There is absolutely no evidence to suggest a is true. Just because the US says something is so, does not make it so. They have proven themselves to be unturstworthy in the past. There is no reason to believe their accusations, only naivety would drive one to do so.

As for b, Iran is not an aggressor state. The US is, Israel is and the UK is. These states have invaded countless countries, Iran has not attacked in anyone in living memory.

There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.


Sounds like your describing the millions of nutters in your country and ISrael. They are the fanatics. They are the ones looking to bring about the rapture.

The idiocy of your argument is exposed in the highlighted section. That speaks for itself.

__________________
Viva Fidel

If there ever was in the history of humanity an enemy who was truly universal, an enemy whose acts and moves trouble the entire world, threaten the entire world, attack the entire world in any way or another, that real and really universal enemy is precisely Yankee imperialism

They talk about the failure of socialism but where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia and Latin America?

And the hostage crisis happened long after the US intervened in Iran, overthrowing the government. You reap what you sow.

__________________
Viva Fidel

If there ever was in the history of humanity an enemy who was truly universal, an enemy whose acts and moves trouble the entire world, threaten the entire world, attack the entire world in any way or another, that real and really universal enemy is precisely Yankee imperialism

They talk about the failure of socialism but where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia and Latin America?

I agree that those who will inevitably be most affected should "be heard"; but the president, in the end, must ultimately make the pertinent decisions.

Moreover, if Israel hits Iran--which I think is likely, despite the contrary opinion of some fairly knowledgeable people--the US will surely receive much of the blowback. And that includes the likelihood of increased terrorist attacks upon our troops in Iraq.

I don't think it is necessary to attribute evil motives (or even callous indifference) to the president and vice-president, just because they do not currently have family members on active military duty in the Mideast.

I regaurd it a necessary as it is blatant hypocrisy everytime they say "stay the sacrifice." And what sacrifice are Bush, Cheney and their billionaire supporters making. Cheney's corporate friends are raking in profits hand over fist from the Iraq quagmire. Cheney has made over $8 million from Halliburton stocks and a retainer stipend.

The executive branch should never be allowed to unilaterally involve us in wars or expansion of wars.

"The remaining 2% are non-Muslim religious minorities, including Bahá'ís, Mandeans, Hindus, Yezidis, Yarsanis, Zoroastrians, Jews, and Christians," that means that most likely, most of that 2% are not Jews. If we assume that these 8 are all equal, than the Jewish population would only be 0.25%.


Sure, find some quotes of Bush supporting the use of military force to force a regime change in Cuba.

__________________
Set your destination with your heart, get there with your mind.

"The wisest men follow their own direction." - Euripides

I have never before heard that term. Several years ago, well prior to the surge, President Bush used the term "stay the course"--once, at least--and was hectored mercilessly for it; one could easily have gotten the impression that these were words he repeated mindlessly every day.

I am unclear as to what sacrifieces President Lincoln made during the Civil War, or what sacrifices FDR and Harry Truman made during WWII. Should we then declare that if no obvious sacrifices by these former presidents can be documented, these men should be declared morally unfit to have presided over their respective wars?

I do agree that President Bush has encouraged a sort of easy patriotism--in fact, he has seemingly confused consumerism with patriotism, by imploring Americans to go shopping and otherwise pump up the economy, after the horrific events of 9/11. But that is a different (if somewhat tangential) subject.

These observations do not lead to a stated conclusion. But it does not seem unreasonable to suppose that the implication is that Vice-President Cheney must have nefarious motives for his supporting the Iraq War. And that is highly conjectural, at the very least.

And I'm sure you can find plenty of support for that view--from, say, Iran Daily to The Moscow Times. Or perhaps Pravda.

Do you not suppose it is possible that Iran is biding its time until it acquires nukes? Then it will be in a much better position to attack Israel, as well as to blackmail the rest of the West.

And it has attacked American soldiers in Iraq, through its cat's paw, Hezbollah. But the verb should not be limited to the past tense. It continues to do so regularly, notwithstanding the predictable denials by Iran's apologists.

Well, some people might think that the fact that even the IAEA inspectors--who continue to prove themselves impotent to frustrate Tehran's nuclear ambitions--have loudly complained that Iran has not been entirely forthcoming with its required disclosures, might suggest that the Iranian leadership has something to hide.

This is so utterly replete with misinformation that it is hard to know where to begin. But I will try.

(1) Those to whom you refer (somewhat ineloquently) as "nutters" are, presumably, millenarians. To prejudice the issue with accusations of lunacy in probably not helpful.

(2) Most millenarians are either fundamentalists, evangelicals, or charismatics; among whom, there is fairly considerable overlap. But these groups, taken together, comprise only a small percentage of American Christians; and an even smaller percentage of the entire American citizenry.

(3) Not all fundamentalist and evangelical Christians hold chiliastic beliefs (though most charismatic Christians appear to), further reducing the percentage of Americans who eagerly await the Rapture.

(4) It is the president, not the general populace, who determines foreign policy. And I frankly have no idea as to what President Bush's eschatological views may be; more importantly, however, I have no reason to believe that his private religious beliefs have in any way influenced his public acts as president.

(5) And who are all these Israelis whom you describe as being among those with heightened eschatological views?

Such heated language could be taken to suggest that you are running low on arguments of a more serious nature.

Doesn't matter. Jews are a small minority in Iran. Do you still think that Iran is probably one of the best places to be a jew in the Middle East?

We are discussing the comments that Ahmadinejad said of Israel referring to "wiping Israel off the map". Yes, I am asking for those links. Please refer to your earlier post:

I want to see a similar comment where Bush states that he wants to "Wipe Cuba off the face of the earth". That is what Ahmadinejad said about Israel, so show us Bush's similar comment.

You obviously are ignorant. Ahmadinejad never said wipe off the map. FInd the word for word quote and you would know this. Geez how gullible are people.



"Wiped Off The Map" - The Rumor of the Century

And yes Iran is one of the best places to be a jew in the Middle East, i will trust my Iranian friend on this rather than gossip. I will also trust the Iranian constitution decided by the Islamic Republic to grant freedom of worship to the christian and jewish minorities.

__________________
Viva Fidel

If there ever was in the history of humanity an enemy who was truly universal, an enemy whose acts and moves trouble the entire world, threaten the entire world, attack the entire world in any way or another, that real and really universal enemy is precisely Yankee imperialism

They talk about the failure of socialism but where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia and Latin America?

CJ:

I know of the other translation of what he said. Please post it.

M