Obama On Terrorism

[BPTactical]

Sounds like somebody is setting the table for a semi auto and high cap mag ban.
Play on the peoples fears to further your agenda.
Classic Cloward and Piven.
"Never let a good crisis go to waste"








Again

[Bailey Guns]

I'm thinking somebody on here needs to educate me regarding the allegedly evil and sinister Iran.

I personally think the notion is absolutely ridiculous and anyone that actually believes they would, let alone could do anything to the US homeland is simply buying into a massive lobbying effort by AIPAC and other more imperialistic minded lobbies. Regardless, maybe there is something I'm missing?

What is the basis for branding Iran as our new bogeyman?
What historical precedence is there for believing they have any hegemonic ambition whatsoever (within 200 years, please)?
What makes them more scary than the PRK?

Perhaps I'm missing something. And whether I disagree or agree with any evidence, or even opinions provided, I would still love to hear what some of us here think.

Oh, yeah. You're missing something.

The whole issue of the dangers a nuclear Iran (and of course, a nuclear Korea in that region) poses to not just the US, but the middle east, Israel and many parts of the world has been discussed here and elsewhere, in the news, in books and many other venues ad-nauseum. If you haven't picked up on it before I doubt you'd pick up on it now.

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.

[Bailey Guns]

I just wanted to add that I'm not defending everything that's happened to Iran in the past whether it includes US involvement or not. But since the overthrow of the shah Iran has been nothing but a pain in the ass for most of the world.

[jhood001]

So we've got rhetoric and the 'it would be bad if they had nukes' argument. I'm dismissing the rhetoric flat out. If the nations of the world always reacted based on rhetoric, we would probably all be ash at this point.

While the reports on whether they're even pursuing nuclear weapons or are even close are pretty conflicting from what I've seen, let's say they did acquire them. What then?

Is Iran someone we consider to be just crazy enough to use them? And if so, what is that assumption based on?
Or is the real concern a matter of Iran then being able to better project their influence throughout the middle east with less options available to Israel and her allies to do something about it?

And I'm sorry to de-rail this thread. That statement from the White House stinks of being a part of the anti-gun movement. I personally don't think that Norway fool would have gotten 1/10 as far in the US as he did over there. Unless, of course, he was in some gun-free zone. Campus, etc. Imagine that.

[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?