World War 3... Here we come!

[HuskyCaucasian]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../17/wwar117.xml

 

I am really getting tired of Bush and his constant fear mongering.

[kapkomet]

Let's see. What would you call it when the leader of a country says that "Israel needs to be wiped off the map". If they follow through with it, it will be world war three.

 

Let's villify the person who says it as a "fear mongerer" as opposed to really dealing with the problem. That always helps.

 

[Balta1701]

Here's my problem with his statement:

 

Why exactly would a war with Iran be world war 3? Not every war the U.S. gets in needs to be called that, and Iran is at most a regional power. Would we be expecting China and Russia to get involved?

[kapkomet]

Here's my problem with his statement:

 

Why exactly would a war with Iran be world war 3? Not every war the U.S. gets in needs to be called that, and Iran is at most a regional power. Would we be expecting China and Russia to get involved?

I think that is exactly right.

[Balta1701]

I think that is exactly right.

If that is the other option, if China or Russia were willing to go to war to prevent the U.S. from conquering Iran, then Iran gets the bomb.

[GoSox05]

Let's see. What would you call it when the leader of a country says that "Israel needs to be wiped off the map". If they follow through with it, it will be world war three.

 

Let's villify the person who says it as a "fear mongerer" as opposed to really dealing with the problem. That always helps.

 

 

Not that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a great guy, but he never said that. You think that the president of the United States would get his facts right when he keeps on quoting something that was never said. Its been used as this great propaganda tool. The term "wiped of the map" dosen't exsist in the Persian language. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said things similar to that, like he hopes that the current Isreal regime collapses. Things that don't quite get people so pumped for war.

 

It may seem like a stupid thing to breing up, but it's been used so much to get people excited for war. I don't think Iran has any plan's to invade another country. I think George Bush can't wait till he get's to invade Iran, so more people can die.

Edited October 18, 2007 by GoSox05

[kapkomet]

If that is the other option, if China or Russia were willing to go to war to prevent the U.S. from conquering Iran, then Iran gets the bomb.

Which is why you're seeing what you're seeing today (Putin going there in person).

 

There's a lot more behind this then everyone wants to see on the surface.

 

[EvilMonkey]

Not that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a great guy, but he never said that. You think that the president of the United States would get his facts right when he keeps on quoting something that was never said. Its been used as this great propaganda tool. The term "wiped of the map" dosen't exsist in the Persian language. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said things similar to that, like he hopes that the current Isreal regime collapses. Things that don't quite get people so pumped for war.

 

It may seem like a stupid thing to breing up, but it's been used such much to get people excited for war. I don't think Iran has any plan's to invade another country. I think George Bush can't wait till he get's to invade Iran, so more people can die.

You are parsing like a Clinton.

[kapkomet]

Not that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a great guy, but he never said that. You think that the president of the United States would get his facts right when he keeps on quoting something that was never said. Its been used as this great propaganda tool. The term "wiped of the map" dosen't exsist in the Persian language. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said things similar to that, like he hopes that the current Isreal regime collapses. Things that don't quite get people so pumped for war.

 

It may seem like a stupid thing to breing up, but it's been used so much to get people excited for war. I don't think Iran has any plan's to invade another country. I think George Bush can't wait till he get's to invade Iran, so more people can die.

He said it. Make sure you check your facts.

 

As far as the rest of your post, what the hell ever. Then people wonder why the extreme views exist in this country today. PSSSST! 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB!

Edited October 18, 2007 by kapkomet

[GoSox05]

He said it. Make sure you check your facts.

 

As far as the rest of your post, what the hell ever. Then people wonder why the extreme views exist in this country today.

 

 

If he said it prove it. Show me. If not wanting to go to war and not wanting to invade countries that haven't done anything to anyone is "extreme". Than I guess that I'm an extremist. I think it's just a dumb word that republicans wanna call anyone with a diffrent view. Much like people from the left who run around calling everyone "fasict".

 

 

And why do people on the right compare everyone remotly to the left of their political views to The Clinton's? Your obsessed with the Clinton's.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

If he said it prove it. Show me. If not wanting to go to war and not wanting to invade countries that haven't done anything to anyone is "extreme". Than I guess that I'm an extremist. I think it's just a dumb word that republicans wanna call anyone with a diffrent view. Much like people from the left who run around calling everyone "fasict".

And why do people on the right compare everyone remotly to the left of their political views to The Clinton's? Your obsessed with the Clinton's.

 

 

Did you have your head in the sand for those couple of months after he said it? It got constant media attention for a very long time.

[kapkomet]

If he said it prove it. Show me. If not wanting to go to war and not wanting to invade countries that haven't done anything to anyone is "extreme". Than I guess that I'm an extremist. I think it's just a dumb word that republicans wanna call anyone with a diffrent view. Much like people from the left who run around calling everyone "fasict".

And why do people on the right compare everyone remotly to the left of their political views to The Clinton's? Your obsessed with the Clinton's.

Google it. It's all over the place what he said.

[GoSox05]

Wiped off the page of time" translation from wikipedia. I've read this other places too

 

 

news sources have presented one of Ahmadinejad's phrases in Persian as a statement that "Israel must be wiped off the map",[5][6][7] an English idiom which means to "cause a place to stop to exist",[8] or to "obliterate totally",[9] or "destroy completely".[10]

 

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]

 

Norouzi's translation is identical.[12] According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian". Instead, "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[14]

 

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly.[15] On June 15, 2006 The Guardian columnist and foreign correspondent Jonathan Steele published an article based on this reasoning.[16]

 

Sources within the Iranian government have also denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat.[17][18][19] On 20 February 2006, Iran’s foreign minister denied that Tehran wanted to see Israel “wiped off the map,” saying Ahmadinejad had been misunderstood. "Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned," Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference, speaking in English, after addressing the European Parliament. "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognise legally this regime," he said.[20][21][22]

 

In a June 11, 2006 analysis of the translation controversy, New York Times deputy foreign editor Ethan Bronner stated that Ahmadinejad had said that Israel was to be wiped off the map. After noting the objections of critics such as Cole and Steele, Bronner said: "But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his Web site (www.president.ir/en/), refer to wiping Israel away. Bronner stated: "..it is hard to argue that, from Israel's point of view, Mr. Ahmadinejad poses no threat. Still, it is true that he has never specifically threatened war against Israel. So did Iran's president call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question."[14]

 

A synopsis of Mr Ahmadinejad's speech on the Iranian Presidential website states:

 

He further expressed his firm belief that the new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world would in no time wipe Israel away.[23]

 

The same idiom in his speech on December 13, 2006 was translated as "wiped out" by Reuters:

 

Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out.[24]

 

 

[kapkomet]

Wiped off the page of time" translation from wikipedia. I've read this other places too

news sources have presented one of Ahmadinejad's phrases in Persian as a statement that "Israel must be wiped off the map",[5][6][7] an English idiom which means to "cause a place to stop to exist",[8] or to "obliterate totally",[9] or "destroy completely".[10]

 

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]

 

Norouzi's translation is identical.[12] According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian". Instead, "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[14]

 

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly.[15] On June 15, 2006 The Guardian columnist and foreign correspondent Jonathan Steele published an article based on this reasoning.[16]

 

Sources within the Iranian government have also denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat.[17][18][19] On 20 February 2006, Iran’s foreign minister denied that Tehran wanted to see Israel “wiped off the map,” saying Ahmadinejad had been misunderstood. "Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned," Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference, speaking in English, after addressing the European Parliament. "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognise legally this regime," he said.[20][21][22]

 

In a June 11, 2006 analysis of the translation controversy, New York Times deputy foreign editor Ethan Bronner stated that Ahmadinejad had said that Israel was to be wiped off the map. After noting the objections of critics such as Cole and Steele, Bronner said: "But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his Web site (www.president.ir/en/), refer to wiping Israel away. Bronner stated: "..it is hard to argue that, from Israel's point of view, Mr. Ahmadinejad poses no threat. Still, it is true that he has never specifically threatened war against Israel. So did Iran's president call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question."[14]

 

A synopsis of Mr Ahmadinejad's speech on the Iranian Presidential website states:

 

He further expressed his firm belief that the new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world would in no time wipe Israel away.[23]

 

The same idiom in his speech on December 13, 2006 was translated as "wiped out" by Reuters:

 

Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out.[24]

The net effect is the same. Isreal is not to exist. Thanks for defending Aima-Nut-Job and showing your true spirit here.

[Gregory Pratt]

I don't have a problem with what Bush said. And no, it isn't "warmongering."

[EvilMonkey]

The net effect is the same. Isreal is not to exist. Thanks for defending Aima-Nut-Job and showing your true spirit here.

Just remember, they can defend a gang rape if it fit thier political ideals.

[Gregory Pratt]

Just remember, they can defend a gang rape if it fit thier political ideals.

 

You funny.

[Rex Kickass]

Here's my problem with his statement:

 

Why exactly would a war with Iran be world war 3? Not every war the U.S. gets in needs to be called that, and Iran is at most a regional power. Would we be expecting China and Russia to get involved?

 

I think the problem with that would be assuming China AND Russia would get involved. They wouldn't. At most, one and not the other would rally to Iran's defense as they are competing interests in this region. And my bet is that neither state would go nuclear over Iran.

 

In reality, this is the one country where I think a policy of regime change makes sense for the US right now. Ideally, we'd do so by internationalizing pressure around the region towards Iran I think. It'd be tough to do but not impossible.

 

It would however require a concentration of diplomatic efforts that I don't think the US is particularly interested in at the moment.

[southsider2k5]

Here's my problem with his statement:

 

Why exactly would a war with Iran be world war 3? Not every war the U.S. gets in needs to be called that, and Iran is at most a regional power. Would we be expecting China and Russia to get involved?

 

For me it isn't a big leap of faith that if a weapon was launched at Israel, whether it be from Iran, or Iran selling/giving the technology to someone else, that Israel would detect the launch and instantly fire off their entire nuclear cache at Cairo, Tehran, Beirut, Amman, Mecca, and anyone/thing else they could think of. I don't think they would wait around and see if the US got interested to help, Israel has a way of trying to take care of things themselves. Its not hard to envision one nuclear incident causing world war.

[Rex Kickass]

Israel would not nuclearize the conflict all across the region, that would be foolish and invite a nuclear response from someone else. One nuclear detonation might destroy Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, but it wouldn't destroy all of Israel.

[southsider2k5]

I have zero doubts that if anyone exploded a nuclear device in Israel, in anyway, shape, or form, they would do as they have historically done, and respond in spades. To me it is the most obvious part of the equation. Israel has been under attack since they day they were formed. The way they have survived is by taking on all enemies, and doing it with an overwealming show of force. I am convinced that if someone tried playing the trump card of a nuclear bomb on Israel, they would lay all of their cards on the table, and make sure none of their enemies could take advantage of their weakened state. They would respond in kind.

[Rex Kickass]

Except their nuclear arsenal can't hit everyone. You don't think a nuke in every capital wouldn't engender a nuclear response from Russia or China? It absolutely would. You don't think that the US would respond to protect Israel in that case, do you? Because in the situation you've placed, there's no way the US is coming to Israel's material defense or retalliating against any counter attack.

[NorthSideSox72]

I have zero doubts that if anyone exploded a nuclear device in Israel, in anyway, shape, or form, they would do as they have historically done, and respond in spades. To me it is the most obvious part of the equation. Israel has been under attack since they day they were formed. The way they have survived is by taking on all enemies, and doing it with an overwealming show of force. I am convinced that if someone tried playing the trump card of a nuclear bomb on Israel, they would lay all of their cards on the table, and make sure none of their enemies could take advantage of their weakened state. They would respond in kind.

In kind means nuking Iran. What you are suggesting, attacking a whole list of enemies, won't happen. It would ensure their own destruction, and accomplish nothing. If you are thinking of the 1967 and 1973 wars, in those cases, they attacked multiple countries because multiple countries attacked them.

 

Now, I agree that their response to Iran in that scenario would be a lot more than 1 nuke. It would be an attack far more destructive, and the US would probably back them.

 

[southsider2k5]

I don't think they much care what the rest of the world thinks. Think about it from their point of view. The entire world, sans the US, votes against them every chance they get in the UN. They are condemned, attacked, and hated by most of the world. Its not like they are endangering some big base of support here. They don't care what the rest of the world thinks, as they only care about their own survival. If they are attacked with nuclear weapons, do you really think they are going to stop and think about what the rest of the world would say if they answered that attack? They never have in their history, why would they start with the most deadly of attacks? Seriously, at very least, they would launch at nuclear attack at whereever the missile came from. More than likely they would settle old scores and attack anyone who was even thinking of attacking them again.

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't think they much care what the rest of the world thinks. Think about it from their point of view. The entire world, sans the US, votes against them every chance they get in the UN. They are condemned, attacked, and hated by most of the world. Its not like they are endangering some big base of support here. They don't care what the rest of the world thinks, as they only care about their own survival. If they are attacked with nuclear weapons, do you really think they are going to stop and think about what the rest of the world would say if they answered that attack? They never have in their history, why would they start with the most deadly of attacks? Seriously, at very least, they would launch at nuclear attack at whereever the missile came from. More than likely they would settle old scores and attack anyone who was even thinking of attacking them again.

I agree they'd probably nuke or seriously decimate Iran if Iran nuked them. But because they care about their survival, I don't agree with your premise that they would use Iran as an excuse to turn the entire Middle East into a big glass parking lot. That would only result in their destruction as well.