Obama On Terrorism

[Hoosier]

The whole issue of the dangers a nuclear Iran (and of course, a nuclear Korea in that region) poses to not just the US

A nuclear Russia posed a danger to us as well. Mutually Assured Destruction works fine as a deterrent. I don't think that even if a nuke was smuggled in, we would have a hard time figuring out who did it.

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/...7-722025.shtml

Maybe you just disagree that it would be a problem, which is fine. But pretending that Iran hasn't been a problem for the US in the past is ridiculous. And BTW... Iran has only been an Islamic state for about the last 30-ish years.

There's a handful of countries that are a problem for us, but what he asked is why they're being painted as the bogey man now? I mean, they held American captives for 400 days, they raided our embassy, they are a totalitarian theocracy -- it's all wrong, but I still don't see why we continue to have the level of saber rattling. We aren't capable of launching a ground invasion of Iran, so why bluster?

Their little President can talk all the shit he wants to. From their point of view we've spent the last 30 years shit talking them. Words here have very little meaning, just actions. I'm more concerned with them feeding military grade weapons to 3rd party nationals than I am about their nuclear program.

FWIW both the US and Israel very likely did strike Iran, via the Stuxnet worm, which they have confirmed did do fairly substantial damage to their effort to refine nuclear material. The net effect seems to have made them even more stubborn, they've said they're going to double the number of centrifuges now.

H.

[Bailey Guns]

There's a handful of countries that are a problem for us, but what he asked is why they're being painted as the bogey man now?

Painting Iran as a problem isn't something new. The fact that they're currently working on their nuclear arsenal and apparently have the capability to build nukes is the more recent issue.

They only developed that capability recently. Therefore nobody was realistically concerned about a nuclear Iran more than 10-15 years ago.

And sometimes, when a guy like Ahmadinejad threatens to "wipe Israel off the face of the earth", you need to believe that's exactly what he wants to do.

[jhood001]

And sometimes, when a guy like Ahmadinejad threatens to "wipe Israel off the face of the earth", you need to believe that's exactly what he wants to do.

He never said that. Our western media said he said that.

So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in Farsi:
"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."
That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "regime." pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).
So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh" is not contained anywhere in his original Farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's president threatened to "wipe Israel off the map." despite never having uttered the words "map." "wipe out" or even "Israel."
The Proof:
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).


We said we wanted Saddam removed from power. A vastly different desire than eradicating Iraq and all of it's people in it's entirety. I don't mean to defend the guy. He's a moron, but it seems to me that every single reason we use to paint Iran as a threat is either misinformation, or intentional disinformation.

[Bailey Guns]

Gee...I guess I'm failing to see the distinction.

Do you believe what he was referring to was the destruction of Israel? I do.

[jhood001]

Gee...I guess I'm failing to see the distinction.

Do you believe what he was referring to was the destruction of Israel? I do.

No, I do not. I think they desire a change in leadership in Israel. Just like we do in NK, Iran, Venezuela, Libya (this month anyway), and so on and so on. 'Destruction' is again, your word.

But again, we're back to using rhetoric as a basis for killing a whole shit-load of people in another foreign nation.

So setting rhetoric aside.... again, can anyone explain to me what the real threat of Iran is?

[tmckay2]

Is this a joke? I'm serious. Is this a joke? The reason Iran and north Korea are such a threat is that their people have zero power, they have nut job dictators that just might be crazy enough and in the case of Iran they are somewhat driven by a religion that states their very purpose in life is to kill infidels (for those keeping score at home, that's us). The Russians had their problems but the fact was they had too many people that would have to ok such an action and they have always had their security and beat interest at heart. They're crazy but not that crazy. Any of the above, however, are fully capable of handing a small nuke to some extremist and sneaking it into the country. No one cares until it's their building of work at the epicenter. There is no reason to seek nukes except to threaten us and our allies and god forbid possibly use them. The fact that both regimes keep pushing to develop them regardless of our warnings should at least make you alarmed. I know several Iranians. The people aren't the enemy, nut job dictator an lunatic religious fanatics are.

No, I do not. I think they desire a change in leadership in Israel. Just like we do in NK, Iran, Venezuela, Libya (this month anyway), and so on and so on. 'Destruction' is again, your word.

But again, we're back to using rhetoric as a basis for killing a whole shit-load of people in another foreign nation.

So setting rhetoric aside.... again, can anyone explain to me what the real threat of Iran is?

[jhood001]

Is this a joke? I'm serious. Is this a joke? The reason Iran and north Korea are such a threat is that their people have zero power, they have nut job dictators that just might be crazy enough and in the case of Iran they are somewhat driven by a religion that states their very purpose in life is to kill infidels (for those keeping score at home, that's us). The Russians had their problems but the fact was they had too many people that would have to ok such an action and they have always had their security and beat interest at heart. They're crazy but not that crazy. Any of the above, however, are fully capable of handing a small nuke to some extremist and sneaking it into the country. No one cares until it's their building of work at the epicenter. There is no reason to seek nukes except to threaten us and our allies and god forbid possibly use them. The fact that both regimes keep pushing to develop them regardless of our warnings should at least make you alarmed. I know several Iranians. The people aren't the enemy, nut job dictator an lunatic religious fanatics are.

So you're presenting the case that that if they get nukes, their leaders are crazy enough to use them on us or our allies through a proxy. And by using a proxy, they can somehow stay out of our crosshairs for retaliation. I can buy into that.

I know several Iranians. The people aren't the enemy, nut job dictator an lunatic religious fanatics are.

Thank you for clarifying that. I think that far too many people fail to see the distinction.