2nd letter from Tehran

[Balta1701]

During the Cuban missile crisis, Nikita Kruschev sent 2 letters within 2 days to Kennedy, one saying the Russians would remove the missiles if the U.S. pledged not to invade Cuba, and another saying the Russians would remove the missiles if the U.S. removed its missiles from Turkey. The Kennedy admin. decided to ignore the 2nd letter and accepted the offer from the first letter.

 

The Iranians may have learned a lesson from that. It appears that one of Ayatollah Khameni's representatives has sent a 2nd letter to the U.S., which both decries some U.S. actions but also offers more sound basis for negotiations than the rambling letter that Ahmadinjad's sent to Bush a few days ago.

[southsideirish71]

During the Cuban missile crisis, Nikita Kruschev sent 2 letters within 2 days to Kennedy, one saying the Russians would remove the missiles if the U.S. pledged not to invade Cuba, and another saying the Russians would remove the missiles if the U.S. removed its missiles from Turkey. The Kennedy admin. decided to ignore the 2nd letter and accepted the offer from the first letter.

 

The Iranians may have learned a lesson from that. It appears that one of Ayatollah Khameni's representatives has sent a 2nd letter to the U.S., which both decries some U.S. actions but also offers more sound basis for negotiations than the rambling letter that Ahmadinjad's sent to Bush a few days ago.

 

 

This is nothing new. This guy was on one show last week talking one way, while his president talks another. One is a direct letter to the president, and this is something from a lower level guy. This is smoke and mirrors to keep things moving so they can keep the status quo going on.

 

The President of Iran doesnt think Israel should exist. He questioned its existance in the previous letter, in all of his ramblings. He belongs to a religious sect that believes that when a war between the arabs and jews happen that Mohammed will come to save the world. He is insane. I see Iran getting a nuke, then lobbing it over to Israel and waiting for Mohammed to save them.

[Balta1701]

This is nothing new. This guy was on one show last week talking one way, while his president talks another. One is a direct letter to the president, and this is something from a lower level guy. This is smoke and mirrors to keep things moving so they can keep the status quo going on.

 

The President of Iran doesnt think Israel should exist. He questioned its existance in the previous letter, in all of his ramblings. He belongs to a religious sect that believes that when a war between the arabs and jews happen that Mohammed will come to save the world. He is insane. I see Iran getting a nuke, then lobbing it over to Israel and waiting for Mohammed to save them.

First of all, Ahmadinejad is not in command of Iran's military, so even if he wanted to do that, he'd have a bit of a problem...Ayatollah Khameni is actually at the top.

 

Secondly, I believe that his statement that he doesn't want to see Israel exist has been massively misinterpreted. Most people have bought into him saying that Iran would attack Israel with that remark. I think that other translations have strongly suggested he was actually quoting something Khomeni said about the Soviet Union...saying basically that he hoped it would vanish from time or something to that effect. Basically it was a statement calling for something akin to regime change...his words were almost a direct quote from Khomeni, and Khomeni had no intention of attacking the Soviets when he said them.

 

He's not a nice guy, and yes he is a holocaust denier, etc., but thus far, the evidence doesn't show him willing to launch an aggressive war against Israel.

[YASNY]

First of all, Ahmadinejad is not in command of Iran's military, so even if he wanted to do that, he'd have a bit of a problem...Ayatollah Khameni is actually at the top.

 

Secondly, I believe that his statement that he doesn't want to see Israel exist has been massively misinterpreted. Most people have bought into him saying that Iran would attack Israel with that remark. I think that other translations have strongly suggested he was actually quoting something Khomeni said about the Soviet Union...saying basically that he hoped it would vanish from time or something to that effect. Basically it was a statement calling for something akin to regime change...his words were almost a direct quote from Khomeni, and Khomeni had no intention of attacking the Soviets when he said them.

 

He's not a nice guy, and yes he is a holocaust denier, etc., but thus far, the evidence doesn't show him willing to launch an aggressive war against Israel.

 

If I'm Isreal, I'd find that point of view most reassuring.

 

Note: How many times have you seen a sentence start with 4 words beginning with capital "I"?

[southsideirish71]

First of all, Ahmadinejad is not in command of Iran's military, so even if he wanted to do that, he'd have a bit of a problem...Ayatollah Khameni is actually at the top.

 

Secondly, I believe that his statement that he doesn't want to see Israel exist has been massively misinterpreted. Most people have bought into him saying that Iran would attack Israel with that remark. I think that other translations have strongly suggested he was actually quoting something Khomeni said about the Soviet Union...saying basically that he hoped it would vanish from time or something to that effect. Basically it was a statement calling for something akin to regime change...his words were almost a direct quote from Khomeni, and Khomeni had no intention of attacking the Soviets when he said them.

 

He's not a nice guy, and yes he is a holocaust denier, etc., but thus far, the evidence doesn't show him willing to launch an aggressive war against Israel.

\

Massively misinterpreted? Are you serious?

 

Ahmadinejad has repeatedly spoken out against Israel and provoked a world outcry in October when he said Israel should be “wiped off the map.”

 

Do you really think this means that he is pushing for elections to remove the jews from israel. Or to the fact that he wants them wiped ou. Come on now. You cant sugar coat the Iranian president.

[Balta1701]

\

Massively misinterpreted? Are you serious?

 

Ahmadinejad has repeatedly spoken out against Israel and provoked a world outcry in October when he said Israel should be “wiped off the map.”

 

Do you really think this means that he is pushing for elections to remove the jews from israel. Or to the fact that he wants them wiped ou. Come on now. You cant sugar coat the Iranian president.

"wiped off the map" is the most specific mistranslation. In fact, that particular phrase doesn't even exist in Farsi.

 

Here's a different translation, with context, from Professor Cole (U Michigan)

Sorry that I misremembered the exact phrase Ahmadinejad had used. He made an analogy to Khomeini's determination and success in getting rid of the Shah's government, which Khomeini had said "must go" (az bain bayad berad). Then Ahmadinejad defined Zionism not as an Arabi-Israeli national struggle but as a Western plot to divide the world of Islam with Israel as the pivot of this plan.

 

The phrase he then used as I read it is "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)."

 

Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope-- that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah's government.

 

The one quick question you should ask yourself with a quote like that is...how American does it sound? To me, the phrase "Wiped off the map" makes perfect sense and I know its exact meaning, but that is a slang American phrase. Without the context, its direct translation would basically be me literally taking a map and cleaning it. In other words, the exact same slang phrase would have to exist in Farsi for that to be what Ahmadinejad said, and given how unique slang is in this country, the odds of that boggle my mind.

 

This guy is not a good guy, but we're going to get ourselves into trouble if we let the wrong people doing translations make policy for us.

Edited May 11, 2006 by Balta1701

[The Ginger Kid]

I hate the war in Iraq.

 

I loathe our president and his party.

 

But I firmly support an all out assault on Iran's nuclear aspirations. Please, no misguided occupation this time. Just a steady diet of cruise and tomohawk missiles, or as Daffy Duck once said, "give them a taste of the cleansing sting of superior Yankee firepower."

 

And this letter business? Please. He's buying time.

[southsideirish71]

"wiped off the map" is the most specific mistranslation. In fact, that particular phrase doesn't even exist in Farsi.

 

Here's a different translation, with context, from Professor Cole (U Michigan)

The one quick question you should ask yourself with a quote like that is...how American does it sound? To me, the phrase "Wiped off the map" makes perfect sense and I know its exact meaning, but that is a slang American phrase. Without the context, its direct translation would basically be me literally taking a map and cleaning it. In other words, the exact same slang phrase would have to exist in Farsi for that to be what Ahmadinejad said, and given how unique slang is in this country, the odds of that boggle my mind.

 

This guy is not a good guy, but we're going to get ourselves into trouble if we let the wrong people doing translations make policy for us.

 

Cole's translation is biased and his motives are horses***. He is an apologist for all things crazy. I am sure that he would translate Ossama Bin Laden video as a guy who said he is sorry for the towers falling.

 

 

Here is the original arabic.

 

srail ghiyam-e mossalahaane bar zed-e mamaalek-e eslami nemoodeh ast va bar doval va mamaalek-eeslami ghal-o-gham aan lazem ast.

 

Here is the translation from the Institute for Imam Khomeini.

 

Israel has declared armed struggle against Islamic countries and its destruction is a must for all governments and nations of Islam.

 

Maybe the history professor knows more farsi than I, but I dont think he knows more than the rest of the world. He is just putting his bulls*** slant on it, just like he does with all of his crazy terrorist do no wrong crap.

Edited May 11, 2006 by southsideirish71

[Balta1701]

Cole's translation is biased and his motives are horses***. He is an apologist for all things crazy. I am sure that he would translate Ossama Bin Laden video as a guy who said he is sorry for the towers falling.

 

 

Here is the original arabic.

 

srail ghiyam-e mossalahaane bar zed-e mamaalek-e eslami nemoodeh ast va bar doval va mamaalek-eeslami ghal-o-gham aan lazem ast.

 

Here is the translation from the Institute for Imam Khomeini.

 

Israel has declared armed struggle against Islamic countries and its destruction is a must for all governments and nations of Islam.

 

Maybe the history professor knows more farsi than I, but I dont think he knows more than the rest of the world. He is just putting his bulls*** slant on it, just like he does with all of his crazy terrorist do no wrong crap.

Here are 2 more attempts at translating the whole paragraph of Ahmadinejad's speech. In both of them, if you read the full thing and don't focus on that 1 clause alone, it becomes clear that the clause you're questioning is taken as happening the same way as the overthrow of the Shah.

[southsideirish71]

Here are 2 more attempts at translating the whole paragraph of Ahmadinejad's speech. In both of them, if you read the full thing and don't focus on that 1 clause alone, it becomes clear that the clause you're questioning is taken as happening the same way as the overthrow of the Shah.

I give up, he is a real sweet guy who is just mistranslated.

[Rex Kickass]

I love how in your world, you either hate him or love him. There might be a middle ground - one that acts with actual reason and not emotion. Personally, I hope that middle ground exists and exists in our policies.

 

The letter from Iran to the US is way more important than people think. It's actually the first direct communication between the two states since 1979. That's 27 years. And although, it didn't answer any questions or address any issues - it's still an unprecedented step from Iran to start a process of easing tensions. Whether you want to believe it or not, this is Iran blinking first. Which means that the US government ought to be suspicious of motives but welcome the opening of dialogue. In fact our President should reply. Openly, honestly and publicly. Why? Because if we act the role of honest broker and they really are blowing smoke up our ass - it makes it easier to internationalize any conflict we may feel ourselves cornered into creating. Even if we doubt their intentions, playing out this hand only strengthens our position.

 

We've rejected prior overtures from Iran through third countries to come to the table and start talking - and maybe help ease tensions. This is a tremendous opportunity for the US to regain influence in a part of the world where we need it and I hope it isn't squandered. Otherwise we will be looking up at China in the next 50 years.

[Balta1701]

I give up, he is a real sweet guy who is just mistranslated.

He's not a sweet guy at all. The U.S. shouldn't trust him, and it damn well better find a way to keep his country from getting the bomb 10 years from now. None of that mean he's going to launch a preemptive attack on Israel tomorrow, or the next day, or any day within his term in office.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

This is nothing new. This guy was on one show last week talking one way, while his president talks another. One is a direct letter to the president, and this is something from a lower level guy. This is smoke and mirrors to keep things moving so they can keep the status quo going on.

 

The President of Iran doesnt think Israel should exist. He questioned its existance in the previous letter, in all of his ramblings. He belongs to a religious sect that believes that when a war between the arabs and jews happen that Mohammed will come to save the world. He is insane. I see Iran getting a nuke, then lobbing it over to Israel and waiting for Mohammed to save them.

 

 

If they are f***ing stupid enough to drop an atomic weapon on Isreal then Allah better stock up on virgins because there's going to be a whole lot of Iranian Muslims coming around when Isreal and the US turn Iran into a parking lot.

 

I love how in your world, you either hate him or love him. There might be a middle ground - one that acts with actual reason and not emotion. Personally, I hope that middle ground exists and exists in our policies.

 

The letter from Iran to the US is way more important than people think. It's actually the first direct communication between the two states since 1979. That's 27 years. And although, it didn't answer any questions or address any issues - it's still an unprecedented step from Iran to start a process of easing tensions. Whether you want to believe it or not, this is Iran blinking first. Which means that the US government ought to be suspicious of motives but welcome the opening of dialogue. In fact our President should reply. Openly, honestly and publicly. Why? Because if we act the role of honest broker and they really are blowing smoke up our ass - it makes it easier to internationalize any conflict we may feel ourselves cornered into creating. Even if we doubt their intentions, playing out this hand only strengthens our position.

 

We've rejected prior overtures from Iran through third countries to come to the table and start talking - and maybe help ease tensions. This is a tremendous opportunity for the US to regain influence in a part of the world where we need it and I hope it isn't squandered. Otherwise we will be looking up at China in the next 50 years.

 

 

Rex, those overtures were rejected because they were BS to begin with. Iran is playing the same game North Korea played with us for the last 10 years. They figured if the N. Koreans could get a bomb that way then why not try it themselves. BTW. If we let Iran get a nuke then China will be the least of our worries.

[Balta1701]

Rex, those overtures were rejected because they were BS to begin with. Iran is playing the same game North Korea played with us for the last 10 years. They figured if the N. Koreans could get a bomb that way then why not try it themselves. BTW. If we let Iran get a nuke then China will be the least of our worries.

So what exactly is the other option? Ignore them, ostracize them, give their regime us as a major scapegoat, and let them have all the time they want to develop the bomb since the U.S. doesn't have the forces or the trust of the world to mount an actual invasion? Or launch some piecemeal strike that won't stop their nuclear program while strengthening their government, unifying the Shi'a population of the middle east against us, and so forth?

 

A great man once said “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.” We're not going to be invading Iran tomorrow, or this year, etc. The only thing that ignoring their overtures does is make us look like we're the stubborn ones in the eyes of the countries whose support we would need in any future action.

[Rex Kickass]

If they are f***ing stupid enough to drop an atomic weapon on Isreal then Allah better stock up on virgins because there's going to be a whole lot of Iranian Muslims coming around when Isreal and the US turn Iran into a parking lot.

Rex, those overtures were rejected because they were BS to begin with. Iran is playing the same game North Korea played with us for the last 10 years. They figured if the N. Koreans could get a bomb that way then why not try it themselves. BTW. If we let Iran get a nuke then China will be the least of our worries.

 

You've completely missed my point Nuke. By playing along we legitimize any need for military force down the road. Instead, all we do is further marginalize and corner the people we're most concerned with... and cornered people are the ones most likely to lunge out.

 

But I guess easier to just say "f*** em" then do what's right and be prepared to do what's necessary physically if it comes to that. Maybe the administration just figures that in 2009 it'll be someone else's problem.

 

Oh and Nuke, that "game" that North Korea played with us for ten years (although it was really five) finally worked. We finally came to the table, albeit being dragged there.

 

There's a great story involving the Iranian airliner that we accidentally bombed in 1988. The Vice President at the time, George H.W. Bush defended US action in the region, apologized for bombing a civilian aircraft and referred to Iran by its formal name "The Islamic Republic of Iran." The U.S. had never before used the term publicly. A lot of people argue that it was that mere sign of respect on behalf of Poppy Bush that quieted the Iranian outrage after that accident.

 

Personal respect goes a long way in diplomacy. When the President of Iran addressed our President as "Your Excellency," there was a signal of dialogue issued. Maybe we oughta look into the idea of dialogue.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

You've completely missed my point Nuke. By playing along we legitimize any need for military force down the road. Instead, all we do is further marginalize and corner the people we're most concerned with... and cornered people are the ones most likely to lunge out.

 

But I guess easier to just say "f*** em" then do what's right and be prepared to do what's necessary physically if it comes to that. Maybe the administration just figures that in 2009 it'll be someone else's problem.

 

Oh and Nuke, that "game" that North Korea played with us for ten years (although it was really five) finally worked. We finally came to the table, albeit being dragged there.

 

There's a great story involving the Iranian airliner that we accidentally bombed in 1988. The Vice President at the time, George H.W. Bush defended US action in the region, apologized for bombing a civilian aircraft and referred to Iran by its formal name "The Islamic Republic of Iran." The U.S. had never before used the term publicly. A lot of people argue that it was that mere sign of respect on behalf of Poppy Bush that quieted the Iranian outrage after that accident.

 

Personal respect goes a long way in diplomacy. When the President of Iran addressed our President as "Your Excellency," there was a signal of dialogue issued. Maybe we oughta look into the idea of dialogue.

 

 

Yeah, things worked out REAL good with N. Korea. We got to talking and, oh, they have the bomb now.

 

Guess that really worked huh?

[Balta1701]

Yeah, things worked out REAL good with N. Korea. We got to talking and, oh, they have the bomb now.

 

Guess that really worked huh?

How many times have we actually sat ourselves down for 1 on 1 negotiations with North Korea in the past 6 years?

 

How high of a priority was it for us when North Korea announced they were going to build the bomb in late 2002, and then we detected signatures of them reprocessing fuel rods along the DMZ in early 2003?

 

Why exactly were we unwilling to offer up a non-aggression pact with that nation?

 

Neither side has negotiated in good faith in those discussions. And it wound up with NK getting the bomb. Where would the harm have been in actually trying?

 

So here's the one argument I will make on Iran. And saying "It won't work" doesn't even do it damage, because it's so strong. According to the current CIA estimates, Iran is 10 years from a bomb. We won't be invading Iran this year, or most likely next year. Our allies are in no shape to do so, and neither is our army. Even if those CIA estimates are off by a factor of 2, we still have 5 years. So what exactly is the harm in trying?

 

If it fails, so what, it fails, and suddenly we find ourselves replete with allies because we actually tried. If it succeeds, we avoid a war, the price of oil plummets, and thousands to millions of lives are saved. There is absolutely no reason not to at least try to sit down with Iran right now, at a summit, face to face, and try to negotiate a settlement that prevents Iran from getting the bomb. If a year from now it totally fails, then all it's done is take a year that we'd spend trying to rebuild our army anyway, and made us look a lot better in the eyes of the countries who might help out.

 

Right now, the price of peace with that country is as low as its ever going to get. From here on out, the price of oil will only go up, which will make Iran stronger and less willing to negotiate, and make China and Russia even more obstinate. Iran will only get closer to the bomb, which will make them less likely to negotiate. And they know the U.S. can't invade right now, which gives them motivation to settle this now before the U.S. army returns to full force. Things will only get harder the longer we wait. And it is absolutely impossible for there to be any harm done to the U.S. by sitting down and negotiating.

Edited May 12, 2006 by Balta1701

[Rex Kickass]

Yeah, things worked out REAL good with N. Korea. We got to talking and, oh, they have the bomb now.

 

Guess that really worked huh?

 

Again, you're missing the point. Agreeing to play the diplomacy game strengthens our military game, because if the time comes where it is necessary to take action, we'll have had a history of trying to be an honest broker regarding the Iranian Nuclear Crisis.

[southsideirish71]

How many times have we actually sat ourselves down for 1 on 1 negotiations with North Korea in the past 6 years?

 

How high of a priority was it for us when North Korea announced they were going to build the bomb in late 2002, and then we detected signatures of them reprocessing fuel rods along the DMZ in early 2003?

 

Why exactly were we unwilling to offer up a non-aggression pact with that nation?

 

Neither side has negotiated in good faith in those discussions. And it wound up with NK getting the bomb. Where would the harm have been in actually trying?

 

So here's the one argument I will make on Iran. And saying "It won't work" doesn't even do it damage, because it's so strong. According to the current CIA estimates, Iran is 10 years from a bomb. We won't be invading Iran this year, or most likely next year. Our allies are in no shape to do so, and neither is our army. Even if those CIA estimates are off by a factor of 2, we still have 5 years. So what exactly is the harm in trying?

 

If it fails, so what, it fails, and suddenly we find ourselves replete with allies because we actually tried. If it succeeds, we avoid a war, the price of oil plummets, and thousands to millions of lives are saved. There is absolutely no reason not to at least try to sit down with Iran right now, at a summit, face to face, and try to negotiate a settlement that prevents Iran from getting the bomb. If a year from now it totally fails, then all it's done is take a year that we'd spend trying to rebuild our army anyway, and made us look a lot better in the eyes of the countries who might help out.

 

Right now, the price of peace with that country is as low as its ever going to get. From here on out, the price of oil will only go up, which will make Iran stronger and less willing to negotiate, and make China and Russia even more obstinate. Iran will only get closer to the bomb, which will make them less likely to negotiate. And they know the U.S. can't invade right now, which gives them motivation to settle this now before the U.S. army returns to full force. Things will only get harder the longer we wait. And it is absolutely impossible for there to be any harm done to the U.S. by sitting down and negotiating.

 

 

Those estimates are based on Iran developing all of the technology by themselves. As we have seen with Korea you can get some help from the outside to accelerate your nuclear program. Korea already sends their missle technology over for money, why not some tips and tricks on how to get around the difficult technical problems of nuclear weapons. I have the stomach to sit with the peace process, I hope you have the stomach if we have to detonate a thermonuclear weapon over Tehran in about 5 to 10 years.

[Balta1701]

Those estimates are based on Iran developing all of the technology by themselves. As we have seen with Korea you can get some help from the outside to accelerate your nuclear program. Korea already sends their missle technology over for money, why not some tips and tricks on how to get around the difficult technical problems of nuclear weapons. I have the stomach to sit with the peace process, I hope you have the stomach if we have to detonate a thermonuclear weapon over Tehran in about 5 to 10 years.

If we at least try the peace process...instead of sitting around refusing to negotiate...and it totally fails, and we have evidence that they are enriching uranium beyond what is necessary for electricity, we will have to do WHATEVER it takes to prevent Iran from getting the bomb.

[Rex Kickass]

Negotiating for peace allows us the international legitimacy of a war, if necessary as long as the US as being seen as an honest broker.