Iran and Iraq-problems-outlook-discussion

[The Gaffer]

You've got plenty, Liz.

Time will tell whether Chavez is great or not.

[Lizra]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

You've got plenty, Liz.

I'll repeat that to myself at bill paying time.....

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Lizra

I'll repeat that to myself at bill paying time.....

..

[Lief Erikson]

An interesting interview with President Ahmadinejad:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...5777-1,00.html

He's asked all the tough questions we've been wanting to ask.

His response to the question about whether or not he did say Israel should be wiped off the map is just downright evasion. And I note that in this interview he urges the US to use "love" and "logic," but he never urged his people in the same way when they went through the streets calling for the annihilation of the US and Israel. I don't see any stepping back in this interview from any of the ferocious rhetoric he's been unleashing. Though he definitely is much more toned down in his language when talking to the Time than he is when talking to his own people.

Now the one we really need to interview is Ayatollah Khomeini .

[The Gaffer]

As it seems that Ahmedinejad has been thoroughly caricatured in preparing the American people for a possible attack on Iran, I feel it is important to point out what he actually said about "wiping Israel off the map":

http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/show...2&postcount=62

If you expect him to grovel around apologising for being wilfully misrepresented by your own right-wing militarists then I have to conclude that either you don't understand too much about politics or that you are one of said militarists attempting to whip up the frenzy.

[hectorberlioz]

Well he is sure isn't making it any clearer...I say.

Why on earth, if you really were misquoted that badly, would you not attempt to clarify? He wants to "challenge" Bush to a debate (that is a true joke...the man is glib, while Bush is too honest)? Yeah, sure...and you know, whatever comes out of the translator must be the complete opposite of what he said...maybe he LOVES Jews and wants to kiss them, but through the translator ....alas. O poor, poor Ahmadinijihad.....*is sarcastic till he's sick*

[The last sane person]

Ahmadinijihad? Now that is his new name?

Huh, I'll stick with Ahmaginijad.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

As it seems that Ahmedinejad has been thoroughly caricatured in preparing the American people for a possible attack on Iran, I feel it is important to point out what he actually said about "wiping Israel off the map":

http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/show...2&postcount=62

If you expect him to grovel around apologising for being wilfully misrepresented by your own right-wing militarists then I have to conclude that either you don't understand too much about politics or that you are one of said militarists attempting to whip up the frenzy.

Should the Pope grovel around apologising for being wilfully mispresented by certain other right-wing militarists?

[The last sane person]

Um....Apple and Orange?

And hey, the pope knew what he was saying when he quoted that text, he didn't appologize for actually saying it, he just said "well, sorry you took offence at it"

Whats more, the Pope WONT grovell on the ground. Neither will Ahmadinijad, and good for him I say, as much as I despise that government, I hate seeing Iran roll over and piss itself to please the west. Good for him I say!

and, 'Struth, there are nuts on both sides just waiting for a little slip. Just waiting. Old Ahmed, well, he is the voice of the more radicalized middle to lower class educated class, and they are getting just plain fed up with a lot of things.

When I come back, i'll post some about it. As a matter of fact, I'll even do a write up for you, if I can be bothered.

Personally, I'm just sitting back and waiting to see if I need to get out my gun to shoot some nutters who are intent on shooting me first.

[The Gaffer]

Quite right.

Two major differences between the two: firstly, Ahmedinejad has to appease his supporters. Having been elected as someone who will stand up to Western aggression, it would be political suicide to grovel.

Secondly, the Pope wasn't mistranslated.

Having said that I don't think the Pope CAN apologise (what would that say about papal infallibility?). It would help, however, if he wasn't a prize eedjit in the first place.

[hectorberlioz]

What the pope's quote meant in context of his speech had to do with with separating violence and religion, and bringing reason and religion together...he was critical of the West too, in this regard. He most definitely has been misquoted.

Yeah AchMyDinIsJihad has to appease his base...all those ayatollah supreme commanders of Iran...completely understandable.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Sane

Whats more, the Pope WONT grovell on the ground. Neither will Ahmadinijad, and good for him I say

But naughty wicked Pope, right?

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Quite right.

Two major differences between the two: firstly, Ahmedinejad has to appease his supporters. Having been elected as someone who will stand up to Western aggression, it would be political suicide to grovel.

The Pope said nothing wrong. You should be able to quote someone without people automatically assuming you agree with them, especially if you only quote them to make a point. Look at Wilde; he didn't believe half the things he wrote in his play, but they were still considered Dangerous, and imputed to him. Which was wrong.

Secondly, the Pope wasn't mistranslated.

But he was misunderstood, and misrepresented. What does it matter in what way?

Having said that I don't think the Pope CAN apologise (what would that say about papal infallibility?). It would help, however, if he wasn't a prize eedjit in the first place.

First, it has nothing whatsoever to do with papal infallibility.
Second, isn't that the same as saying that it would political suicide for the Pope to grovel, which you cited as your first difference between the two?

[Spock]

The Pope actually said "I quote" twice when quoting the lines which have caused the ignorant to protest.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

As it seems that Ahmedinejad has been thoroughly caricatured in preparing the American people for a possible attack on Iran, I feel it is important to point out what he actually said about "wiping Israel off the map":

http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/show...2&postcount=62

Here's what was posted on that page, a post that I read and have been well aware of. Indeed, it is because of that post that I submitted this recent interview.

Now we face a similar propaganda distortion of remarks by Iran's president. Ask anyone in Washington, London or Tel Aviv if they can cite any phrase uttered by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the chances are high they will say he wants Israel "wiped off the map".

Again it is four short words, though the distortion is worse than in the Khrushchev case. The remarks are not out of context. They are wrong, pure and simple. Ahmadinejad never said them. Farsi speakers have pointed out that he was mistranslated. The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" just as the Shah's regime in Iran had vanished.

He was not making a military threat. He was calling for an end to the occupation of Jerusalem at some point in the future. The "page of time" phrase suggests he did not expect it to happen soon. There was no implication that either Khomeini, when he first made the statement, or Ahmadinejad, in repeating it, felt it was imminent, or that Iran would be involved in bringing it about.

I remembered what you had earlier submitted regarding his "mis-translation," when I was reading this interview. Yet when I read Ahmadinejad's answer to the direct question, I saw that he did not answer. The pope has recently been misunderstood by many Muslims, and he has repeated over and over again that he has been misunderstood, and he has made deafeningly clear what he actually meant. Here, Ahmadinejad was confronted with the exact quotation of what he'd said. They asked him for clarification, whether he actually meant that or not. And he evaded the question. To me, that definitely strongly implies that he has not been mistranslated.

CNN (or some other news agency quoted by CNN) apparently asked him the question another time.

Originally Posted by CNN

Asked if he believes Israel has no right to exist -- something Ahmadinejad has said in the past -- the Iranian leader responded, "I say that it is an occupying regime."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...ntv/index.html
Never has he denied those remarks. Never has he said they were a mistranslation even though the question seems to have been directly put to him at least twice. Rather, he seems more bent on justifying what he said, if anything.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

If you expect him to grovel around apologising for being wilfully misrepresented by your own right-wing militarists then I have to conclude that either you don't understand too much about politics or that you are one of said militarists attempting to whip up the frenzy.

Of course I don't expect him to grovel. I don't even expect him to apologize. Considering that it's Ahmadinejad, I actually rather expect he'd say, "this is another way in which the Western governments and media seek to willfully misrepresent the peaceful government of Iran!" Or he might just say more peacefully (though I don't think he'd be this peaceful), "the Western media has misunderstood me," as the pope has been saying. Ahmadinejad certainly had ample opportunity to clarify his views if he was mistranslated, but he has not done it. That is a very strong indicator that he was not mistranslated.

Originally Posted by The last sane person

And hey, the pope knew what he was saying when he quoted that text, he didn't appologize for actually saying it, he just said "well, sorry you took offence at it"

Well of course he didn't say sorry for saying it, because it wasn't him who'd said those things, but rather it was the person he was quoting. He said afterward that the views of that emperor were not "in any way" his own, but he'd made clear in the speech itself that they were not his views by saying "I quote" twice. He knew what he was saying when he quoted that text, as you say. And what he was saying was not what radical Muslims believe he was saying.

[The last sane person]

Heheh watched the pathetic excuse of an interview he had with that Cooper fellow. So many questions he could have asked and it was all centered around Israel! good grief, Ahmad has some good points!

Originally Posted by Gwai

But naughty wicked Pope, right?

No, I like the pope. And he has some good points.

[hectorberlioz]

The only reason Ahmad has some good points is becuase we let him, no news anchor or interviewer knows squat about reasoning. I'm not saying I have those powers myself, but I've seen it done...

"Ahmad" has a glib tongue, while Anderson Cooper doesn't have a clue.

Originally Posted by The last sane person

No, I like the pope. And he has some good points.

Some good points? In a theological discussion about ANY religion, Benedict could whip Ahmadinjahd's little butt any day. it probably isn't significant to anyone (besides me and Gwai) that he is probably one of the most educated Popes in history, and probably one of the most educated men alive today.

Ratzinger
(He can also play the piano like a virtuoso)

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The last sane person

Heheh watched the pathetic excuse of an interview he had with that Cooper fellow. So many questions he could have asked and it was all centered around Israel! good grief, Ahmad has some good points!

I tend to agree. Israel has done some terrible things to the Palestinians. Exiling them from their land and stifling their economy are not good recipies for peace or stability.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by The last sane person

No, I like the pope. And he has some good points.

Good to hear.

Originally Posted by hec

Some good points? In a theological discussion about ANY religion, Benedict could whip Ahmadinjahd's little butt any day. it probably isn't significant to anyone (besides me and Gwai) that he is probably one of the most educated Popes in history, and probably one of the most educated men alive today.

Not to mention, according to Wiki, they had to renovate the Papal Apartments to make room for his 20,000 books. That's just too damn sexy.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I remembered what you had earlier submitted regarding his "mis-translation," when I was reading this interview. Yet when I read Ahmadinejad's answer to the direct question, I saw that he did not answer.

I can see I am going to have to spell it out.

It would be a political mistake, because he would have to say that Israel should not be wiped off the map, i.e. has a right to exist. As you note, he regards Israel as an illegitimate, occupying regime. This is a key populist vote-winner back home.

I shall assume that you know enough about the history of the region to understand the reasoning behind those views without going into them here. In that context, his answer is, in fact, clarifying his position on the question, and, I think, makes abundantly clear why you are not going to get a direct denial of the mistranslation.

Secondly, arguing about mistranslation puts him on the defensive, spending energy defending the (in his view unjust) accusation that he wants to kill all Israelis. Never heard the phrase "not dignifying the accusation with a denial"?

(What I find most distasteful about this bloke is his Holocaust denial-lite. The EU president should invite him to visit Auschwitz.)

When are you going to wake up and realise that just because you don't like the leader of another country you can't just wade in with your six-guns blazing and take them out? That in the real world, you have to deal with people you don't like? It seems as if US foreign policy has regressed into some sort of kindergarten / sunday school posturing with no Plan B.

This has played directly into Ahmedinejad's hands, of course, because he can portray himself as standing up against Western imperialism. I hope you realise that the main reason he is in office is because you invaded Iraq, and the main reason why Iran wants nukes is because the most powerful army in the world is camped next door making noises about them being the "Axis of Evil"

On a more positive note, Ahmedinejad did make some positive noises about nuclear inspections. Let's not hold our breath on that one.

[Lief Erikson]

Because this is a very long post, I'm going to divide it into sections.

Ahmadinejad's anti-Israel comments

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I shall assume that you know enough about the history of the region to understand the reasoning behind those views without going into them here. In that context, his answer is, in fact, clarifying his position on the question, and, I think, makes abundantly clear why you are not going to get a direct denial of the mistranslation.

I see your point. Yet I still disagree with you very strongly about there having been a mistranslation.

I guess you're saying he's willing to infuriate the entire Western world in order to please his extremist supporters at home. And this, of course, also lends strength to the US position on his nuclear program. I tend to agree with you there. Only I think he's pleasing them by actually saying it, rather than by pretending to have said it . So to you, a translation error has "tricked" the entire Western world, and it also has deceived the Middle East. He tricked everyone! Except a handful of Farsi translators whose case was only good enough to make it onto the Guardian, the most ultra-liberal paper there is . . .

Originally Posted by BBC News

While most Muslim and Arab capitals have remained silent on the president's remarks, a few have spoken out - including Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat.

"Palestinians recognise the right of the state of Israel to exist and I reject his comments," he told the BBC News website.

"What we need to be talking about is adding the state of Palestine to the map and not wiping Israel from the map," he said.

Egypt, which has signed a peace treaty with Israel, also rejected the Iranian line.

"In principle, we are way beyond this type of political rhetoric that shows the weakness of the Iranian government," said an official at the Egyptian embassy in London.

Turkey's prime minister called on the Iranian president "to display political moderation".

Let's look at the broader context of these comments, rather than relying solely upon the Guardian. At a conference in Iran called "A World Without Zionism," Ahmadinejad said, "Israel is a rotten tree that one swift breeze will blow over." Here's a quote from CBS News.

Originally Posted by CBS News

Opening of a conference on supporting the Palestinians, Ahmadinejad fired a series of verbal shots at Israel, saying it was a "permanent threat" to the Middle East that will "soon" be liberated, and questioning the validity of the Nazi Holocaust against Jews in World War II.

"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation," Ahmadinejad said. "The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm," he said.

If you still think Ahmadinejad was mistranslated, please read this article on his comments that was released by Al'Jazeera:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...CE0E9957EA.htm

They have Farsi speakers. They know the language. They are the major Middle East paper, and yet they apparently were "tricked" as well.

Ahmadinejad also seems to have repeated his calls multiple times in the same speech. His diplomats overseas argued to Western countries, "no, he was misunderstood!" And how did Ahmadinejad respond, when he heard what his diplomats were saying?

Originally Posted by Al'Jazeera

Monday 12 December 2005, 18:45 Makka Time, 15:45 GMT

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stood by his latest attack on Israel and asserted the world was "on the verge of change".

Originally Posted by BBC News

Iran's president has defended his widely criticised call for Israel to be "wiped off the map".

Attending an anti-Israel rally in Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his remarks were "just" - and the criticism did not "have any validity".

Tens of thousands of Iranians took part in the rally in Tehran which Iran organises every year on the last Friday of the fasting month of Ramadan to show solidarity with the Palestinian struggle.

Shouting "Death to Israel, death to the Zionists", the protesters dragged Israeli flags along the ground and then set them on fire.

Many carried posters and placards sporting the slogan "Israel should be wiped off the map".

Joining the protest, Mr Ahmadinejad said: "My words were the Iranian nation's words."

Here's your quotation:

Originally Posted by The Guardian

Farsi speakers have pointed out that he was mistranslated. The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" just as the Shah's regime in Iran had vanished.

He was not making a military threat. He was calling for an end to the occupation of Jerusalem at some point in the future. The "page of time" phrase suggests he did not expect it to happen soon. There was no implication that either Khomeini, when he first made the statement, or Ahmadinejad, in repeating it, felt it was imminent, or that Iran would be involved in bringing it about.

The "page of time" phrase does not necessarily suggest it will happen a long time from now. It could just as easily be pointing to the larger sweep of history that Ahmadinejad already cited in the same speech when he referred to this being one piece of a larger conflict that has been being waged for hundreds of years.

And this claim, "The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm," certainly does not imply it will take a long time for Israel to be destroyed. Rather, it says it is ready to be destroyed now.

Originally Posted by Al-Jazeera

The modest but unprecedented steps were seen as a response to Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in September. Nevertheless, Ahmadinejad said, "There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world."

"Ahmadinejad has clearly declared the doctrine of his government. He is returning Iran to the revolutionary goals it was pursuing in the 1980s," said Mohammad Sadeq Hosseini, an expert on Middle Eastern affairs.

"By these comments, Ahmadinejad is committing himself to those goals. He is also sending the message that his government won't back down."

Ahmadinejad's use of the word "soon," when saying that this disgraceful blot will b e wiped off the face of the Islamic world implies that it will be indeed happening soon and not at some long term fuzzy future. He also described a "wave of attacks," which contradicts the Guardian's claim that he doesn't mean for it to happen violently. Though I agree that he would accept it being non-violent, if he felt that was an option. He has advocated that Israel be moved to Europe.

Here is the way Ahmadinejad is quoted on his own website:

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.

http://www.president.ir/eng/ahmadine...index-e.htm#b3
I think we can at least trust Ahmadinejad's own website to accurately translate his intent.

All our bad options

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

When are you going to wake up and realise that just because you don't like the leader of another country you can't just wade in with your six-guns blazing and take them out? That in the real world, you have to deal with people you don't like?

Yeah, and let them develop WMDs! And never mind that they are Islamic extremists themselves, support Islamic terrorists, and have said that Israel should be wiped out.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

This has played directly into Ahmedinejad's hands, of course, because he can portray himself as standing up against Western imperialism. I hope you realise that the main reason he is in office is because you invaded Iraq,

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

On the 2000 al-Quds Day Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called for the destruction of Israel, as Khomeini had done before.

This was before the invasion of Iraq, as you know. But I agree with you that Islamic extremists are using our presence in Iraq to spread their views. Our presence in Iraq is a cause of growing radicalism.

I don't believe that there are any good options in this war on terror. I don't think there ever have been. When we support and work with Muslim allies in the Islamic world, Islamic extremists use this against us by saying that we are propping up un-Islamic apostate governments that oppress their people, and they also say that we are being grossly hypocritical by supporting democracy in some places and refraining from pushing it forward in others. This provides Muslim terrorists with ammunition for their jihad and increases anti-Western feeling.

If we refrain from supporting those governments, we permit radical groups to gain power in the Middle East, and we lose all their valuable intelligence and military support in the necessary war against terror (we can't just ignore militants' plans to attack us).

If we attack those Islamic nations that are producing WMDs or are supporting terrorist attacks against us, we spread the jihad by our presence. If we don't attack, we allow valuable training grounds for terrorists to remain intact and we permit WMDs to spread among the most dangerous elements we face in modern world society. Which means that in the long run, we may suffer even more. Diplomatic and economic action had been tried and they did not work with the Taliban in Afghanistan or the Baath Party in Iraq.

These views of mine apply to Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. What options are there? There aren't any good ones. The Security Council is near useless. Governments like Iran's and the Taliban's had no interest in diplomacy and care nothing for economic pressure. Saddam Hussein appeared to be developing WMDs. The US government's evidence that he was developing WMDs was so compelling that an overwhelming majority voted for war in Congress on both the Democrat and Republican sides. In hindsight, one can certainly argue that our invasion of Iraq was a mistake. At the time though, given what information we had, it was the best decision available to us. The best decision out of a bunch of bad ones.

And leaving Iraq in its current state, pulling out now would be the worst decision we could make out of a bunch of bad ones.

When we refrain from attacking, we submit to the enemy. When we take them on, we make the enemy grow. Either way, we lose. Whatever we do, we lose. And diplomacy hasn't and still doesn't work.

On the bright side: Thank God for the African Union's presence in Darfur!!!

The Media

And meanwhile that . . . if I was a swearing man, I'd curse the media right now. I'd curse globilization's creation of a flat world, for it is the flatness of the world that is playing a major role in creating enmity between the US and the Islamic World. Whenever one incident occurs in which someone in the West does something against Muslims, the media spreads it all around the world and the whole Muslim world is angered and comes to feel more and more that we are engaged in a crusade against them. Incidents like illegal torture in the battlefield and other actions by Western leaders or individuals which can be viewed as part of a battle scheme against Islam can easily be found and picked up on by international media. These things are bound to happen, because not everyone in the West is perfect. There are some evil people in the West and there are some people who make mistakes. The media splashes those inevitabilities around and then to the Muslim world, we look evil and look like we're planning their destruction.

And even as the media strengthens our enemies by giving fuel to their jihad, its photos and constant updates of war demoralize our populations and weaken us from within. And even while the media does that, it also publishes critical information our government uses to hunt down terrorists and now threatens the lives of the Kurds . I'm referring to BBC News now. They released secret information they'd uncovered that Israeli military experts are training the Kurds, and this endangers the lives and stability of the Kurds. I love BBC News. I've used it for years. But if even one Kurd dies because of what they've done, I'll have to find boycott them and I will savagely attack them on this website in the media thread, in the hopes that others will boycott them.

The New York Times revealing that we could use Bin Laden's satellite technology against him caused him to stop using that kind of phone, and since we've lost track of him. The media uncovered the identity of one of our CIA agents and also has been responsible for splashing around the world the secret programs our government uses to hunt down terrorists. On this last, I'm still undecided as to whether I approve of our government's programs or not. The millions of phone call records . . . I'm undecided on whether or not I approve of that.

But I have become certain that even as the media is giving our enemies great power, it is giving us crippling weakness. Though it goes beyond the media, in my view. And I wouldn't say that we should eliminate freedom of the press- I think that their freedom is a necessary weakness of our free society. It damages the free world and strengthens our enemies, but it's necessary. We won't sacrifice the freedom of the press in the war against terror. But MAN, if I could just wring the media's neck . . .

Iran's nuclear ambitions

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

and the main reason why Iran wants nukes is because the most powerful army in the world is camped next door making noises about them being the "Axis of Evil"

Fear of attack from the US or some other power may be one reason. I think they want to be invincible to attack from anyone, and free to conduct their own affairs as they wish, enhancing their power in the region, uniting all the extremist groups in the Middle East, fueling anti-Western sentiment and weakening any hold we have in the region. I think they'd become like the USSR, funding insurgencies in countries to create more favorable regimes toward themselves. There would be a dramatic turn of the tide in the Middle East against the West because of their growing dominance. Possessing nuclear bombs would also enhance their image immeasurably.

They will also want to have nuclear bombs so that they can keep the threat of using them hovering over Israel so that the West can't do anything against Iran's ambitions without risking provoking a holocaust. It would essentially be a nation-hostage situation.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

On a more positive note, Ahmedinejad did make some positive noises about nuclear inspections. Let's not hold our breath on that one.

No kidding.