Print

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(Arvarden @ Feb 12 2007, 10:30 AM)

It would seem certain nation/s have the knifes out for Iran. Not only has Iran been accused of knowingly supplying weapons to Iraqi insurgents recently. It has been accused of destabilizing the entire region with its proxy wars in Lebanon. On top of that Iran is developing nuclear weapons to wipe Israel off the map!

It looks like our "trusted" media got it wrong…again and are falling the spin where ever it is coming from.

"Across the world, a dangerous rumor has spread that could have catastrophic implications. According to legend, Iran's President has threatened to destroy Israel, or, to quote the misquote, "Israel must be wiped off the map

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.

The full quote translated directly to English:

The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

http://www.thetruths...int.asp?ID=5866

Well... First let me ask you, you do realize that the U.S. is trying to diplomatically resolve this situation right? Nobody is building the case for war, but from what IS going on the United States certainly has cause for concern (notice I didn't say right to invade). (Iran)



You article is from a liberal-biased website. If you go to it's main page http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/, you'll see that they have everything from reporting the world trade center was bombed on 9/11 instead of planes crashing into it to things like this

"Voice of the White House February 9, 2007 Israel wants Bush to fight their wars for them in the MidEast; to attack Iraq (which happened) and then to flatten Iran. Now the Bush gang is going into a bunker mode: determined to proceed with this insane MidEast conquest policy come what may More ... "



It is a radical site full of misinformation. Please nobody take this article seriously as even the translated statement still sounds exactly like the statement they were trying to defend against.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(Arvarden @ Feb 13 2007, 01:28 AM)

Sending a second aircraft carrier to region is diplomacy?

Have we attacked with it? Have we stated that we have no intention to attack? So once you get the correct answers to these questions.... what does this have to do with anything?

QUOTE

 Shouldn't the US be more concerned with Pakistan that allows Taliban fighters to regroup within her boarders and launch attacks on NATO forces?

So you're saying, that the taliban that we threw out of Afghanistan poses more of a threat than a country persuing nuclear weapons and who can potentially cause us to fail in Iraq? I think anyone that posesses the ability to prioritize can see the fatal errors in that judgement.

QUOTE

If Iran is supplying moralistic and financial aid to Iraqi insurgents why isn't the same political and military pressure applied to Pakistan?

It was. http://www.msnbc.msn.../site/newsweek/

They have been attempting to stop it. The reason it's not as priority as Iran is simply due to the scale. If the violence were equal or the potential were equal or even close then you might have a point. Again this comes back to common sense and the ability to prioritize.

QUOTE

Finally I have provided a translation of Ahmadinejads controversial speech. It is up to you to prove it wrong, which you have not done.

Well.... yes I did. Your translation says exactly the same thing as what you were defending against by posting this. Changing some words around does not change the message. Next, why does someone have to prove it wrong.... when you never proved it right? Also, you stated it was specifically MY responsibility.... why?

[BCfosheezy]

Taken from AL JAZEERA which if you have paid any attention to the news at all since the war started, you know is based in the middle east. This means that the native tongue of those that reported this is arabic. They did the translation accurately. It wouldn't have taken 2 years for the correction to be made.



http://english.aljaz...ArchiveId=15816





"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.


 

I guess the questions that I have are: Why do people WANT to ignore what is happening? Why do a certain group of Americans want America be the bad guy?

[pug_ster]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17129144/

Another interesting article that a General Pace Chairman of Joint Chiefs says that there is no evidence that the Irain government is involved in arming Iraqis.  

QUOTE

I guess the questions that I have are: Why do people WANT to ignore what is happening? Why do a certain group of Americans want America be the bad guy?

So we should sent a couple of cruise missles to Iran just because this guy give us a verbal threat.  That's how we got stuck in Iraq in the first place.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Feb 13 2007, 10:51 AM)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17129144/

Another interesting article that a General Pace Chairman of Joint Chiefs says that there is no evidence that the Irain government is involved in arming Iraqis.

He didn't say that. To sum up what he said is don't just jump to conclusions just yet. Here's exactly what he said to remove the liberal bias from it and reinstate the truth.

CODE

"That does not translate that the Iranian government per se, for sure, is directly involved in doing this," Pace told reporters in the Indonesian capital, Jakarta. "What it does say is that things made in Iran are being used in Iraq to kill coalition soldiers."

QUOTE

So we should sent a couple of cruise missles to Iran just because this guy give us a verbal threat. That's how we got stuck in Iraq in the first place.

Who, besides you, said anything about some cruise missiles?

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(Arvarden @ Feb 13 2007, 01:57 PM)

Well, you stated the US is using diplomacy to resolve the situation which is correct. Diplomacy is achieved through verbal exchange, not by sending military hardware to the region.  

Yes and as I also stated, sending the military hardware does not take away from the diplomacy, it could do nothing but potentially reinforce it.

QUOTE

To answer your second question, the US has not ruled out military action.

Not if diplomacy fails... but that was not the question. The question was have we stated we did not have that intention? and the answer to that question is... We did say that was not our intention. It does not mean that it will not eventually become necessary.

 http://news.yahoo.co..._nm/iran_usa_dc

 

"When we -- as the president did, for example, recently -- deploy another aircraft carrier task force to the Gulf, that sends a very strong signal to everybody in the region that the United States is here to stay, that we clearly have significant capabilities, and that we are working with friends and allies as well as the international organizations to deal with the Iranian threat," Cheney said.


Now "sending messages" is not the same as intending to attack. Sure someone will try to spin it, but that won't make it true.

QUOTE

No. And when did Ahmadinejad state he would use nuclear weapons to achieve his goals? The only person responsible for Iraq's potential future failure is….America.

On this I agree with you. Yet I disagree with your implicit statement. I agree that the only way America will fail in Iraq is from the division within and the people out to gain political control by lying and spinning the truth, and attacking the president mercilessly simply so they can get elected. I disagree that Ahmadinejad wouldn't use nuclear weapons on the U.S. and Israel simply because he hasn't said so yet. I believe it is common sense listening to the statements I've already posted.

QUOTE

The Pakistan, Afghanistan link has been proven with out doubt. The Iranian, Iraqi link is bordering on fictional fantasy.

No, what I think you're failing to realize is nobody wants to fight Iran. Nobody likes war. You have been misled and spun to believe that President Bush loves war. The fact is, he doesn't. Nobody does. If Ahmedinjad refuses to come to an agreement to keep peace, then it will be unavoidable but like Saddam, he will be given every opportunity to comply.

 

QUOTE

The Taliban was ousted before Iraq was a twinkle in bush's eye, yet we are still fighting them and in places they are winning.
The Taliban is more of threat than Iran…. lol.

I've got to laugh at that myself. I don't think you have any evidence at all to back up your last claim.

 

QUOTE

General majority opinion suggests the translation was not accurately translated.
As suggested here:
"Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian, remarked Juan Cole, a Middle East specialist at the University of Michigan and critic of American policy who has argued that the Iranian president was misquoted. He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse. Since Iran has not attacked another country aggressively for over a century, he said in an e-mail exchange, "I smell the whiff of war propaganda."

That is NOT majority opinion and this key phrase from your quote shows his incentive to say such things:

"remarked Juan Cole, a Middle East specialist at the University of Michigan and critic of American policy "

QUOTE

http://www.nytimes.c...e...nyt&emc=rss

This is the best unbiased(ish) link I could find that validates both of our opinions.

I didn't read it so if it supports both arguments... ok. I do know though, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the "New York Times" is liberal biased.

QUOTE

Beacuase ATM America is the bad guy whether you like it or not. Do you remember the anti Iraqi propaganda donned by US intelligence as fact, do you remember those detailed pictures?

No. America is not the bad guy no matter how badly you or others who are misled by the liberal spin wagon want it to be. I remember the intelligence, and it has never been proven wrong.

QUOTE

Here are some more on Iran's WMD's.../sniggers

http://news.bbc.co.u...res/6353025.stm

Who knows?

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(Arvarden @ Feb 13 2007, 03:59 PM)

In my opinion there is no maybe. All of this negative, anti Iranian US propaganda that is spilling out reminds me of the lead up to the Iraqi war.

Well just like you stated, that's your opinion. It does not make it any closer to true. Does it count as propaganda if it is factual? There is definitely propaganda here, but I think instead of anti-Iranian propaganda, we have some anti-America propaganda.

QUOTE

Saying that the US could be over reacting to the Iranian dilemma to divert attention from Iraq…who knows?

Well in no way would anything divert attention from Iraq. You cannot divert from the catalyst. That was just a poor idea.

 

QUOTE

Maybe, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff knows?

"U.S. forces hunting down militant networks that produced roadside bombs had arrested Iranians and that some of the material used in the devices were made in Iran.
"That does not translate that the Iranian government per se, for sure, is directly involved in doing this," Pace told reporters in the Indonesian capital, Jakarta. "What it does say is that things made in Iran are being used in Iraq to kill coalition soldiers."
His remarks might raise questions on the credibility of the claims of high-level Iranian involvement, especially following the faulty U.S. intelligence that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17129144

 

Had you read, I already quoted this very same quote up above. The quote DOES NOT say what you are trying to spin it to say. The commentary at the bottom of it is also unrelated. He's simply saying "don't jump to conclusions yet." He is correct because those that want this country to lose the war will undoubtedly spin whatever intelligence we have to make it look like we had no reason just like they did for Iraq. For this reason we must wait until there is undeniable proof.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(Arvarden @ Feb 20 2007, 02:41 PM)

After doing a little digging on the picture of "Iranian" made rockets I have come across some interesting info.

The Iranian rockets pictured below use the Latin alphabet. The date format is exclusively used in the west, generally by the US. And the Iranians are in the year 1385 not 2007.



Another surprising find was this:

"Iran is to shift its foreign currency reserves from dollar to euro and use the euro for oil deals in response to US-led pressure on its economy.
In a widely expected move, Tehran said it would use the euro for all future commercial transactions overseas.
The US, which accuses Tehran of supporting terrorism and trying to obtain nuclear weapons, has sought to limit the flow of dollars into Iran."

http://news.bbc.co.u...ess/6190865.stm

 

I think you get your news from the wrong places. The pictures I saw were not the ones you posted. As a matter of fact, they did not even resemble them at all. This is a good example of conspiracy theory. People take a tiny bit of what seems like bs and they run with it, when in fact they were mistaken in the first place and now they have crafted a fairy tale. We will see whether or not Iran is supplying insurgents with weaponry or not.

The real question is, If they are supplying weapons, why do you want to hide that fact?

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(Arvarden @ Feb 27 2007, 05:43 AM)

Each and every country has it's own proxy wars, to single Iran out for supporting X organization or people is naive BC. So what if Iran is supplying weapons to Iraqi insurgents? They are hardly WMD grade.

What if Iran is supplying weapons to the enemy we're fighting overseas? haha you just showed your true colors. Let anyone with sight perceive and anyone with ears listen. For someone to let on as though they support America and then say "so what if people are arming your enemy" is hypocracy. They are a friend of the enemy. Here is what the problem is for anyone that doesn't understand.

The democrats want the next presidency. They cannot stand the fact that we elected Bush TWICE. So, the logical political move is to attack that war. They lie and spin EVERY fact. All it takes is a history lesson of the last 100 years to know we're right. They use the media to attack the president and conservatives on every level. They slammed Bush for not preventing 9/11 but now that we have pre-strike intelligence of WMD in Iraq they spin that (We found WMD, just not the stockpiles we thought we'd find and realistically since we gave them so much warning they could have sent them anywhere.) Once we have pre-strike intelligence of Iran they spin that. In this case, the Republicans are trying to do what is best for our country. The democrats are trying to do what is best for their party. You can tell from this guy's post that he doesn't care about our troops. He wants us to lose the war. He doesn't love America. I'm not saying that because he doesn't support the war. As an American that's your right. It is NOT your right however, to wish harm upon our troops over there by saying "who cares if Iran is arming the insurgents?". The reason is, because that is keeping our troops from completing their mission. It is what has created this quagmire that has become politically convenient for the liberals. That's why he wants to protect the Iranians. That is un-American.

QUOTE

The pictures I provided come from a very good source, they are not classified they are on view for anyone and everyone. I'm guessing the pictures you saw are classified?

/lols

 

Nice attempt to be cute. Too bad they are not the pictures that ran on pretty much every major news channel, every paper, and every website. So far every link you've posted has been from a secular progressive source. You're bias. Your news is biased. Just once, open your mind to the truth. America isn't an evil place.

[throwingks]

It would be different if Republicans weren't coming out against the war too.

Republicans and Democrats both want what is best for their party.

What is best for the country won't be decided for a long time after the war ends. Vietnam was said to be the best for our country at the time. We lost that war and nothing bad has happened.

Don't believe for a second the American Government is against selling weapons to Iran and other enemies. We have been doing it for a very long time, regardless of the party in power.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(throwingks @ Feb 27 2007, 10:49 AM)

It would be different if Republicans weren't coming out against the war too.

Republicans and Democrats both want what is best for their party.

The difference is, from what I've seen the Republicans are not willing to sacrifice their beliefs for their party. democrats simply wait for the Republicans to take a stance and then take the opposite. They don't mind wanting us to lose the war if that means gaining the presidency.

QUOTE

What is best for the country won't be decided for a long time after the war ends. Vietnam was said to be the best for our country at the time. We lost that war and nothing bad has happened.

Well that comparison is silly. The Vietnamese' didn't refer to us as "the great satan". They didn't have a religious movement against our country then. We didn't have to worry about our homeland security if we failed. You forget that this started because of an attack on our homeland and now we're on the offensive for anyone that poses a potential threat.

QUOTE

Don't believe for a second the American Government is against selling weapons to Iran and other enemies. We have been doing it for a very long time, regardless of the party in power.

I do think that. I don't defend the past because obviously there have been people in power that sacrifice security for profit. Sometimes you can't see the risk in doing it. In this case, we know that we have enemies and we know we don't want them killing our soldiers. Now we don't need them to be so heavily armed. I find your statements to be highly disturbing and while you attempting to make me look naive, I believe you instead made yourself look that way.

[throwingks]

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Feb 27 2007, 12:11 PM)

I find your statements to be highly disturbing and while you attempting to make me look naive, I believe you instead made yourself look that way.

Don't be so threatened. In no way did I try to make you seem naive. No-one can know everything or remember everything they learned. Just because I gave you information, you may have already known, it is not a personal attack against you. There was nothing behind it.

Americans sold weapons to the Iranians. Everyone knows it. It has happened in more places and times than that. I feel the American Government is not above selling weapons to future enemies again. While I hope I am naive and wrong about it, I don't think I am.

As far as Vietnam, we were fighting an enemy that wanted us dead. This thread isn't about that. But, both wars enemies want(ed) us dead equally. Vietnam alone may not have, but Communism did.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(throwingks @ Feb 27 2007, 11:34 AM)

Don't be so threatened. In no way did I try to make you seem naive. No-one can know everything or remember everything they learned. Just because I gave you information, you may have already known, it is not a personal attack against you. There was nothing behind it.

Ok. I'm sorry. You'll have to excuse me. When you are constantly attacked by one person and sometimes two, you get kinda defensive. I didn't mean to come off that way as it really doesn't bother me. I just think we are seeing different sides of this equation.

QUOTE

Americans sold weapons to the Iranians. Everyone knows it. It has happened in more places and times than that. I feel the American Government is not above selling weapons to future enemies again. While I hope I am naive and wrong about it, I don't think I am.

I'm not disputing the fact that they did. I honestly didn't KNOW that, but it's not hard to believe. I'm just saying that right now it's a big deal. When there is no conflict and nothing in the foreseeable future, I can see a capitolist society selling munitions to another state whether it be a peaceful nation to defend its borders or to fund it's war effort. In this case, it is different. Iran is not funding another nation. It is funding a group of extremists. It is providing weapons not to make money, but solely to keep Iraq from gaining stability. There are so many differences that the comparison is not justified.

QUOTE

As far as Vietnam, we were fighting an enemy that wanted us dead. This thread isn't about that. But, both wars enemies want(ed) us dead equally. Vietnam alone may not have, but Communism did.

Well but you did forget to consider the main difference. What started the conflicts. Our current enemy has shown that they will come here and kill us. How did Vietnam show they wanted us dead? They stayed on their own land and defended it. This comparison is simply not justified. If you are against the war, then you need to apply it to WW2.

 

Let's think about it. In this war people are outraged because Bin Laden attacked us and he was believed to be in Afghanistan. We attacked there. Freed the people. Now we moved on to Iraq and did the same there.

 

In ww2 we tried isolationism. Japan attacked us. What did we do? We invaded Europe. ........ Then we attacked Japan. People have idiotically made the comparison that we won ww2 in less time than we've been in Iraq. haha They were a uniformed military. Now we're fighting a non-uniformed group of extremists who is being aided by one of the richest nations per capita in the world.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(Arvarden @ Feb 28 2007, 06:01 AM)

Afghanistan was not invaded because of bin laden it was invaded to oust the Taliban,

The U.S. didn't attack Afghanistan until Bin Laden took credit for the 9/11 attacks. He was thought to be in Afghanistan. We went there to kill him and we ousted the Taliban because they aided and embedded Al Qaeda.

QUOTE

Iraq was not attacked because of bin laden.

I never said that we did. Nice try. You missed the point of my post. It was a parallel of WW2 to the current conflict. If you say that Bin Laden had NOTHING to do with the U.S. invading Iraq, then you simply are not intelligent enough to hold a conversation with. Surely that's not what you're saying.

QUOTE

Europe was not invaded by America. Where the hell do you get your info from?

Uh, I'm not sure if you're insinuating that my terminology was wrong or that you actually don't know your history. The most I'm guilty of here is using an inappropriate word. If you really don't think the U.S. fought in Europe you are seriously living under a rock. http://www.historypl...ine/ww2time.htm

Maybe the term "invade" means to capture and occupy a foreign land. That's not how I took it, but if it's an inappropriate term so be it.


I thought it was

QUOTE

1. To go into or upon; to pass within the confines of; to enter; -- used of forcible or rude ingress. [Obs.]



Which becomes a body, and doth then invade The state of life, out of the grisly shade. --Spenser.

2. To enter with hostile intentions; to enter with a view to conquest or plunder; to make an irruption into; to attack; as, the Romans invaded Great Britain.

Such an enemy Is risen to invade us. --Milton.

3. To attack; to infringe; to encroach on; to violate; as, the king invaded the rights of the people.

4. To grow or spread over; to affect injuriously and progressively;

http://www.dictionary.net/invade

QUOTE

Oh and well done for ignoring the pictures that have been posted on every mainstream news outlet. I applaud you sir.

Well I have shown how every claim you have made is wrong. So here is a picture that ran on every major news channel. There are at least 2 more that I found. I'm more than willing to post them if you want to press on with your lie. http://www.abcnews.g...tory?id=2865253

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(Arvarden @ Feb 28 2007, 10:57 AM)

It is in your interest to post the pictures, I won't ask again. I'll ignore every pathetic comment you make now and in the future as you can't have a discussion with me without calling me a lair, a supporter of terror or <insert BC's bullshit here> .

Is that crystal clear?

It is crystal clear that I have disproven everything you've said. If I were you I would ignore my remarks in the future too, as it just makes you look bad. I call a horse a horse. If you don't like being pointed out as a liar, don't say things that aren't true.

QUOTE

"It is in your interest to post the pictures, I won't ask again."


"Pictures please "

See how you say one thing and do another? Yet you don't like the insinuation that you're a liar. At any rate... I provided pictures already and the article clearly slammed your whole point. You already lost... but I'll provide the rest.

QUOTE

BTW when did the UN give the US a mandate to remove Bin Laden from Afghanistan?  If this is case Pakistan should be next on the "hit list".

When did the U.N. HAVE to give a mandate for this? The rest of your comments are unfounded because this question that they are all derived from is unfounded.

QUOTE

 Also Europe is a big place, so I can safely say America has not and did not invade Europe.

So basically you didn't read the links I posted. I showed what the definition of "invade" is. Then I posted a timeline of the events of WW2 that clearly showed what happened. Just stop. You're in bitter defeat.