So Iran doesn't have a nuclear program either...

[CapeCodTenor]

I believe Iran has admitted to as such but also admitted that the weapons program ended in 2003 and that they're enriching uranium for peaceful uses.

Oh man, that's funny. Iran has admitted to using it's nuclear program for peaceful uses...right, this from a man who at one point said Israel should be wiped off the map.

 

[LakeAriel]

Oh man, that's funny. Iran has admitted to using it's nuclear program for peaceful uses...right, this from a man who at one point said Israel should be wiped off the map.

Actually that's not what he said.

 

[CapeCodTenor]

Actually that's not what he said.

You're right, he repeated what Iran's revolutionary leader, Ayat Allah Khomeini said. He is the President of Iran, and he did say it, whether he was repeating it or not.

Ahmadinejad: Wipe Israel off map



Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

Ahmadinejad addressed students at a conference



"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the president told a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled The World without Zionism.

"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land," he said.

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.

His comments were the first time in years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for Israel's eradication, even though such slogans are still regularly used at government
rallies.

 

[LakeAriel]

Try to get a better translation.

 

[CapeCodTenor]

Try to get a better translation.

Here's the link...it's from Al Jazeera English, so if you have a problem with the translation, take it up with them.

http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=15816

 

[LakeAriel]

Ahmadinejad's phrase was " بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود " according to the text published on the President's Office's website.[11]

The translation presented by IRIB has been challenged by Mr. Arash Norouzi, who proposes that the statement "wiped off the map" was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the "regime occupying Jerusalem". He says that the Iranian government News Agency IRIB/IRNA translation is the source of the myth:

One may wonder: where did this false interpretation originate? Who is responsible for the translation that has sparked such worldwide controversy? The answer is surprising. The inflammatory 'wiped off the map' quote was first disseminated not by Iran's enemies, but by Iran itself. The Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran's official propaganda arm, used this phrasing in the English version of some of their news releases covering the World Without Zionism conference. International media including the BBC, Al Jazeera, Time magazine and countless others picked up the IRNA quote and made headlines out of it without verifying its accuracy, and rarely referring to the source. Iran's Foreign Minister soon attempted to clarify the statement, but the quote had a life of its own. Though the IRNA wording was inaccurate and misleading, the media assumed it was true, and besides, it made great copy.[12]

According to Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as:

The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[13]

 

[CapeCodTenor]

Ahmadinejad's phrase was " بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود " according to the text published on the President's Office's website.[11]

The translation presented by IRIB has been challenged by Mr. Arash Norouzi, who proposes that the statement "wiped off the map" was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the "regime occupying Jerusalem". He says that the Iranian government News Agency IRIB/IRNA translation is the source of the myth:

One may wonder: where did this false interpretation originate? Who is responsible for the translation that has sparked such worldwide controversy? The answer is surprising. The inflammatory 'wiped off the map' quote was first disseminated not by Iran's enemies, but by Iran itself. The Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran's official propaganda arm, used this phrasing in the English version of some of their news releases covering the World Without Zionism conference. International media including the BBC, Al Jazeera, Time magazine and countless others picked up the IRNA quote and made headlines out of it without verifying its accuracy, and rarely referring to the source. Iran's Foreign Minister soon attempted to clarify the statement, but the quote had a life of its own. Though the IRNA wording was inaccurate and misleading, the media assumed it was true, and besides, it made great copy.[12]

According to Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as:

The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[13]

Now why would the IRNA start this? As an official arm of the government of Iran I doubt they would start a myth like this. This would make the Iranian government look bad, which it has and now someone is trying to cover gloss over what was said.

 

[salmoneous]

So, I do believe that Iran is a threat to us, unfortunately.

I think everyone agrees that Iran is a threat - and a pretty big one. The question is, are they such a monstrous threat that we need to invade the country. And that looks like a "no" - at least for now.

 

[CapeCodTenor]

I think everyone agrees that Iran is a threat - and a pretty big one. The question is, are they such a monstrous threat that we need to invade the country. And that looks like a "no" - at least for now.

No, I don't think they are a big enough threat to invade. And even if they were, having nukes isn't a big enough reason, in my opinion.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Oh man, that's funny. Iran has admitted to using it's nuclear program for peaceful uses...right, this from a man who at one point said Israel should be wiped off the map.

Well we have no evidence to the contrary, so where do we go from here? Invasion and regime change for every country we imagine can harm us? Foreign policy built on the the President's wet dreams and fairy tales? Welcome to foreign policy George W. Bush style! The Prez will be happy that there are still a dwindling few out there still devouring the slop this Administration's peddling!

I think everyone agrees that Iran is a threat - and a pretty big one. The question is, are they such a monstrous threat that we need to invade the country. And that looks like a "no" - at least for now.

Abso-friggin'-lutely!

 

[LakeAriel]

I think everyone agrees that Iran is a threat - and a pretty big one. The question is, are they such a monstrous threat that we need to invade the country. And that looks like a "no" - at least for now.

exactly. One tyrant amongst many, many who are our allies..Like Hussein was when it was convenient for us.

 

[CapeCodTenor]

Well we have no evidence to the contrary, so where do we go from here? Invasion and regime change for every country we imagine can harm us? Foreign policy built on the the President's wet dreams and fairy tales? Welcome to foreign policy George W. Bush style! The Prez will be happy that there are still a dwindling few out there still devouring the slop this Administration's peddling!



Abso-friggin'-lutely!

I believe if you look above and read my previous post you'll get my answer. I may have not made it clear, and if I didn't, I do apologize. However, I do not subscribe to invading each and every country that is a threat to us.

And as for the evidence, it's out there. We just don't agree as to which evidence is correct.

And with that, I must be off for my 2 hour commute home. So I bid everyone peace.

 

[GeorgeG]

Okay, I'll keep it as simple as I can...

Radical Islamic Terrorists have declared war on the rest of the Non-Radical Islamic World, which happens to include The United States. Got that much? Radical Islamic Terrorists vs. The Non-Radical Islamic World.

They are determined to kill us, our families and all our friends who are not Radical Islamics. They do not officially represent any particular country and do not wear military uniforms that identify them as Radical Islamics. They do, however, train and operate from a significant number of Islamic countries that either support them in what they do, don't care what they do, or are unable to stop them from what they do.

Iraq happens to be an Islamic country who had a brutal leader who murdered thousands of his own people and invaded neighboring countries (remember Kuwait and Saudi Arabia?). Iraq may not have been the most active country when it came to terrorism, but it was run by a brutal and aggressive despot who would have certainly taken an active role against us at some point.

Perhaps we should have by-passed Iraq and gone into Iran or any one of the other countries that seem to be supporting terrorism, but we didn't. There's not much point in whining about that now. Maybe we should have just stayed out of it altogether. Then we could sit back and wait for more terrorist attacks on us or until France can't take it anymore and, once again, they come to us to bail them out (the recent riots in Paris were by young Muslims).

So, yes, we're at war and we know who we're at war with. The big problem is in defining where we should be fighting this war. First, we need to stop fighting among ourselves over which politician lied the biggest lie. Don't expect any miracles out the next election, either.

 

[Mr Man]

You're right, but we need to be screaming a little louder. This is a legitimate reason.

Just to make sure I understand you correctly, are you saying that the release of this NIE is grounds for impeachment of the POTUS? If so, this is an amazing leap......

I mean, I realize this thread is going in different directions (as they all do when they pass 3 pages -hehehehe).

I think we should all take a deep breath and actually read the unclassified National Intelligence Estimate:

www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf

Perhaps this will elevate our level of discourse.

I read it and here is my take:

On page 6: ''We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons.'' Wasn't this around the time Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan was wrapping up his "Nukes R Us" operation in Pakistan & there were disclosures from Iran at the time that they had been approached? Um, duh.......we all knew that (or should have, it was in all the papers after all).

And: ''We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.'' More duh........

And my personal favorite: ''We continue to assess with low confidence that Iran probably has imported at least some weapons usable fissile material, but still judge with moderate-to-high confidence it has not obtained enough for a nuclear weapon. We cannot rule out that Iran has acquired from abroad—or will acquire in the future—a nuclear weapon or enough fissile material for a weapon.''

Well that covers the gamut........this is some serious butt-covering on their part.....sheesh and doublesheesh.

Some more to chew on from another message board. I paraphrased and added to it....not sure what attribution rules are on the internet, but if it doesn't make sense....I am only half to blame LOL.

1. NIEs are consensus documents that offer the "lowest common denominator" intelligence judgment - more than a dozen agencies collaborate (in this case the full monty- 16) and must agree on the conclusions (hence, the conclusions are often wishy-washy, if not meaningless). If one agency has a dissenting opinion, it has to fight tooth and nail to get a dissenting footnote stating their alternate conclusion(s). It's unclear if any agencies dissented on the NIE's conclusions from what info is available.
2. The NIE states that the agencies have only a "moderate" level of confidence that Iran has not restarted its nuclear weapons program. That inspires no confidence in me when we're talking life and death issues. Keep in mind that EVERY SINGLE nuclear weapons program EVER has been conducted in secret.

Ok back to my comments:
It just looks like more fun and games with our "elites", looking at the entire world through the prism of the 2008 Presidential Election. What a short-sighted way to approach the issue. I primarily blame the Democrats and media for this (but I repeat myself hehehe). I also hold the Republicans responsible for their part. I sure wish they would grow a pair.

JMO (and that other person who I don't know but had some good points).

Regards,

 

[salmoneous]

Iraq happens to be an Islamic country who had a brutal leader who murdered thousands of his own people and invaded neighboring countries (remember Kuwait and Saudi Arabia?). Iraq may not have been the most active country when it came to terrorism, but it was run by a brutal and aggressive despot who would have certainly taken an active role against us at some point.

I find it odd that you try to justify the War against Iraq as part of a war against Radical Islamic Terrorists. Saddam may have been many things - but I don't see how you can lump him in with Radical Islamists. He was probably the most secular leader in the Middle East. And, as you say, they were far from the most active country in supporting terrorist.

Saddam was a bad guy, and Radical Islamic Terrorists are bad guys. I don't think it does us any good to confuse the two. There may be good justifications for the war in Iraq. But the notion that Radical Islamic Terrorists declared war on us isn't one of them.

There's not much point in whining about that now. Maybe we should have just stayed out of it altogether.

The point is to understand the mistakes we made in the run up to invading Iraq and learn from those mistakes.

 

[LakeAriel]

Just to make sure I understand you correctly, are you saying that the release of this NIE is grounds for impeachment of the POTUS? If so, this is an amazing leap......



You know darn (sic) well that that is not what I am saying..They should have been impeached for war crimes long before this..The fact that the drum beats to attack Iran are getting louder would, IMO, add some urgency to getting this group out of the White House and sooner rather then later.

 

[Mr Man]

Just to make sure I understand you correctly, are you saying that the release of this NIE is grounds for impeachment of the POTUS? If so, this is an amazing leap......



You know darn (sic) well that that is not what I am saying..They should have been impeached for war crimes long before this..The fact that the drum beats to attack Iran are getting louder would, IMO, add some urgency to getting this group out of the White House and sooner rather then later.

Hehehehehe......just checking.......

As before, I do not agree with this point of view and am growing more certain than ever that history will treat President Bush with geat respect for his accomplishments.

Regards,

 

[LakeAriel]

Hehehehehe......just checking.......

As before, I do not agree with this point of view and am growing more certain than ever that history will treat President Bush with geat respect for his accomplishments.

Regards,

Fortunately I haven't had dinner yet.

 

[transparant]

Hehehehehe......just checking.......

As before, I do not agree with this point of view and am growing more certain than ever that history will treat President Bush with geat respect for his accomplishments.
Regards,

I totally agree with you!

 

[Charade]

The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[13]

Oh, thanks for clearing that up.

Do you not see that they mean the same thing?