The Growing Risk of Nuclear War

[truthwolf1]

How is it propaganda. Are you making the statement that Iran has not, in fact, said the exact words that they wish to "wipe Israel off the map"? That it is somehow all propaganda?
And how is Israel being the bully to Iran, wtf has Israel (a little nobody country) done to Iran (the major force in that region)? Really. I mean they don't even say they want to wipe Iran off the map, they just say that they aren't going to be pushed around.


And Iran building nukes will not bring peace with Israel, once they attack Israel how will that bring peace? They have said for years that their intentions are to attack Israel, so why would you think they would do differently? Why would them getting nukes add any amount of peace to the situation.

His words were taken out of context. What I am understanding from that is a regime that fails. A nuclear Iran will be just like a Pakistan verses India. Both hate eachother but they are kept in check.



The full quote translated directly to English:

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

Word by word translation:

Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).

While the false "wiped off the map" extract has been repeated infinitely without verification, Ahmadinejad's actual speech itself has been almost entirely ignored. Given the importance placed on the "map" comment, it would be sensible to present his words in their full context to get a fuller understanding of his position. In fact, by looking at the entire speech, there is a clear, logical trajectory leading up to his call for a "world without Zionism". One may disagree with his reasoning, but critical appraisals are infeasible without first knowing what that reasoning is.

In his speech, Ahmadinejad declares that Zionism is the West's apparatus of political oppression against Muslims. He says the "Zionist regime" was imposed on the Islamic world as a strategic bridgehead to ensure domination of the region and its assets. Palestine, he insists, is the frontline of the Islamic world's struggle with American hegemony, and its fate will have repercussions for the entire Middle East.

Ahmadinejad acknowledges that the removal of America's powerful grip on the region via the Zionists may seem unimaginable to some, but reminds the audience that, as Khomeini predicted, other seemingly invincible empires have disappeared and now only exist in history books. He then proceeds to list three such regimes that have collapsed, crumbled or vanished, all within the last 30 years:

(1) The Shah of Iran- the U.S. installed monarch
(2) The Soviet Union
(3) Iran's former arch-enemy, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein

In the first and third examples, Ahmadinejad prefaces their mention with Khomeini's own words foretelling that individual regime's demise. He concludes by referring to Khomeini's unfulfilled wish: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time. This statement is very wise". This is the passage that has been isolated, twisted and distorted so famously. By measure of comparison, Ahmadinejad would seem to be calling for regime change, not war.

[sgreger1]

His words were taken out of context. What I am understanding from that is a regime that fails. A nuclear Iran will be just like a Pakistan verses India. Both hate eachother but they are kept in check.



The full quote translated directly to English:

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

Word by word translation:

Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).

While the false "wiped off the map" extract has been repeated infinitely without verification, Ahmadinejad's actual speech itself has been almost entirely ignored. Given the importance placed on the "map" comment, it would be sensible to present his words in their full context to get a fuller understanding of his position. In fact, by looking at the entire speech, there is a clear, logical trajectory leading up to his call for a "world without Zionism". One may disagree with his reasoning, but critical appraisals are infeasible without first knowing what that reasoning is.

In his speech, Ahmadinejad declares that Zionism is the West's apparatus of political oppression against Muslims. He says the "Zionist regime" was imposed on the Islamic world as a strategic bridgehead to ensure domination of the region and its assets. Palestine, he insists, is the frontline of the Islamic world's struggle with American hegemony, and its fate will have repercussions for the entire Middle East.

Ahmadinejad acknowledges that the removal of America's powerful grip on the region via the Zionists may seem unimaginable to some, but reminds the audience that, as Khomeini predicted, other seemingly invincible empires have disappeared and now only exist in history books. He then proceeds to list three such regimes that have collapsed, crumbled or vanished, all within the last 30 years:

(1) The Shah of Iran- the U.S. installed monarch
(2) The Soviet Union
(3) Iran's former arch-enemy, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein

In the first and third examples, Ahmadinejad prefaces their mention with Khomeini's own words foretelling that individual regime's demise. He concludes by referring to Khomeini's unfulfilled wish: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time. This statement is very wise". This is the passage that has been isolated, twisted and distorted so famously. By measure of comparison, Ahmadinejad would seem to be calling for regime change, not war.

Excelent description but I still see that as "we must get rid of the US proxy fighter (Israel) in the region that is (according to him) somehow a threat to muslims. Tell me truthwolf, what muslim regimes has Israel overthrown since it's inception?

I completely understand that Israel is our puppet, and that make sstrategic sense. You have a large enemy territory, and someone in that terretory hates them enemy, therefore they should be your ally. The US uses Israel to fight Iran via proxy and Iran uses Hezbollah and other groups to fight Israel via proxy, it's how civilized people fight

But his statements are the same, that they need to get rid of israel before things can be fixed in the region.




In my opinion, we don't have the money for any of this. We need to stop both wars (I think we've made our point after 8 years), stop messing with iran and other non-threats like N korea and just mind our own. We need the money here in the streets of the USA. All the money going into Iraq/Afghanistan is like a stimulis every single year that could be pumped into our economy. We have helped those poor countries for too long by pumping all that cash into their economy, employing Iraqis and paying for their army and training. Let them burn, I care not. They are a soverign country, let them figure it out. No need to bring democracy to those who do not want it.

Countries like Iran and Iraq/Afghanistan can continue violating human rights every second of every day like they have since their inception, they can beat, stone, rape and "honor kill" their women all day long and I don't give a fark, as long as it's not costing us money. They will never change, they are who they are and to try and bring them up to speed with civilization is not worth our effort, let them continue to live in the dark ages.

[NonServiam]

What is the German people's views on Obama and people who wear Obama shirts? Tell me why they don't feel Obama is Hitler, since he has escalated (in a major way) the war effort and expanded it to new countries? Is it just uneducated propaganda spewing that causes people to make these comments, or does Obama get a free pass because he comes off as a the kinda guy you'd wanna have a beer with?[/QUOTE]
HEY! WHAT THE HELL! IT DIDN'T PUT THE COOL LITTLE CARTOON CAPTION BOX AROUND THE QUOTE!

I can already tell, this is going to be a Hot thread. That's a good question. I for one, don't like either. They're all politicians, self-serving, and come from the same deck of cards. I would assume if Obama's antics continue, he would probably be likened to dictators from past socialist dominated countries. Comparing Hitler and Bush is on the extreme, although if that is the impression that other countries are getting from their media, we're in trouble.

[sgreger1]

I can already tell, this is going to be a Hot thread. That's a good question. I for one, don't like either. They're all politicians, self-serving, and come from the same deck of cards. I would assume if Obama's antics continue, he would probably be likened to dictators from past socialist dominated countries. Comparing Hitler and Bush is on the extreme, although if that is the impression that other countries are getting from their media, we're in trouble.

Exactly, theyr both cronnies for the puppetmasters. I swear this country has been hijacked. We used to be the country people looked to for help, shining light on the hill and all that. What happened? The military industrial complex has taken over, or whatever you wish to call it. I just think it's funny that people saw bush for what he was, yet Obama gets a free pass even as he continues rendition, the patriot act, prolonged detention without trial, 2 wars etc etc etc. Your right though, they'll wake up eventually. We need to police up our own and not worry about what other countries think, if we fix it here ourselves, then the opinion of other nations will change accordingly.

[truthwolf1]

Excelent description but I still see that as "we must get rid of the US proxy fighter (Israel) in the region that is (according to him) somehow a threat to muslims. Tell me truthwolf, what muslim regimes has Israel overthrown since it's inception?
Countries like Iran and Iraq/Afghanistan can continue violating human rights every second of every day like they have since their inception, they can beat, stone, rape and "honor kill" their women all day long and I don't give a fark, as long as it's not costing us money. They will never change, they are who they are and to try and bring them up to speed with civilization is not worth our effort, let them continue to live in the dark ages.

I think where we differ is you see a evident threat coming from the bad guy, where I am seeing some instigation from the good guys to get the bad guy to fight.
If that makes sense? FOr my eye's it is just blatant fearmongering on mainstream news with ex-neocons and Isreali speakers with full blown sanctions and military solutions for something that has not been proven yet.

[sgreger1]

I think where we differ is you see a evident threat coming from the bad guy, where I am seeing some instigation from the good guys to get the bad guy to fight.
If that makes sense? FOr my eye's it is just blatant fearmongering on mainstream news with ex-neocons and Isreali speakers with full blown sanctions and military solutions for something that has not been proven yet.

No I think we can agree on that. The way we tend to operate (knowingly or not) in this country is:

Problem: We think Iran may be looking to manufacture nukes, this is bad because of... everyone with nukes uses them.. or something...

Solution:
3) Instigate iran untill they eventually say "We have nukes and we're not afraid to use them!"
4) Report in media that Iran was lying all along
5) Say Iran can't be trusted and we must pre-emptively strike them
6) Look like the good guys for saving the world from immenet nuclear distruction
7) ?????
8) Profit!!!

[PipenSnus]

The biggest danger from nuclear weapons today is not from any other nation. It's from some terrorist group that manages to get their hands on enough uranium or plutonium to build one or more small "dirty bombs". There has been enough weapons-grade material stolen from Russian and US sites over the decades to make more than a few bombs. Somebody knows where all that stuff went, but nobody's talking.

[NonServiam]

Every great nation, empire, and highly evolved civilization has been conceived, peaked, and fallen. Why should we (or any other industrialized nation) be exempt from this undeniable law of nature. I think it's time to stock up!

[deadohsky]

Boy do i love south park references

[sgreger1]

The biggest danger from nuclear weapons today is not from any other nation. It's from some terrorist group that manages to get their hands on enough uranium or plutonium to build one or more small "dirty bombs". There has been enough weapons-grade material stolen from Russian and US sites over the decades to make more than a few bombs. Somebody knows where all that stuff went, but nobody's talking.

This is my problem with Iran having nukes. Iran is who supplies the weapons to the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they also supply weapons to Hezbollah. They supply the IED's the surface to air missiles, and all sorts of other weapons. Their arms manufacturers exist SOLELY to arm militant rebels. I don't think letting them have nukes, or even nuclear grade uranium is a good idea. They don't need nukes, because they could never use them. They just need to get reactors that can make the plutonium, and they can pass it off as for "energy", then slip some out the back door. I think that's their plans.

[truthwolf1]

Dont forget about the Russian and Chinese supply lines. They also are the one's consulting and working on, in the Iranean nuclear facilities. Just like Iraq

Iran is the line. If we cross this one it could get big!!

[sgreger1]

Yah, in Georgia (the country) they recently caught some smugglers smuggling uranium from Russia. Russia had an auction or something after the cold war I swear. Black market must have been hot as fire in those days.

[tom502]

Israel is the reason the middle east may have a nuke race, though I'm not sure Iran is persuing nuke weapons, they say they arn't, and they have signed the NPT, and do work with the IAEA, which is something Israel refuses to do, keeping their nuke weapons undeclared, and why the UN does not address this, only adds to the conspiracy. If we did attack Iran, they'd have to send everything they have onto Israel. Iran is not dumb, and they do make an effort to be seen in the UN, I think they should form an alliance with Pakistan, Syria, N. Korea, and others, so we have a more balanced world. N. Korea has the right to nuclear defence as well, hopefully they have them on ready missles now. If we attack N.Korea, they have to drop everything they have onto Japan, and S.Korea. This is called deterrence, and it's America's vast nuke stockpiles which prevent another nation attacking us militarily. And it's recently come out that Israel was about to sell nuke missles to S. Africa in the past.