is also this thing the US loves to do in taking advantage of someone's..."bad behavior" and using it to secure resources.

All the while completely ignoring the "bad behavior" of similar nations who's only real common bond with the US is...business interests. We'll use Saudi Arabia as an example. They play ball, they ran OPEC for us until Iran started throwing their weight around, and yet they are just as "bad" as Iran is in relation to women, their treatment of gays, and all the other humanitarian hocus pocus. The REAL difference between Conservative and Liberals? Conservative: Let's invade so we can get the oil!!! Liberal: Let's invade so we can free the people from the shackles of their oppressors. (Umm... while were there we'll also get the oil, but we'll feel bad about it.)

Ahh.. yeah, sure.. whatever..

This is what I hate about the internet. When you agree with someone on one topic and support their argument, then God forbid the next time you don't, suddenly...you get comments like this and no respect whatsoever for having some common ground in other areas. Even though I went out of my way to address you as politely as possible.

Show me one example of U.S leaders chanting "death to X", or "with the help of god, the x regime will be wiped off".

Shimon Perez:
http://terrorism-news.blogspot.com/2006/05/israel-threatens-to-wipe-iran-off-map.html
Bush:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-god-told-me-to-invade-iraq-509925.html

Wait, wait...I'm going to guess what you're going to say about these links. One: Perez was only responding to Achy (Iranian leader, I'm an American, I'm too lazy to remember how to spell that long ass name...) Except your contention all along is that Israel, poor Israel, essentially isn't militaristic.

As for Bush, you're going to say "ohhh...well he didn't mean it like that..." Well neither did Achy.

While I'm at it with the links, here is another, ONCE AGAIN detailing the lie about "wipe Israel off the map"

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/260107offthemap.htm

So address that. Please. Before you keep repeating this insidiously misinterpreted quote. He's essentially saying he wasn't the Israeli government to be lost in time. Give or take.

Show me an alien leader chanting what I just wrote, and I'll talk about him then.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread233058/pg1

Really? Ahmadinejad has spoken in very very very hateful terms about Israel

You can't see tit-for-tat for what it is?

About how great it is if they were gone.

Which is again, part of the war propaganda you are buying into hook, line, and sinker.

Every time Ahmadinejad speaks overseas, people walk out on him.

Same with Bush and Obama, should I then conclude that the US is feared and hated everywhere? Oh wait...

Are you seriously telling me that after all this, Israel has absolutely no reason to look at Iran as a threat? Really? None? At all? Not even a little bit? Itsy bitsy teenie weenie?

Are you seriously trying to tell me that after all the links I've given you, the short history lesson into Iran's unfortunate situation with the west, and hopefully your understanding of Iran's true military capability that Iran has absolutely no reason to look at Israel and the US as major threats? Really? None? At all? Not even a little bit? Itsy bitsy teenie weenie? A speck? Not even a playful poke in the ribs? And all that oil? Exxon, BP, and crew would never manipulate world events for their own gain? Tell me you at least understand how the value of the dollar is linked to oil transactions? A little?

Israel isn't stronger than Iran.

Maybe you do need a lesson in Military ability. Israel has nearly up-to-date American weaponry that is constantly updated. All. The. Time. Iran has an 80s military...at best. Technology mitigates numbers. Or perhaps you haven't compared American war dead to Iraqi dead lately?

Besides, just because I have guns, doesn't mean I shouldn't be nervous if my neighbor who really really hates my guts and shows no effort in hiding it and refuses to show regret when saying it, is arming himself.

I agree, Iran should be shitting their pants over the situation. Oh, wait...they are...Can't blame them.

If one guy, who wishes I was dead, is buying a gun openly and another, who never showed any intention of killing me is buying it secretly, I'd be more worried about the first.

Then you don't understand anything about the nuclear-political dynamic. Obviously Israel isn't going to bite the hand that feeds it, but in terms of whether or not you're secretly buying high powered sniper rifles with sound suppressors, or a showy, fancy gold plated hunting rifle...you can use to brag to all your hunting buddies about...well you're incredibly naive not to fear the guys with the sniper rifles.

If you think Iran is more likely to use Nuclear weapons offensively than Israel then you may be a hopeless ideologue.

I love how masterfully the western press can turn any nation into a major threat that Americans, who apparently are quite content not to know anything more about our history than "Rah, rah US NUMBER !" will swallow up whole with never any doubt about motives, intentions, or reality.

Shall I show how Lichtenstein is hell bent on the destruction of the US now? Clearly their leadership is insane and can't be trusted! The mutilate their baby boys from birth to make them more aggressive! They love Dijon mustard which is clearly anti-American, and they looked at some uranium online once so they are making nuclear weapons to shoot at Washington! What's more, their leadership are known to have said "America...should....die...a...slow...death...from...teh...rot...at...their...very...core..." I won't mention that they MAKE their women have sex! For the children we MUST conquer the evil threat of Lichtenstein!

Here...look at this picture:



These are Liechtensteiners battling each other in a form of traditional Liechtensteiner combat! It's all about the gay. After the combat the two men will engage all manner of homosexual practices RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE GATHERED CROWD!! Do you know what will happen when they invade us? Why this odd form of gay sex shall overcome all our young American boys. There'll be gay in the streets! Women will become outdated! HOLY FUCK SHIT HELL! Is there any doubt Lichtenstein must fall to our greater glory?

*This propaganda brought to you buy your friends in the postage stamp lobby. Helping you send colorful mail all over the world. We swear we have no personal interest in a successful invasion of Lichtenstein.

Check my Bush comment a few lines ago.

Oh C'mon, Bush is far too easy and obvious. He didn't even really try to hide it. Citing your dislike of Bush hardly proves any meddle whatsoever. Anyone can dislike him. It's the rest of them that need indictment for their similar crimes that I'm more concerned with. Yet I'm sure Obama, Clinton, and Carter will all get passes from you. Particularly heinous will be Carter as his Carter Doctrine, is all that Bush and his neocon overlords worked to expand upon.

When they're investing so much time and money in a nuclear program

Proof! Heaven forbid proof! (And I don't mean Colin Powel ala Iraq nuclear proof either)! And make it something that something besides "might", "could be" or "looks like". Make it something that says "HAS". Otherwise it's all war propaganda.

Your entire argument against Iran is composed of lies and half truths uttered so the west may take advantage of yet-another nation.

The thing is, and why I even bother at all, I don't think you're the type who would really support outright, bold-faced colonialism. The western governments and their presses know this. They know in reality you wouldn't and couldn't stomach outright rape and murder of essentially innocent people, despite whatever flaws their leadership may or may not have. So they get you all riled up by selectively reporting only the worst from a nation, nothing good, take quotes out of context...basically look for any reason possible to justify to people like you why Iran isn't just the latest Imperial target, but actually some evil sub-human nations of lizardmen who walk around raping each for sport and have nothing better to do than burn US flags and talk about how they want to kill little old you.

All because you don't have enough prior knowledge of just HOW OFTEN we've done this sort of thing before. Again...Cuba, Panama, Iran in the 50s, Honduras, El Salvador...fuck, it's a looooooong list. And you know about the inside story of NONE OF THEM. So when war drums are being beaten you just chant along, and think what a catchy tune it is.

I know you're smarter and better than that from the arguments you've made for improvements to our domestic policies.

[Genghis Khan]

The liberal-conservative alliance: Spreading US business interests since 1776.

So now I'm both?

And yet the very people you take your information from, their only slightly hidden agenda wants very much to deny Iran this self-determination.

Except maybe some far right nut jobs on fox news, no one in the media is advocating for Iran's destruction.

How about a hundred or so?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_o ... operations

Proves didley squat. None of those prove that America has set out to actively destroy a sovereign nation.

I give you one example from each country from this website: War Angel is anything but peace loving, and Dave is the epitome of American swagger and "rugged individualism". These two, whether inadvertently or not serve well enough a microcosm of the two nation's collective zeitgeist that I'm quite comfortable citing them as avatars for their two nations basic principles, understanding, and attitudes.

I need a flow chart to understand the point you were trying to make here.

No one over there has clean hands

True, but so what? If your hands aren't clean, then it's OK for another nation to destroy you?

We'll use Saudi Arabia as an example. They play ball, they ran OPEC for us until Iran started throwing their weight around, and yet they are just as "bad" as Iran is in relation to women, their treatment of gays, and all the other humanitarian hocus pocus.

If you're trying to take me into the whole universe of conspiracy theories here, I'm not interested. It's too fuckin' boring and does not contradict my point in the least.

Vice Premier of Israel Shimon Peres said Monday that "the president of Iran should remember that Iran can also be wiped off the map."

That's what he said. It's quid pro quo. All he's saying is that threats can go both ways. Doesn't prove shit.

Except your contention all along is that Israel, poor Israel, essentially isn't militaristic.

Wrong. Care to try again?

with regards to Bush, he was a moron, but even he did not set out to destroy Iraq. He set out to take Saddam from power. Huge fuckin' difference. Besides, the Iraq war was a big mistake.

While I'm at it with the links, here is another, ONCE AGAIN detailing the lie about "wipe Israel off the map"

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/ja ... themap.htm

This website is wrong. (What? It's indisputable proof just because you brought it?)

Again - When directly asked if he wants to destroy Israel, quite a while after his famous quote, he refused to answer, again and again. He didn't say no because it's not the truth.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread233058/pg1

Great. Let's fly to space and take 'em out, just like they did in "independence day".

You can't see tit-for-tat for what it is?

Israel didn't start this, so your tit-for-tat thing is irrelevant.

Which is again, part of the war propaganda you are buying into hook, line, and sinker.

Yeah, that's me. I'm all about propagandas.

Same with Bush and Obama

Bullshit.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that after all the links I've given you

All of your links did not address the point I was making. Not a single one.

Iran has absolutely no reason to look at Israel and the US as major threats?

If Iran did not want to harm Israel, Israel would leave Iran alone. Israel has had nukes for a very long time, but never even considered using it. If they wanted to hurt Iran, they would have so by now. The vice verca may be true, but is still a question mark.

Israel has nearly up-to-date American weaponry that is constantly updated. All. The. Time. Iran has an 80s military...at best.

I've already explained how that is balanced, and you chose to ignore it. Not my problem.

If you think Iran is more likely to use Nuclear weapons offensively than Israel then you may be a hopeless ideologue.

Maybe they are. Maybe not. Words, however, matter. Ahmadinejad's rhetoric leaves people's mouths open with disgust whenever he speaks of Israel. Israel's leaders never said: "death to Iran!"

And as I said, Israel's is a long time member of the nuke club, and have a zero use record. That proves they aren't trigger happy.

Yet I'm sure Obama, Clinton, and Carter will all get passes from you.

You've lost me with all those lines from before. Passes about what?

Proof! Heaven forbid proof! (And I don't mean Colin Powel ala Iraq nuclear proof either)! And make it something that something besides "might", "could be" or "looks like". Make it something that says "HAS". Otherwise it's all war propaganda.

Here's a beautiful drawing that answers that:

The thing is, and why I even bother at all, I don't think you're the type who would really support outright, bold-faced colonialism.

You're right. I'm not.

All because you don't have enough prior knowledge of just HOW OFTEN we've done this sort of thing before.

Everybody has done this sort of thing before. Iran too. The Persian empire is the biggest imperialist regime of all time.

I know you're smarter and better than that from the arguments you've made for improvements to our domestic policies.

Then you know I'm not anti Iran or pro Israel. My point is - Ahmadinejad is a fruity loon with a history of over-the-roof statements. You believe him when he says he's not getting nukes for war. I wanna make sure.

[robin1]

Israel has nuclear weapons - how come Israel doesn't allow the IAEA to come inspect *its* nukes?

[Demosthenes]

So now I'm both?

I don't know, I can't tell the difference between the two of you when it comes to foreign policy.

Except maybe some far right nut jobs on fox news, no one in the media is advocating for Iran's destruction.

But you'll go along with it just the same because of some misquotes and the catchy tune of the war drums.

Proves didley squat. None of those prove that America has set out to actively destroy a sovereign nation.

Oh come on. I expect that from Republicans. You didn't read each one did you? You aren't even that familiar with most of that. It PROVES everything. You said the US was peaceful, that link proves its anything but peaceful, and now you change the argument? I can cite the few remaining Native Americans as evidence that the US can "wipe nations off maps" as well. Unless you will then try and argue that the Cherokee nation, the civilization of mound builders destroyed around Creve Coeur (Modern St. Louis), and the other Indian nations don't count...

I need a flow chart to understand the point you were trying to make here.

Read more carefully, the point is there if you try hard enough.

True, but so what? If your hands aren't clean, then it's OK for another nation to destroy you?

Huh? Isn't that the point I JUST made? I know Iran doesn't have clean hands and I'm not ever going to argue that they do, but the Iranian people deserve better than just another Imperialist venture because some of their leadership is no better than ours. Or will you now try to claim that *somehow* if we end up invading Iran the oil won't end up in our hands? And the value of the dollar will *magically* remain high afterwards...

If you're trying to take me into the whole universe of conspiracy theories here, I'm not interested. It's too fuckin' boring and does not contradict my point in the least.

Wow...that's really disappointing. When someone doesn't know enough about the topic they are so passionately addressing, and a deeper history lesson is given, they can just say something about conspiracy theories and pretend it washes away their own lack of knowledge. I didn't think you knew anything about any of that. Saudi Arabia only exists as it does due to agreements made between the US the Saudi royals. We prop them up, they keep OPEC favorable. Of course Iran threw a wrench in all that...funny thing about our rising gas and oil prices isn't it? Oh wait...did you think we were entitled to $1 a gallon (That's roughly $.25 a liter to you non-Imperial system folks) gas simply because we're teh awezom3 Americanskis? No. That would be the by-product of colonialism. Beyond that, if you can't refute it, just man up and say you didn't know. When other people on this site, who were essentially NOT hostile to me pointed out things like this, I listened and eventually realized their viewpoints were simply better informed than my own...when I used to make arguments like the one you're making. Meh...whatever. You'll either listen or stick your fingers in your ears and pretend nothing I've said is true.

That's what he said. It's quid pro quo. All he's saying is that threats can go both ways. Doesn't prove shit.

It proves Israel is as militaristic as anyone, and WILL attack other nations if they feel they are provoked...or maybe even if they are doing the provoking. Understand, I'm not accusing Israel of anything at this point, you brought them into the discussion. I'm only clarifying that they are anything but innocent.

Except maybe some far right nut jobs on fox news, no one in the media is advocating for Iran's destruction.

Yet that very message has certainly filtered down effectively to the rubes on the streets. I bet if I polled my neighborhood today, the majority would favor "turning the middle east into a parking lot". Such is the "news" coverage Iran has received.

Wrong. Care to try again?

Only if you remain in denial. Why does this matter so much to you? Why can't you face what these western governments have done in our name? Are you afraid if you recognize the facts that it will somehow implicate you? Because it doesn't. It actually is just the opposite, if you let governments get away with murder by your own willful ignorance then you do have blood on your hands.

with regards to Bush, he was a moron, but even he did not set out to destroy Iraq. He set out to take Saddam from power. Huge fuckin' difference. Besides, the Iraq war was a big mistake.

But your claim is that rhetoric matters, and you are taking this statement out of the context of Bush's rhetoric. God told him to go to Iraq. Either admit Bush was insane and indict Achy, or admit both of them say shit to their people to win votes. I personally prefer the second as it's far more accurate, but at least choosing one or the other is consistent.

This website is wrong. (What? It's indisputable proof just because you brought it?)

Prove it wrong. It's wrong just because you don't want to believe it? It's not the only website on the planet showing this.

What? You thought it was wrong just because you said so, and were too lazy to offer why? Since when are you some middle eastern scholar?

Great. Let's fly to space and take 'em out, just like they did in "independence day".

Jesus Christ! It's an example of what NOT to do when people just say shit.

Israel didn't start this, so your tit-for-tat thing is irrelevant.

Neither did Iran. You don't get to just pick and choose your history. You don't get to count all western history and ignore the fact that the British started all this around a 100 years ago. If you're going to have any sense of well roundedness you have to understand at least some of another nation's history from THEIR perspective, not yours. As an Iranian, I'd be pretty damn fed up with the west and their IAEA and their inspectors, and all the other meddling...including deposing our democratically elected leadership. You want to identify Israel with the Jews. That's fine. But to Iran and most of the rest of the Middle East they are yet another western crusade planted right in the middle of them. I can fault them when they are truly being antisemitic, but not when they are being anti-western. Like now.

Yeah, that's me. I'm all about propagandas.

No. You aren't. Which is my point. I know you're reasonable. I've seen the moral arguments you've made for things like healthcare. The POINT is to ask you to apply the standards you want for yourself and the rest of America to people like the Iranians. And not automatically assume if the western press, owned by about six groups, says something its gospel and cannot and should not be challenged.

I've already explained how that is balanced, and you chose to ignore it. Not my problem.

Yes, I refuted it quite clearly. Your problem is you have your head in the sand on this issue and you know better than to do that. I've seen you call people out for other issues using the same argument I'm using now with you. The problem is your inability to apply your own logic to your own argument in this thread. Numbers mean little when pitted against advanced technology. Again, comparing US war deaths in any of the escapedes they've been involved in in the last say, 20-30 years should easily confirm that. Failing that, compare Israeli casualties to Palestinian.

Bullshit.

Wait, are you claiming people haven't walked out on Bush and Obama? Really? Not even a little bit? Itsy bitsy teenie weenie?

All of your links did not address the point I was making. Not a single one.

Every single one addressed everything you've brought up every single time. It's your denial talking now. You barely even tried with this post.

If Iran did not want to harm Israel, Israel would leave Iran alone.

This has much less to do with Israel than it does the west. The west, and particularly America, are quite adept at placing rivals in each other's paths and then manipulating events to suit them. Take the settling of the eastern US as an example. The government more or less deliberately placed poor white colonists at the border (most of them immigrants, mind you) with the Indians. When conflict inevitably occured...why slaughtering those dirty Indians made the poor whiteies happy so...why not? Kill two Indians with one bullet. The situation is remarkably similar. The Indians used harsh words and tried to arm themselves against both the poor whites and the US military too. They even went so far as to steal a few pigs from some of the poor white farmers. Know what the punishment was? 10 Indians murdered. So it was for those Indians, so it will be for Iran. Even if they are the "big evil" their punishment will not even come close to fitting what their actual crime will be. Oh sure, there will be myriad "potential crimes" that will be talked about so much that people like you, with little historical perspective, will begin to believe that Iran actually did nuke Israel, or at least were on the verge of it.

Words, however, matter.

Then apply that universally if they matter so much. Further, if they are THAT damn important, take the time and the care to make DAMN sure you are attributing the correct quotes in the correct context. You'd think for a liberal like yourself, presumably to whom life matters more than resourses, you would be quite highly discriminating in making DAMN sure you weren't advocating a shit ton of civilian death based on a misquote. In fact, you would think you'd be highly skeptical to begin with would require a higher level of proof to make sure you weren't endorsing the murder of innocents, or at least the murder of those who maybe just need to be verbally rebuked.

Further, if words matter so damn much, then pay attention to the wording of the propaganda you're falling for. NOTHING says "has". It ALL says "might". Yet you are more or less ready to pulverize Iran right now. Because they "might" have nukes, and even if they do, they "might" want to maybe, possibly shoot them at a target outside Iran.

Everybody has done this sort of thing before.

No, no, no, no, no. You don't get to just wash it away because other people did it before. I'm never going to claim we are the only, the worst, or the best. I'm sure at some point in time somwhere someone did colonialism better than us. The point is, do you willfully accept what will be done in your name or not? Are you willing to look any member of the human race in the eye and say "You deserve to die so I can have cheap gas". I'm not, and I won't ever support any position again that puts me there. Not so long ago I would have completely agreed with you. That's what all those comments were about from the likes of Gandalf. Still, this is a card the Republicans play all the time. As I said, they are quite honest in their desire to spread Americana wherever they choose too. But you aren't them, yet you seem more than willing to let yourself be duped on a half-truth and the promise from our media and government that everything is the way they are saying it is. Even though both these agencies have been caught lieing about identical pretexts for war more than once, and all fairly recently. I will cite four instances where government has done this and the media played along:

1. The various lies about Mexican aggression that pretexted the occupation of Mexico and ceded half of Mexico to the United States, circa 1846.
2. The explosion on the USS Maine in 1898 pretexting the Cuban invasion.
3. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident pretexting the Vietnam War.
4. W.M.D. Pretexting the Iraq war.

Yet I'm supposed to take all this Iran propaganda at face value? I don't think so. You don't know much about any of these incidents do you?

Then you know I'm not anti Iran or pro Israel. My point is - Ahmadinejad is a fruity loon with a history of over-the-roof statements.

So is our leadership, that's nothing new. Further there is nothing "fruity" about wanting to be re-elected, pandering to your constituency, nor talking tough enough to fend off the wolves circling your chicken coop.

You believe him when he says he's not getting nukes for war. I wanna make sure.

I don't believe or disbelieve him. I believe we are building another pretext to take oil (among other things) and based on our history of armed aggression and expansion think my logic more than deconstructs any "Words" Achy has been misattributed with. Further, while you are busy making sure Iran isn't going to drop a nuke on you while you sleep... , whose busy making sure we aren't up to our old tricks?

[Genghis Khan]

But you'll go along with it just the same because of some misquotes and the catchy tune of the war drums.

They are catchy. Have them on my phone. I do not support a military strike against Iran. Never have. Could I change my mind in the future? Theoretically, maybe. Events change things. Still, it's gonna take some serious shit for me to do it.

One may describe me a liberal, but I'm not one of those "let's always oppose war no matter what" liberals. These guys are idiots.

I expect that from Republicans.

I too support limited government. I just disagree with republicans as to what "limited government" means.

You didn't read each one did you?

Wow...that's really disappointing. When someone doesn't know enough about the topic they are so passionately addressing, and a deeper history lesson is given, they can just say something about conspiracy theories and pretend it washes away their own lack of knowledge.

Not each one. No. You know why? Because every tangible point you bring up opens another subject. Every such subject opens two more. Before you know it, you forget what the original point of the argument was about.

If you wish to open a thread about American colonialism, go ahead, but it's very far away from the original point I was trying to make.

You'll either listen or stick your fingers in your ears and pretend nothing I've said is true.

I agree that the U.S has a very long history of stupid overseas behavior. You think I'm one of those morons who criticized Obama about the "apology tour"?

I agree that Israel's No angel.

I agree that Israel has done some very very bad stuff during her... tenure.

I agree that attacking Iran at the moment is a miserable idea.

I agreed when Obama chose to stay out of the rigged election they had, even though countless Iranians twitted: "please someone save us from this fuckup who calls himself the president!"

I agree that Iran deserves peaceful nuclear energy.

All of those points have nothing to do with my original one.

It proves Israel is as militaristic as anyone, and WILL attack other nations if they feel they are provoked

Israel will attack anyone that she feels is a threat to her very existence, or at least get someone else to handle things for her. I would too.

I bet if I polled my neighborhood today, the majority would favor "turning the middle east into a parking lot". Such is the "news" coverage Iran has received.

I don't think that if you poll people about destroying the middle east, people would say yes, but you're welcome to prove me wrong.

if you let governments get away with murder by your own willful ignorance then you do have blood on your hands.

See what I mean? You now think I'm a supporter of preemptive wars or something. This was never my original point.

God told him to go to Iraq. Either admit Bush was insane and indict Achy, or admit both of them say shit to their people to win votes.

You want me to bash the cowboy a bit more? I don't know if you remember or not, but one of my arguments along the way were:

Both the U.S and Israel are basically peaceful nations, with the once-in-a-while stupid leaders that make them look like they're not, Bush and Netanyahu.

If you wanna win votes, you can say that Israel is performing war crimes, and that they are America's bitch (or vice versa) or something. Saying: "Death to Israel!" and "with god's help, the zionist regime will be wiped out" is kicking it up a notch.

If it gets world leaders all over to walk out when you talk about Israel and get them to say that your arguments are insane... maybe they are.

but the Iranian people deserve better than just another Imperialist venture because some of their leadership is no better than ours.

I agree, but I think that right now, no one is in a hurry to attack them. You're talking as if Tehran is bombarded day and night. Right now all you see are talks. We'll talk about the imperialist venture when it actually begins.

Prove it wrong.

It's a blog. Now I have to go and disprove them? What about if you showed me a blog of a guy that says that Obama is a nazi. Do I have to disprove that too? And if I don't, that proves it correct?

If you're saying to me that he never said anything that sounds as if he wants Israel wiped out, then we'll just agree to disagree.

Jesus Christ! It's an example of what NOT to do when people just say shit.

Too late. Always wanted to go to space.

You don't get to just pick and choose your history. You don't get to count all western history and ignore the fact that the British started all this around a 100 years ago.

I'm sure at some point in time somwhere someone did colonialism better than us.

So first you want ALL history included, but then you're all about "I'm sure there were stuff, but let's ignore them right now."

Pick one.

I can fault them when they are truly being antisemitic, but not when they are being anti-western. Like now.

"Death to Israel" is not antisemitic? Silly me... I thought it was.

And not automatically assume if the western press, owned by about six groups, says something its gospel and cannot and should not be challenged.

The IAEA are press now? They released a report that says Iran has everything needed to make a bomb.

Numbers mean little when pitted against advanced technology.

Just because I have a gun doesn't mean I won't be shaking in my boots when 10 guys come at me with sticks.

Wait, are you claiming people haven't walked out on Bush and Obama?

Do I remember a case in which a U.S president used such hateful remarks about another nation that made almost all people leave the room in show of disgust? No, I don't.

This has much less to do with Israel than it does the west.

Ahmadinejad was using this anti Israel language way before anyone thought about calling Iran to meetings so they will show their nukes.

I'm trying to focus about the Iran-Israel confrontation. You wanna take it to Iran against any other western nation.

Further, if they are THAT damn important, take the time and the care to make DAMN sure you are attributing the correct quotes in the correct context.

I'll go back to a previous argument: If you're saying to me that he never said anything that sounds as if he wants Israel wiped out, then we'll just agree to disagree.

In fact, you would think you'd be highly skeptical to begin with would require a higher level of proof to make sure you weren't endorsing the murder of innocents, or at least the murder of those who maybe just need to be verbally rebuked.

Murder of innocents? Again, you keep talking as if we already attacked them. We're no where near it yet. I'm gonna go all white house press secretary on you and say: "I'm not gonna speculate about hypotheticals."

Yet you are more or less ready to pulverize Iran right now.

See how you're getting me wrong again? That's what happens when you bring up a thousand subjects in a thousand links. Now you think I agree with what they say.

Are you willing to look any member of the human race in the eye and say "You deserve to die so I can have cheap gas".

Only if it's Jon and Kate. Or everyone from the hills... and desperate housewives of Atlanta. I hate those bitches.

yet you seem more than willing to let yourself be duped on a half-truth and the promise from our media and government that everything is the way they are saying it is. Even though both these agencies have been caught lieing about identical pretexts for war more than once

So what's your point? You will never believe them again? What about the one time they'll be correct but no one will do anything about it?

I'm not saying they're saints. Just answer the question.

So is our leadership

Not like this. Not these kinds of statements.

Further there is nothing "fruity" about wanting to be re-elected

He wasn't reelected. He stole the elections. Did you know that before the elections, his challenger, Mir Hussein Moussavi, polled almost 70% is his hometown?

Funny how he even lost that in the elections.

The ultra fundamentalist regime did what they needed to do to keep their golden boy running the show. If he's willing to steal national elections and continue to use armageddon-esque language against Israel, why wouldn't the world take notice?

I believe we are building another pretext to take oil (among other things)

I don't think Obama is Bush. I think Obama is 10 times more trust-worthy. He's not the kind of guy who would sanction a preemptive war for oil, especially when he's going to invest so much money in finding ways to reduce our usage of it.

[RonPaulalways]

I too support limited government. I just disagree with republicans as to what "limited government" means.

You want it to mean whatever the hell you support. You do not support limited government as it's generally understood.

Quote:
It proves Israel is as militaristic as anyone, and WILL attack other nations if they feel they are provoked


Israel will attack anyone that she feels is a threat to her very existence, or at least get someone else to handle things for her. I would too.

And middle eastern countries will rally against a government they view as illegitimate. What's your point? Every one acts out of their self-interest.

If you wanna win votes, you can say that Israel is performing war crimes, and that they are America's bitch (or vice versa) or something. Saying: "Death to Israel!" and "with god's help, the zionist regime will be wiped out" is kicking it up a notch.

Israel is seen in the middle east in the same light as apartheid south africa was by other african nations. I don't know why you're surprised by the level of vitriol levied against its government.

[Demosthenes]

I do not support a military strike against Iran. Never have. Could I change my mind in the future? Theoretically, maybe. Events change things. Still, it's gonna take some serious shit for me to do it.

Well that's something at least. A decent enough frame of mind, but...again, the people you are agreeing with in terms of what Iran is, and what they've done...are the same people who DO and WILL support an invasion.

One may describe me a liberal,

I don't know if you are or aren't really. It just seemed that way at first, I'd honestly prefer you weren't, but not because I'd hope you were conservative instead.

I am opposed to most all wars, but not on pacifistic grounds. I'm opposed on the grounds that it rarely serves the people themselves and almost always serves the interests of one or more of the participating nation's elites.

Not each one. No. You know why? Because every tangible point you bring up opens another subject. Every such subject opens two more. Before you know it, you forget what the original point of the argument was about.

If you wish to open a thread about American colonialism, go ahead, but it's very far away from the original point I was trying to make.

That isn't my fault. Your argument made that happen and you specifically asked for proof. I provide it, and then you say the above. Don't ask for proof if you don't want to deal with the results. Further, this goes to show that you can't just limit this Iran-thing to Iran vs. Israel. There is a helluva lot more to it.

I too support limited government. I just disagree with republicans as to what "limited government" means.

Well I support government that works for the people, not government working for just a few of the people. Whether that ends up being big or small by some arbitrary definition is immaterial to me.

I agree that the U.S has a very long history of stupid overseas behavior. You think I'm one of those morons who criticized Obama about the "apology tour"?

I have no idea. I don't think much of the apology tour myself though. It's something but, the real apology would be getting out of the 100+ nations we have a military presence in.

I agree that Israel's No angel.

I agree that Israel has done some very very bad stuff during her... tenure.

I agree that attacking Iran at the moment is a miserable idea.

I agreed when Obama chose to stay out of the rigged election they had, even though countless Iranians twitted: "please someone save us from this fuckup who calls himself the president!"

I agree that Iran deserves peaceful nuclear energy.

All of those points have nothing to do with my original one.

Of course they do. They have everything to do with it. Since I picked up your argument halfway through, restate that, and I'll try to show you why I think so.

Israel will attack anyone that she feels is a threat to her very existence, or at least get someone else to handle things for her. I would too.

Who will do this for Iran? And do they have the same right? Again, you are assuming Iran is really a threat even though they haven't been any kind of threat for expansion in quite some time, and indeed have been targeted for expansion by the west or their proxies on multiple occasions. Simply because they have a loud mouth President.

I don't think that if you poll people about destroying the middle east, people would say yes, but you're welcome to prove me wrong.

Really? You Do realize I'm in a Red state and a dark read county that voted 67% for McCain? And you don't think my county is simply a statistical aberration do you?

See what I mean? You now think I'm a supporter of preemptive wars or something. This was never my original point.

Ok, fair enough. I was getting somewhat overzealous. Still, my concern is that you are enabling those who do support preemptive wars to set up the circumstances they need to carry out yet another war. I'd like to believe Obama wouldn't do that, but I'd like to have thought Carter, Clinton and all the rest of the current Democrats and former Republicans (Speaking of the party switch in '65) wouldn't have either. Yet, they have. Then there is the ramping up of the war in Afghanistan...and I think...ugh, not again...

Both the U.S and Israel are basically peaceful nations, with the once-in-a-while stupid leaders that make them look like they're not, Bush and Netanyahu.

And again I point to the very long list of US interventions that would seem to indicate otherwise. While never explicitly calling for...wiping any of these nations off the map, by default in nations like the Philippines, we came pretty close. I don't need to mention the Native Americans again. The US is not particularly peaceful, and having Democrats in charge doesn't change that very much. It only changes the "why we go" slightly...

Saying: "Death to Israel!" and "with god's help, the zionist regime will be wiped out" is kicking it up a notch.

Really? So all those people who have either correctly or incorrectly demonized Bush should be inspected as well then? Because Achy is far from the only leader or citizen guilty of a certain level of rhetoric. Further, if I'm to understand correctly that the "Wipe Israel off the map" quote is incorrect, I wonder how many of these other translations are also incorrect?

If it gets world leaders all over to walk out when you talk about Israel and get them to say that your arguments are insane... maybe they are.

Which world leaders are walking out? And when? If it's the US or the UK or the French or any of the nations that are now going apeshit over Iran...well, it's rather self-serving.

I agree, but I think that right now, no one is in a hurry to attack them. You're talking as if Tehran is bombarded day and night. Right now all you see are talks. We'll talk about the imperialist venture when it actually begins.

I don't think so. The only reason Iran wasn't attacked shortly after Iraq was attacked was due mostly to the PR disaster it would have been. I guarantee had Bush been able to whip up the kind of support he got for the Iraq war, we would already be in Iran as well. Yet we still have these lingering attempts to generate that level of support. It's detestable.

It's a blog. Now I have to go and disprove them?

So? It's one of many sources of that information. Here's another:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel and another http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/rumor-of-the-century/ and another http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitchens-hacker-and-hitchens.html

"Wipe the Israeli regime from the pages of time". If Iran is feeling pressed by Israel, and Achy says he wishes the Israeli government was gone. It ain't the same thing as wiped off the map.

So first you want ALL history included, but then you're all about "I'm sure there were stuff, but let's ignore them right now."

Pick one.

Now you're just obfuscating. This comment simply serves to derail two different contexts that had nothing to do with each other. Frankly I don't care if we are the best Imperialists in the world or aren't. I only care that I won't support these efforts on my and your behalf. If you take issue with that then I think you're getting confused. And no, I don't care if I have to pay more money for gasoline or other cheap and mostly worthless products.

"Death to Israel" is not antisemitic? Silly me... I thought it was.

Well then you are silly, I guess. Clearly this refers to Zionism and is not implicitly antisemitic. Though of course some use the anti-Zionism trick to pull off antisemitism. In the case of Iran its clearly self-preservation.

The IAEA are press now?

They may as well be. The IAEA isn't much more than yet another US based organization. What do you wanna bet that if the IAEA found something wrong with the US that we'd have inspectors coming in here? Hmmm?

They released a report that says Iran has everything needed to make a bomb.

Yet nothing about actually having one. It's really not hard to determine whether a nation is making a bomb. You can't hide nuclear bomb building facilities. The fact there is some question, in and of itself is quite telling. Shall I provide proof of this, too? In case you aren't familiar?

I have to go, I'll try and get back to finish the last of this later tonight.