|
|
Re: U.S. versus IRAN
[Re: PHeMoX]
#124373
04/18/07 10:43
04/18/07 10:43
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,320
Alberta, Canada
William
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,320
Alberta, Canada
|
No matter how much someone hates Bush, the Republicans, or war, theres no denying how insane Iran's ruler is. This is someone who repeatedly talks of annihilating Israel and the United States. If he has nukes and starts taunting with them, a war would be guaranteed, Democrats or Republicans, and the international community would rightfully support it. One has to believe this is a fair bit different than the North Korea situation; especially if he really follows through with his extremist Islam beliefs. 
|
|
|
Re: U.S. versus IRAN
[Re: William]
#124375
04/18/07 13:45
04/18/07 13:45
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 414
Munich, Germany
Robotronic
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 414
Munich, Germany
|
Quote:
... theres no denying how insane Iran's ruler is.
I never met him personally.
And as for the word "ruler", just to give you an idea of his actual power: I remember, that during the World Cup he wanted to allow Iranian woman to attend soccer games. He had not the power, to decide this.
The title "president" actually doesnīt mean very much in Iran, which is a theocracy with some democratic elements, but everyone with a little insight will tell you, that the real power is with the clerics.
Quote:
This is someone who repeatedly talks of annihilating Israel and the United States.
When did he talk of "annihilating" the United States?
As for Israel, I have read in several western newspapers (the Guardian, the New York Times), that his actual speech was quite different from the hysterical quote "wipe off the map", that is now repeated time and again, because it sells so good.
According to these sources he did not mention Israel directly, but "the regime occupying Jerusalem" and he listed it in a long speech together with the soviet regimes and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
He was not saying, that Iran is going to "wipe" anything "off the map", but expressed his expectation, that this regime would "disappear from the page of time". This means not more and not less, than that he is unhappy with the current politics of the Israeli government - an attitude that is not really exceptional in this region of mutual mistrust.
Quote:
If he has nukes and starts taunting with them, a war would be guaranteed
We are talking here of a nation, that has made it clear through its highest religious authority, that it regards nuclear weapons as "unislamic", accused by nations that do have real nuclear weapons. One of these nations has used them in the past. Another one has just decided to modernize its arsenal.
We are talking of a nation, that has not started wars in recent centuries, accused by nations who just recently did this, based on false accusations.
Someone here mentioned, they could deliver their non-existent nukes to Bin Laden. This is absolute nonsense, because Bin Ladens terror group is Sunni and Iran is predominantly Shia. Bin Laden and his gang are currently blowing off Shias everyday in Iraq, and Mr Ahmadinedjad would more likely give his hypothetical nukes to Israel, before he would give them to Bin Laden.
But he doesnīt have them.
|
|
|
Re: U.S. versus IRAN
[Re: Robotronic]
#124377
04/18/07 14:03
04/18/07 14:03
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 261
Germany
Thracian
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 261
Germany
|
Of course an Iran having the bomb is bad - but as long as the other states, especially the US, donīt drop the idea of having nucelear weapons, the Iran wonīt either.
------------------------
All programmers are playwrights and all computers are lousy actors.
|
|
|
Re: U.S. versus IRAN
[Re: Robotronic]
#124378
04/19/07 09:10
04/19/07 09:10
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,320
Alberta, Canada
William
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,320
Alberta, Canada
|
I don't know what media sources you receive in Germany, but I've seen many videos on T.V showing him, yes, in real life, mostly at speeches talking of the destruction of Israel. Quote:
According to these sources he did not mention Israel directly, but "the regime occupying Jerusalem" and he listed it in a long speech together with the soviet regimes and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
He was not saying, that Iran is going to "wipe" anything "off the map", but expressed his expectation, that this regime would "disappear from the page of time". This means not more and not less, than that he is unhappy with the current politics of the Israeli government - an attitude that is not really exceptional in this region of mutual mistrust.
Well I really don't know what more I can say about a "regime occupying Israel". If this is indeed what he meant, obviously he meant the Jewish peoples who occupy, not some minor government change.  This is indeed why there are many problems in the middle east with Israel, because all the Muslim states want Jerusalem back.
While I'm not a war monger, and am a Canadian(we did not participate in Iraq), I must say Iran looks to be a much different situation than Iraq. Again, I really hope peoples hatred of Pres. Bush and the Republicans don't get in the way of the real issues at hand(Many people tie Iran+nukes=insane with Bush).
|
|
|
Re: U.S. versus IRAN
[Re: William]
#124380
04/19/07 14:01
04/19/07 14:01
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 414
Munich, Germany
Robotronic
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 414
Munich, Germany
|
There is a huge difference between the expressed expectation, that a "regime" will come down and a call for genocide. Like this it was presented in the mainstream western media. There are many governments in the world that do not recognize each other: Western Germany for example did not recognize East Germany, China does not recognize Taiwan, the US has a whole list of states where they desire "regime change" ... For a full translation of the speech that turned somehow into "wipe of the map": What he really said You can also find a comprehensive discussion of this issue at wikipedia: whatīs going on here? Here you can also find out more about the official position towards Israel: Quote:
Iran's stated policy on Israel is to urge a one-state solution through a countrywide referendum. Juan Cole and others interpret Ahmadinejad's statements to be an endorsement of the one-state solution, in which a government would be elected that all Palestinians and all Israelis would jointly vote for; which would normally be an end to the "Zionist state".
In November 2005 Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei, rejecting any attack on Israel, called for a referendum in Palestine:
We hold a fair and logical stance on the issue of Palestine. Several decades ago, Egyptian statesman Gamal Abdel Nasser, who was the most popular Arab personality, stated in his slogans that the Egyptians would throw the Jewish usurpers of Palestine into the sea. Some years later, Saddam Hussein, the most hated Arab figure, said that he would put half of the Palestinian land on fire. But we would not approve of either of these two remarks. We believe, according to our Islamic principles, that neither throwing the Jews into the sea nor putting the Palestinian land on fire is logical and reasonable. Our position is that the Palestinian people should regain their rights. Palestine belongs to Palestinians, and the fate of Palestine should also be determined by the Palestinian people. The issue of Palestine is a criterion for judging how truthful those claiming to support democracy and human rights are in their claims. The Islamic Republic of Iran has presented a fair and logical solution to this issue. We have suggested that all native Palestinians, whether they are Muslims, Christians or Jews, should be allowed to take part in a general referendum before the eyes of the world and decide on a Palestinian government. Any government that is the result of this referendum will be a legitimate government.
Well I know that it is hard to believe, that something, that is repeated over and over again might not be true. In German TV it was handled in a very similar way as in Canada or the US. Whoīs to blame for this? Maybe a stupid translator, maybe a superficial and hysterical media? I donīt know. Itīs one of the reasons, why I prefer to use the www and multiple sources.
I do not want to imply, that Iran and Israel have warm relations at the moment, but it should also be mentioned in this context, that Israel and the US had a desire for regime change in Teheran long before Mahmoud Ahmadinedjad came to power.
This is from an article, published in 2003:
Quote:
In fact, right-wing Israelis and their advocates in Washington consider the ayatollahs' Iran a more dangerous enemy than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Last November Sharon, in an exclusive interview with the Times of London, described the Islamic Republic as "a center of world terror" and openly called upon the United States and Britain to "attack Iran once they are finished with Iraq."[...]
The only conceivable way to overthrow the Islamic regime through external military force is to invade Iran with hundreds of thousands of troops. Only the United States has such a capacity, and Sharon is hoping to persuade President Bush to undertake the mission while his forces are in the region--preferably "the day after" he "finishes off Saddam Hussein," he told the Times. Ranan Lurie, a senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, approvingly explains Sharon's argument for popular audiences as follows:
It is inconceivable that [the US] will attack Iraq, succeed, destroy its unconventional laboratories and arsenal, come home for a ticker-tape parade on Wilshire Boulevard and go to the beaches while Iran is still there. Imagine a brain surgeon penetrating the skull of a patient who has two malignant tumors and yet extracting only one of them. Logic says that, as long as you are in that skull, the same incision should serve for the removal of the second tumor.
article
So my personal conclusion is, that the Iranians feel threatened by the US and Israel, and make loud noises in order to appear at least a little bit more dangerous.
About the nuclear issue: itīs an excellent rallying point in government propaganda. This programm, started a long time ago by the Shah, is in Iran a matter of national pride.
Ahmadinedjad is a populist and of course he can exploit the situation like this: the evil US doesnīt want us to become a rich and prosperous nation, itīs the US, thatīs to blame for all economic shortcomings.
Finally: The real world is not a black_or_white issue. Just look at this colorful
|
|
|
Re: U.S. versus IRAN
[Re: NITRO777]
#124381
04/19/07 16:24
04/19/07 16:24
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
Quote:
I would be interested to know Iran's governments 'exact' words on some topics
Ahmadinejad denys the holocaust
Death to Israel
Hes a racist.
psycho Iranian childrens show
The cure for AIDS
evil dictator evil agenda : "cure AIDS...tell NOONE" muhahhha
Tom and Jerry is the JEwish conspiracy LOL
Tom and Jerry is off course no Jewish conspiracy, but even these animation movies have moral or political messages. Eventhough it may seem ridiculous, it's just another example of culture clash, don't underestimate the fact that some cultures totally do not understand our culture ... Just look at the stir up of emotions caused by these comic caricatures of Mohammed. They don't understand that kind of humor,
Edit: By the way, there's western propaganda in some of those movies too. Iran never said they had the cure, they said they were developing it.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
