I’m with you
Actually, in reality, why does it really matter exactly who Iran is afraid of? How many countries have nukes? For how long have they been seen as a part of legitimate defence? Why shouldn’t Iran want nukes anymore than they should / should not want air defence, a navy or anything else?
America thumbed their nose at the world in building their space defence platform, India and pakistan both thumbed thier nose at the world in getting nukes, what makes Iran any less entitled?
A little disingenuous? OK. And as to your second point about the arrogance of a nation being trustworthy or not to possess nuclear weapons…yes, I see the hypocrisy, but I fail to see the one nation in the region that actually possesses them (Israel) threatening a neighboring nation with extinction, which you cannot say about Iran.
Iran needs to quit trying to be the big boy on the block in the Middle East and become a modernized, economic nation like Egypt.
Egypt used to think the way Iran did, back in the day before nukes…and the end result of their attacks on Israel was not positive except for the ME accords that afford those two nations the improved relations they have today.
Iran needs to get on board with the rest of the Middle East and distinguish itself as the most influential nation in the region with the subtlety of imagined use of force and not with nuclear weapons.
And as for Der Trihs, well, I don’t see any reason or current threat for the invasion of Iran from the USA, so I don’t know where you’re living. Bush isn’t President anymore, fella.
Obama wants to, you know, talk to them and all. I’d like to see how that hand plays out before we proclaim ourselves invaders and murderers of Iran before you know, we even do anything.
Jeez.
Iran needs to quit trying to be the big boy on the block in the Middle East and become a modernized, economic nation like Egypt.
[/QUOTE]
AND
I’m with you there - I like that America in particular is now taking a more concilitory line, and trying to work with Iran - to me sanctions simply don’t work. The way (IMHO) to bring a country “into line” is by helping them achieve prosperity, as posperity comes you are much more interested in making cars than bombs, in looking for markets for you goods, and places to take holidays than you are in picking fights. i.e - I belong to “the more you have, the more you want to get” school of thought.
We’ve been their enemies for decades; since before the present government existed. Obama is just a blip in history.
AND
I’m with you there - I like that America in particular is now taking a more concilitory line, and trying to work with Iran - to me sanctions simply don’t work. The way (IMHO) to bring a country “into line” is by helping them achieve prosperity, as posperity comes you are much more interested in making cars than bombs, in looking for markets for you goods, and places to take holidays than you are in picking fights. i.e - I belong to “the more you have, the more you want to get” school of thought.
[/QUOTE]
It’s what would have propelled Dubai into the stratosphere if the 2004 example of ever-increasing wealth could have proven to be permanent. But it doesn’t hav to be like that.
If Iran would even back off a little on it’s hardline stances, and publicly worry about IRAN, and not others upon whom they would cast blame for some problem with their existence, then they wouldn’t even feel the need for a nuclear device anyway.
Cite (that Iran does)?
Der, what makes you think that the current situation cannot change? It’s impossible for us to engage a historical “enemy” in dialogue after all these years? Especially when it’s common knowledge that the US govt in the 1980’s supported Iraq in it’s ventures against Iran?
I’d like to think that with the Obama admin, we’d be more emboldened than ever to try to mediate peace between Israel and the “horrible nation du jour”.
First, considering that Iran has used its forces to attack Israel numerous times and Israel is not occupying Iran, it’s a rather specious statement.
Second, since the 4th GC specifically authorized occupation and the areas that Israel occupies do not have sovereign powers who claim them, your argument is even flimsier.
Of course, as I pointed out, it’s not a simple question of “we do it so they can do it too!” but one of context. As I’ve already pointed out, Jordan and Egypt don’t have to worry about Israeli ‘aggression’, but Lebanon did, and does, have to worry about Iranian proxies dominating it by military force. Why do you think that is?
You’re inventing a definition for the word “arrogance”. Deciding that trustworthy people are worthy of trust while untrustworthy people aren’t is only “arrogance” if you’re trying to stack the deck.
Ummm…do I really have to look up Ahmadinjad’s (sp…?) statements regarding the denial of the holocaust and the supposition of the elimination of the state of Israel?
Oh, I’m sorry, maybe he didn’t actually say “state of Israel”, what he meant was “the Zionist Empire”. I see the difference in their rhetoric now.
Oh, please. They need nukes because of the danger of American attack, not because of anything they say.
And look what that got for Iraq in the long run. We cannot be trusted.
Once more. Israel is a sideshow. We are the big danger to Iran. Israel could sink into the ocean and they’d still need nukes.
And claiming that everyone you dislike is untrustworthy, while declaring yourself trustworthy even as you lie to and betray others IS arrogant. And that’s what we do.
As far as I can remember the “wiped off the map” translation was faulty as no such idiom even exists in Persian. He also clarified that this meant that the “Zionist regime” would eventually collapse on its own. It was assured that Iran would never take to military action for this. That’s why I asked for a cite, as I am not aware of any threats, other than this mistranslation which has been taken out of context and used to villify Iran further.
About the holocaust denial. It is true that he has questioned the actual scale of the holocaust and called for further independent studies to be carried out regarding this. I don’t have the same opinion as Dr. Ahmadinejad on this subject as I have no doubt about the scale of this genocide, but at the same time I wonder why this is relevant to the current debate?
Let us assume, for the sake of discussion, that America has designs to attack Iran. Just* how* exactly does nuclear capability, with a delivery system able to go maybe several hundred miles, deter the US from implementing this impending attack upon noble and peaceful Iran?
[
He also clarified that Iran really doesn’t have any gays.
Who’d a thunk it?
Explain Hamas and Hezbollah, then.
I guess the real question is at the core of the legitimacy of the state of Israel, and how it’s inception is interpreted from history as opposed to it’s current interpretation.
It’s no secret that Israeli Jews are highly defensive of their scrap of homeland, and rightly so. Regardless of how they got there, they ARE THERE, and a legit country, and hating them isn’t going to make them go away (and apparently, nor is attacking them).
You might make a case for the legitimacy of the inception of the state of Israel being a wave of sympathy in light of the Holocaust, or maybe not. Who knows, who cares?
Haven’t lines on a fucking map been decided by worse reasons throughout history, and yet those borders are still preserved? What’s the difference?
Here and now, Israel exists, is an ally of the USA and it isn’t going anywhere.
Realize it, live it, love it. It’s really no different than any other country asserting it’s will to exist throughout history…there’s always going to be people pissed off about it…
Curse you, for the interpretation is really “wipe Israel’s beaches clean so our Muslim women can swim in them along with the Jews”.
You and your excited imagination. Geez. They just want to hang out and you just want to kill them. Typical Israel behavior.
[quote=“FinnAgain, post:113, topic:493495”]
I think his own clarifications in this case matter more than what it can be argued that the original wording was.
So the context, semantic value and historical usage don’t matter, but the word of the guy who says Iran has no gays, that does?
I mean that if you claim that a person is making threats based on a disputed quote, which has then been clarified by said person to have a different meaning than you say it has, then you are misrepresenting the threat regardless of whether gays exist or not in Iran.
What’s the purpose of that “firepower” if, as Alessan says, Israel would not launch a nuclear strike against Iran because they’re not that sort of people. So I again ask, why possess them if you’re not going to use them?
I can speculate, but I’d love to hear from either of you first.
A “disputed” quote? One that his own official translators clarified? One that semantics, context and historical usage all make clear has a certain meaning?
That’s being “misrepresented” if a proven liar says “er… backsies!”
Of course, nice job claiming that I’m the one disputing Ahmadinejad’s dodge rather than his own translators, and that the issue is whether or not there are any gays in Iran rather than that he’s got no credibility at all.