Clinton accuses Iran of promoting terrorism, fomenting divisions

Never really cared for the lady as a Senator or Presidential material at all. I was also unimpressed when Obama chose her for Secretary of State. I thought it was just political payback and pandering to his base. I'm sure that was a factor in her choice.

Though I have to admit though she is turning out to be darn good Secretary of State so far. I'm pretty impressed with her now, she's going to be one tough diplomat. Credit is due and I don't disagree with any of her views she has expressed on Iran at all.

Good Job Hillary for telling it like it is when it comes to the Iranians.

Will the Democrats start another war for oil? Oh no!! The left will... do a doo doo.

Good Job Hillary for telling it like it is when it comes to the Iranians.

Now if she could just tell it like it is when it comes to the United States government.

Clinton swiped hard at Iran on Wednesday, accusing its hardline leaders of fomenting divisions in the Arab world, promoting terrorism, posing threats to Israel and Europe, and seeking to “intimidate as far as they think their voice can reach.”

Just following the lead of the United States! Only change Israel to Palestine and Iran, Europe to Central America and the Middle East, and "voice" to "missiles".

The more things change, the more things stay the same.

likeitis,

Now if she could just tell it like it is when it comes to the United States government.

For example?

Now if she could just tell it like it is when it comes to the United States government.

For example?

kinniku,

You are soo funny!

sabiwabi,

Unfortunately, it seems you are continuing your tradition of a lack of specifics in favor of rhetoric. Clinton, while you may or may not agree with her, has certainly been critical of the US government.

Clinton, while you may or may not agree with her, has certainly been critical of the US government.

For example?

sabiwabi,

Actually, I agree with sailwind. Hillary Clinton is doing a masterfully good job in her new post. I think this may be exactly what she was born to do...

For example?

Please... ask me something difficult, why don't you...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/15/AR2009021501790.html

"Clinton Criticizes Bush on N. Korea"

Hillary is a tough cookie. She knows what she's talking about. Keep up the good work Hillary. < :-)

adaydream,

I agree. In fact, I have to say that, so far, I am pretty impressed with the Obama Administration in general.

Kinniku,

Clinton accused Iran of fomenting divisions in the Arab world. For most of the 80s, we were funding and arming Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran, a war we encouraged. It ended 20 years ago, yes, but it was BRUTAL. It was 8 years long. I do not expect Iran to forget soon, unlike how so many Americans did not even seem to realize it was happening when it was happening.

We continue to arm and support Israel, no matter how many UN resolutions it violates.

Now, could you tell me how Iran foments divisions?

Next, we have the accusation of promoting terrorism. The United States supports a lot of groups around the world. Whether they are terrorist or not depends totally on your point of view. Here are some: Contras. Jundullah. People's Mujahedin of Iran. And those are the smaller groups, the ones we usually think of as being terrorists. America has also supported clearly terrorist governments, such as in Chile, and committed their own terrorism, as with the overthrow of democratically elected governments in Guatemala and GULP, Iran.

Next, posing threats to Israel and Europe. You are going to have to help me here. I don't know what threats Iran made outside of the completely discredited "wipe off the map" threat.

But of course America is never in our press as threatening anyone. When America does it, its called a warning.

Last we have: seeking to “intimidate as far as they think their voice can reach.”

How does that stand up against America actually invading and attacking and sending troops and CIA "help" to various nations around the world? How about to a worldwide U.S. military presence? Not at all I am afraid. By comparison, it is a complete joke to bitch about someone's voice when you got your boys knocking on EVERYBODY's backdoors. And geesh, I am even at a lost to explain who exactly Iran so vocally intimidated!

In fact, the article is very high on accusation and very very appallingly short on specifics. Par for the course when it comes to American whinging about Iran. What a complete house of cards! Meanwhile, American sins are more and more severe. America is so very deep in hypocrisy it actually boggles the mind! I can only hope that you will get over being boggled Kinniku and see this crap for what it is.

Ummmm

For most of the 80s, we were funding and arming Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran, a war we encouraged.

Yes his entire arsenal of Soviet T-72 tanks, Soviet Scud Missles, French Mirage jet fighters, Ak-47's and French exocet missles were all made in the 'good ole U.S.A'.

As far as the rest of points.......Ever hear of the Soviet Union and the cold war?

Ever ask yourself Why we made the foriegn policy decisions we made during that timeframe?

Hint, it has to do with containment of the Soviet Union and keeping the 'status quo' between the two superpowers to avoid all out Nuclear war.

50 years of management of the conflict between the two systems by Democratic and Republican Presidents.......

So, I'll ask you point blank, In your opinion was our foreign policy during the cold war in support of containment of the Soviet Union and Communist expansion as I believe or was it some other nefarious cause that you haven't really told us yet?

a war we encouraged.

Yeah, nothing like having the West's economic lifeline of oil threatened by encouraging him to invade Iran and put the whole region into flames.

Another history lesson for you. Why did you think we re-flagged the Kuwaiti tankers and put them under U.S protection during this conflict between the two?

likeitis,

First, I'd like to say it is nice to see you can distinguish the difference between Iran and Iraq now ;-) You had a bit of trouble with that in another discussion! ;-)

Now, on to your comments:

Now, could you tell me how Iran foments divisions?

By supporting both Hamas and Hezbollah for starts. Those two groups have certainly created divisions, and violent ones at that, in their respectives countries (I know Palestine is not a 'country' yet, but I consider it to be one for the most part now too).

I don't know what threats Iran made outside of the completely discredited "wipe off the map" threat.

IRNA wrote the story about their own leader. That very same leader has not said the quote was incorrect even close to four years after the original story, so how is it that you know better than the man himself what he meant to say?

As to Iran, it has less that a perfectly clean record vis-a-vis the IAEA. Have you read the latest report? I have...hardly sparkling...

Lastly, we are talking about Hillary Clinton and she sure has criticize her country. That is what I was disagreeing with you about. As far as being 'boggled' goes, maybe you better wait until you can clearly recall history and keep Iran and Iraq straight before you question another person's 'boggledness'.

Yes his entire arsenal of Soviet T-72 tanks, Soviet Scud Missles, French Mirage jet fighters, Ak-47's and French exocet missles were all made in the 'good ole U.S.A'.

What is with this attitude? Did I strike a nerve? The focus of the story is Iran and America. I never said they were the only players, but they are the main players in this article.

The Soviet purchases were made years before the war. The U.S. gifts and sales immediately preceeded the war and were made for the express purpose of the war. This American support included chemical weapons tech, which was used against Iran.

But the biggest reason of all to focus on the U.S. is simply because the U.S. is so DAMN hypocritical about the whole thing. Clinton should have either shut her trap or spoken in a more balanced way.

sailwind: Ever hear of the Soviet Union and the cold war?

Have you ever heard of Iran? It was never part of the Soviet Union.

Hint, it has to do with containment of the Soviet Union and keeping the 'status quo' between the two superpowers to avoid all out Nuclear war.

If you got some great answer, spill it. I am not seeing any justification whatsoever for pushing our problems on others. And sure as poop don't see how encouraging the Iran-Iraq war averted a nuclear war.

And even if it DID, do you think it helps Clinton's case??? Is Iran supposed just say "Oh, well, if our citizens died to avert a nuclear war, okay, we are good with that. Give us a hug and a kiss America! All is forgiven!"

So, I'll ask you point blank, In your opinion was our foreign policy during the cold war in support of containment of the Soviet Union and Communist expansion as I believe or was it some other nefarious cause that you haven't really told us yet?

What I think is that there is waaaay too much sugar in your Kool-Aid. The Iran-Iraq war got nothing to do with the Red Scare.

Why did you think we re-flagged the Kuwaiti tankers and put them under U.S protection during this conflict between the two?

Because they were threatened by the war we helped start and quite deliberately kept going?

First, I'd like to say it is nice to see you can distinguish the difference between Iran and Iraq now ;-) You had a bit of trouble with that in another discussion! ;-)

Quote me.

By supporting both Hamas and Hezbollah for starts.

Well, that was easy! Now you might want to tell me how the U.S. is so much different.

That very same leader has not said the quote was incorrect even close to four years after the original story, so how is it that you know better than the man himself what he meant to say?

The quote is correct. The translation is wrong.

Lastly, we are talking about Hillary Clinton and she sure has criticize her country. That is what I was disagreeing with you about.

Would you say that she was taken out of context? Would you say that her criticism is of the U.S. is as scathing? Would you say that her criticism of Iran is balanced and helpful?

kinniku,

I checked out your article. It states:

In a slap at her predecessors, Clinton made it clear she believes that the Bush administration's decision to walk away from an agreement negotiated during her husband's administration-- the 1994 Agreed Framework -- helped create the current crisis over North Korea's stash of nuclear weapons.

So Hillary criticizing George for ignoring an Agreement made by Bill is the example you came up with to prove that "she sure has criticize her country"?

IRNA wrote the story about their own leader. That very same leader has not said the quote was incorrect even close to four years after the original story,

This is the same IRNA that referred to a holocaust revisionists as a holocaust denier, a term the Iranian leader would not use. I wonder why people at IRNA would mistranslated him. I know you stated a few times that you know that most fluent Farsi speakers agree with the "wipe off the map" translation (I still don't get how you would know this). I also wonder why you seem to like IRNA so much.

Anyway, the BBC stated in June 2007: "In October 2005, the Iranian president made a statement in which he envisaged the replacement of Israel with a Palestinian state. This was widely translated as a call for Israel to be "wiped off the map"."

--http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6733487.stm

Maybe the BBC have better translators than IRNA.

kinniku,

I forgot to mention that the BBC article I linked to also states that Ahmadinejad "has insisted that Iran is not a threat to Israel". Me think that pretty much says it all, how can he vow to wipe Israel off the map while saying that Iran is not a threat to Israel?

He has also stated the following:

"The US domination is on the fall. Iran and Japan as two civilized and influential nations should get ready for a world minus the US," President Ahmadinejad told Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda on the sidelines of the UN food summit on Tuesday.

Does this mean that he vows to wipe the US off the map?

likeitis,

Quote me.

Sure. In return, please acknowledge the error, 'kay?

http://www.japantoday.com/category/world/view/iran-begins-testing-1st-nuclear-plant#comment_210824

Iran begins testing 1st nuclear plant 05:38 PM JST - 26th February

It would not be the first time Israel "helped" Iran shut down a nuclear power plant. So I find the headline to be somewhat erroneous. Granted, Israel bombed Iran's French made reactors before they came on line, but still...

Can you imagine if Canada bombed the Baldwin's? It would be war. For all the fear mongering about Iran, it is amazing they did next to nothing in response to that overwhelmingly in your face act of war.

I wrote a (rather nice and polite, especially compared with your rather sharp tone today) response to you which said:

"That was "Iraq" not "Iran". One little letter makes all the difference in the world. Actually, I would imagine Iran was pretty pleased that Iraq's reactor got squashed. The Iranians and Iraqis were not getting along particularly well at that time."

You did not come back to that conversation, so you probably never read my response. Anyway, enjoy!

Well, that was easy! Now you might want to tell me how the U.S. is so much different.

You asked a question: "Now, could you tell me how Iran foments divisions?" I answered it. You seemed to be suggesting Iran did not promote division. You were mistaken. I merely pointed that out.

The quote is correct. The translation is wrong.

Well, President Ahmadinejad has never said his quote was translated wrong nor that he was misunderstood. That is a fact.

Would you say that she was taken out of context? Would you say that her criticism is of the U.S. is as scathing? Would you say that her criticism of Iran is balanced and helpful?

She is the Secretary of State for the United States. Obviously she is there to represent the US point of view more than anything else. You are expecting something different from a representative a country? You will be waiting a long time. The fact is that she has criticized her own government (not now as she is part of that government). That is what I was saying. What is your point in your questions? Taken out of context? What is your point? Scathing? Depends on the listener...

likeitis: But the biggest reason of all to focus on the U.S. is simply because the U.S. is so DAMN hypocritical about the whole thing.

And you're entitled to that opinion. But where you begin to lose credibility is when you make it clear that it's the only opinion you have, or at least it's the only opinion you're willing to offer in the discussion.

When people talk about the threat of Iran you run for cover under your criticisms of the United States. The US deserves criticism, but by defending Iran exclusively by criticizing the US you're making it clear that you're only willing to include Iran as long as they're presented as the victim. You avoid speaking about issues other countries have with Iran, for example Egypt, Lebanon, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, all of Europe, Russia, etc. Perhaps if these countries supported Iran then you'd have a valid reason to focus your comments on the US, but since that's not the case you sound more like someone who is refusing to take a realistic look at Iran.

You've asked "What has Iran ever done?" but you've made it clear that you have no interest in the answer since you ignore the answer and respond by giving additional criticism of the US. That tells us that you're not really interested in an answer, or at least dealing with an honest answer. A more honest question from you would be, "Would you like to hear my criticism of America?" instead of "What has Iran ever done?"

Either you really have no knowledge of any reasons why Iran should be criticized, in which case you don't have the knowledge to be included in the discussion, or you're well aware of things Iran has done which deserve criticism, in which case you're being dishonest. At this point I'm not 100% sure of which is more accurate since your outlandish statements seem to be said with genuine belief. I think that's what most people here are trying to figure out.

sabiwabi,

Hillary criticizing George for ignoring an Agreement made by Bill is the example you came up with to prove that "she sure has criticize her country"?

She was criticizing the Bush administration...that is critcizing her country's government. She has not been a senator all that long...Did you think she was going to criticize her husband's administration? I never said she would...

She has done it many times though...

Here's another: Clinton Criticizes Implementation of Bush's Drug Plan for the Elderly http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/nyregion/24clinton.html

Sen. Hillary Clinton Slams Bush in Speech http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162099,00.html

This is the same IRNA that referred to a holocaust revisionists as a holocaust denier,

Yes, it is...

a term the Iranian leader would not use.

You can confirm this? Please do...

I wonder why people at IRNA would mistranslated him.

My thinking is that they did not. They knew the words and what they meant. In the article you provided, you have even confirmed that he meant the destruction of Israel replaced with a Palestinian state. In addition, he has never said the translation was wrong or that he was misunderstood. It has been almost 4 years...

I know you stated a few times that you know that most fluent Farsi speakers agree with the "wipe off the map" translation

It means what it means. "Otukaresame" sometimes means 'thanks'...

I also wonder why you seem to like IRNA so much.

It is an award-winning news agency. Why shouldn't I read many sources of news? Don't you like them? In addition, they are the government's official news agency. One would think they know what their leaders mean...

As far as your BBC article. I don't doubt President Ahmadinejad has said many different things, some of which conflict. What I would like you to show me is him specifically saying the translation was incorrect and that he was misunderstood. Until you can do that you cannot truly say what he meant in 2005...

Does this mean that he vows to wipe the US off the map?

He certainly could want his countrymen and people in the Middle East in particular to think so...raising muck seems to be his favorite hobby after all...

It seems Hillary Clinton has criticized former President Bush on many occasions.

Here is another:

In TV Interviews, Senator Clinton Criticizes Bush's Handling of Iraq

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E3DA103DF93BA35751C1A9659C8B63

So, are we all clear yet? Ms. Clinton has criticized her country's government on many occasions.

In the here and now, she is representing her country as Secretary of State and I think she is doing a pretty good job of it so far...

likeitis

Have you ever heard of Iran? It was never part of the Soviet Union.

Nah...just one part of the country at one time. You really should study some history of the region from an OBJECTIVE view for once.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Republic_of_Gilan

Thanks

You ever heard of Ollie North, Saliwind old buddy?

I realize to an extent what America was doing - using, encouraging and financing Saddam Hussein in his war against the Persians and a buffer aginst the Islamic revolution - but you have to admit it really wasn't the US's most honourable hour...

...and under another Reublican regime may I add.

sailwind: You really should study some history of the region from an OBJECTIVE view for once.

OMFG dude! I cannot believe you are bringing up a single province in Iran that went renegade for a year from 1920, and using that to justify any U.S. action against the whole of Iran, especially in the 1980s! I cannot believe you are doing that and lecturing ME about being OBJECTIVE!

Please, please, stop putting so much sugar in your Kool-aid.

Thanks.

kinniku,

Sure. In return, please acknowledge the error, 'kay?

Yep. I made a factual error. Thank you for pointing that out to me. But no thank you for rubbing it in and trying to make it relevant to this conversation, as if you have never made an error.

(rather nice and polite, especially compared with your rather sharp tone today)

You must have me confused with someone else. My tone toward you has not been sharp.

You seemed to be suggesting Iran did not promote division.

No, I was suggesting that Iran does nothing America does not do itself on that score. I was suggesting Iran was following America's lead, back when I said "just following America's lead", my first post in this thread.

Well, President Ahmadinejad has never said his quote was translated wrong nor that he was misunderstood. That is a fact.

Sigh. Okay, let us assume that you were mistranslated in another language. How are you going to know? Things don't get translated and then, inversely translated so often you know. Even if the man is a pretty good English speaker, and read the English translation, do you REALLY expect him to know all the nuances of "wipe off the map", which is an English only idiom?

Now, in the unlikely event any of that actually happened, what do you honestly think can be done about it? You expect him to make a whole new speech to explain the whole mix up, which did not start with him? Have you ever heard of political suicide? Are you aware of how often the press even picks up on such things? Particularly when it makes it look like the PRESS made an error?

And none of it matters, because that simply was NOT what he meant. It is an English only idiom, and when you someone uses an English only idiom in a translation, it should be sending up all sorts of red flags in your head.

Obviously she is there to represent the US point of view more than anything else.

Is hypocrisy ok now because of who you represent? No, I don't think so. Hypocrisy is wrong dude. It is a cause of conflict. Anyone making such hypocritical statements deserves to be called out on them and branded for what they are: hypocrites.

likeitis,

Yep. I made a factual error. Thank you for pointing that out to me.

You are welcome. Please realize is it is pretty large factual error as we have always been talking about Iran here and in the other articles. You tend to get a bit arrogant about history and jump down people's throats about their supposed lack of historical knowledge. I am merely suggesting you also study up a bit more...Also, it is strange that you did not even remember something you had written about Iran just a few days ago...Why the need for me to quote you?

But no thank you for rubbing it in and trying to make it relevant to this conversation, as if you have never made an error.

When I make an error and it is pointed out, the first thing out of the box is not "quote me". I check what has been suggested as my error first. You first assumed it was not your error. Also, I did not rub it in. I pointed it out. I even put a smiley face to be light-hearted in my comment. In this thread, it is you attempting to "rub knowledge" into people as opposed to just discussing the issue. In addition, you were condescending in your response to me...

You must have me confused with someone else. My tone toward you has not been sharp.

"Boggled" is not "sharp"? ... No, no confusing you with someone else...Yes, you were sharp and there was no call for it, especially when you got the history of Iran and Iraq confused. Dial down the arrogance, please...

No, I was suggesting that Iran does nothing America does not do itself on that score. I was suggesting Iran was following America's lead, back when I said "just following America's lead", my first post in this thread.

Again, you asked a question. I answered it factually. Iran is not "following" America's lead. It is doing what it thinks if best for its interests, as other countries do. Dressing it up as Iran copying the US is just a conversational distraction. One thing does not make the other correct.

Well, President Ahmadinejad has never said his quote was translated wrong nor that he was misunderstood. That is a fact.

Okay, let us assume that you were mistranslated in another language. How are you going to know? Things don't get translated and then, inversely translated so often you know.

He knew right away when there was reaction to the report in the media (starting with his own homepage and IRNA's report). Others in the goverment of Iran certainly tried to react. Only he did not...BTW, he is not a moron. I am sure he was made quite aware by now and probably right away of the meaning of the idiom. Certainly everyone else in the Iranian government was aware of the situation. I highly doubt President Ahmadinejad was the only official that was unaware of the situation.

Now, in the unlikely event any of that actually happened, what do you honestly think can be done about it?

He could specifically respond to it, as leaders often do. Others in the Iranian government certainly were able to react. Why not President Ahmadinejad himself. If I was misquoted, I would say something about it. Hey, you thought I misquoted you (of course as we now know I did not) and you immediately reacted to it. He has not specifically reacted to it for close to four years...

You expect him to make a whole new speech to explain the whole mix up, which did not start with him?

I expect him to say he was misquoted...if that is indeed the fact. I don't need a whole new speech, just an explanation of what he specifically meant to say. I do not think this is unreasonable considering the reaction over these past couple of years. Get it out into the open and be done with it.

Have you ever heard of political suicide? Are you aware of how often the press even picks up on such things? Particularly when it makes it look like the PRESS made an error?

How would the press misquoting him be political suicide for him? That does not make sense. Unless, he likes the idea of people thinking he meant what must people suggest he meant. If he was misquoted, it would seem he would want his true message to get out to the people.

And none of it matters, because that simply was NOT what he meant. It is an English only idiom, and when you someone uses an English only idiom in a translation, it should be sending up all sorts of red flags in your head.

I am not referring to the idiom specifically, but to what it means. The Farsi meaning of what he said does match the idiomatic meaning. He was encouraging the end of the state of Israel. There is no doubt of this. The use of idiom in translation is quite common and does not need to send any red flags. Most of what you read is translated into English that uses expression you are familiar with, but that probably do not directly exist in the original language. That does not mean the writer intend the meaning to be anything different than what was written. However, your name is not President Ahmadinejad and you cannot speak for him. No one else can. Only the man himself can say what he meant. Since he has not seen fit to correct the misconception, one is left thinking the original meaning is correct.

Is hypocrisy ok now because of who you represent? No, I don't think so. Hypocrisy is wrong dude. It is a cause of conflict. Anyone making such hypocritical statements deserves to be called out on them and branded for what they are: hypocrites.

"Dude", she represents her government now. She is talking about her government now. Her actions are not hypocritical. The long list of things you wrote have nothing to do with the Obama government. Support of Hamas and Hezbollah certainly do have something to do with the present government of Iran. You are attempting to compare apples and oranges and, while they both be fruits, they are not the same thing.

SuperLib,

Since so many are jumping up and down on Iran, I feel no need to do so myself. Its really just that simple.

What annoys the crap out of me is that people jump up and down on Iran, and don't even seem to realize why. This is evidenced by the poor reasons given for the behavior. The reasons given may justify criticism, but they DO NOT justify jumping up and down on Iran. And the accusations are so of ten so devoid of substance, that it is laughable how people get so worked up about Iran.

I compare to the U.S. because, if one is to to jump up and down on Iran, then the U.S. must be taken out back and shot immediately. Jumping up and down on Iran while letting America off the hook is the height of hypocrisy. The height I say. Which is one reason among many that I focus on the U.S.

Now, if you would like to add some specifics to the accusations against Iran, be my guest. I have accepted as specifics their support for Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which are more than just simple terrorist orgs and neither of which are receiving tanks, planes, helicopters or military high tech from Iran unlike how Israel is receiving those and Israel is just as guilty of state terror as Hamas and Hezbollah are guilty of run-of-the-mill terror.

Any other specifics? Because that one is failing to impress. Don't get me wrong, I don't support terror or support for terror of any kind. But obviously, there are degrees of terror and support for it, and Iran's and Hezbollah's and Hamas's seem to be pretty paltry by comparison. There also seems a lot of tit-for-tat in there. So how about it? Any more specifics or am I just going to get more empty accusations?

For starters, you could fill this blank in:

You avoid speaking about issues other countries have with Iran, for example Egypt, Lebanon, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, all of Europe, Russia, etc.

I am not avoiding anything. I am open as always to all that makes sense.

purchasepurchases were made years before the war. The U.S. gifts and sales immediately preceeded the war and were made for the express purpose of the war. This American support included chemical weapons tech, which was used against Iran.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq_1973-1990

While I agree that the US is hypocritical, you should know that arms sales from the US accounted for 0.5 percent of arms imports from 1973 to 1990. That's much less even than imports from Czechoslavakia and Egypt. So yes, the US was arming Iraq, but the sales were pretty negligible.

kinniku:you have even confirmed that he meant the destruction of Israel replaced with a Palestinian state.

This is like saying the U.S Founding Fathers vowed the destruction of the British colonies in America to be replaced with the United States. Basically its true, but the semantical implications are WAAAAAAAYYYYY off.

FYI, semantical implications sell newspapers and articles. And selling newspapers and articles is how journalists and newspaper owners earn their bread and butter and BMWs. Please be mindful of that.

When I make an error and it is pointed out, the first thing out of the box is not "quote me". I check what has been suggested as my error first. You first assumed it was not your error.

I had no idea what you were freaking talking about dude. This is a whole different thread. Now think for a minute. Since I had no idea I had made an error, then that episode from several weeks ago did not stick out in my mind. Can you understand that? I asked for the quote, so that I could, quite literally, get on the same page.

Also, I did not rub it in.

One error. One. And you keep bringing it up like a child. You drug in it in here to discredit me and you won't let it go even though I have acknowledged it after merely asking you for proof of it. If this is not rubbing it in, then WTF is? We all make errors. But I do not think I have even seen anyone drag one so specifically to another thread like this and keep harping on it. This is beyond stuff like "Well, you voted for GWB!". Way beyond. Let it go.

"Boggled" is not "sharp"?

No its not. I am accusing a great many people of being boggled on this issue. I have certainly been boggled before. And of the whole post, is this the only thing you need to declare the whole tone sharp???

Iran is not "following" America's lead. It is doing what it thinks if best for its interests, as other countries do. Dressing it up as Iran copying the US is just a conversational distraction.

In some ways I agree. In others, I don't. I do not find that to be a clear cut issue. Just about every country on the planet is reacting to the U.S. in some way. Some of those things can be viewed as "following the lead". Iran's action could be partly following the lead of the U.S. I do not know. We would have to be mind readers to actually know if such a reason exists with this.

With that, I am merely pointing out that Iran is doing the same things America has done and is doing, although the Iranians are doing it to a lesser extent.

Comment on the mistranslation to come...

kinniku,

You are probably aware that Bush has made numerous errors in his speeches. If not, look up “Bushisms” for a long list, some are quite funny. I have never heard Bush in one speech correcting such a mistake from a previous speech. So just because we did not hear Bush himself correcting his mistakes does not mean that he meant all those wacky things he said. You are clinging on to something meaningless if your basing everything on the Iranian leader’s lack of correction.

I know you stated a few times that you know that most fluent Farsi speakers agree with the "wipe off the map" translation

It means what it means. "Otukaresame" sometimes means 'thanks'...

I think Likeitis said it all when he replied to you with: “The quote is correct. The translation is wrong.”

The translation is not the only record of his speech. The original quote is also out there, for all Farsi-speaking people to read. If you look (they are easy to find), you will find many Farsi-speaking people offering the correct translation of that speech.

Also, don’t you mean "Otukaresama"?

The BBC is probably one medium that used the service of a Farsi translator when they wrote in 2007: "In October 2005, the Iranian president made a statement in which he envisaged the replacement of Israel with a Palestinian state. This was widely translated as a call for Israel to be "wiped off the map"."

--http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6733487.stm

I also “envisage the replacement of Israel with a Palestinian state” but I certainly to no vow to do so.

Sorry, that last sentence should be:

I also “envisage the replacement of Israel with a Palestinian state” but I certainly do not vow to do so.

Nessie: you should know that arms sales from the US accounted for 0.5 percent of arms imports from 1973 to 1990.

Thank you for the article. It seems that I may have been wrong, or at least have no proof, that the U.S. armed Iraq just before the war. Official arms sales were from 82 to 88. However, there is still information pertaining to our arms sales to Iraq that are still classified. So who really knows?

The problem with U.S. sales is not the amount, but the purpose. The purpose was to thwart Iran, and, of course, we were not keen on doing that in 73. Whether you think that thwarting Iran was a good or not is not the point. The point is that we keep provoking the Iranians and interfering in their affairs. Then we have people acting like Iran is supposed to be grateful or something. It was Iraq that started that war. And that is just another reason for Iran to be pissed off. We supported the aggressor, not Iran, who was innocent as far as that goes.

Another point more significant than the amount of conventional arms was supplying the tech for chemical arms to Iraq. Not only did that lead to gassing of Iranian soldiers, but also to the gassing of the Kurds. American refusal to admit culpability in those crimes is frankly disgusting. You say you agree about American hypocrisy, so I am sure you agree.

Like likeitis,

You are correct we did supply arms during the Iraq / Iran war and we did it illegally.

You would think the Iranian's would be a little more grateful for the stinger missles Reagan sold them to fund the Contra's.

The Iranians likeitis in case you missed it. Now who where we supporting in that war?

In 1985, while Iran and Iraq were at war, Iran made a secret request to buy weapons from the United States. McFarlane sought Reagan's approval, in spite of the embargo against selling arms to Iran. McFarlane explained that the sale of arms would not only improve U.S. relations with Iran, but might in turn lead to improved relations with Lebanon, increasing U.S. influence in the troubled Middle East. Reagan was driven by a different obsession. He had become frustrated at his inability to secure the release of the seven American hostages being held by Iranian terrorists in Lebanon. As president, Reagan felt that "he had the duty to bring those Americans home," and he convinced himself that he was not negotiating with terrorists. While shipping arms to Iran violated the embargo, dealing with terrorists violated Reagan's campaign promise never to do so. Reagan had always been admired for his honesty.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/peopleevents/pande08.html

likeitis,

This is like saying the U.S Founding Fathers vowed the destruction of the British colonies in America to be replaced with the United States. Basically its true, but the semantical implications are WAAAAAAAYYYYY off.

I don't think this is a good analogy at all. This is the very reason I don't really like analogies in the first place. The US founding fathers lived in the colonies. They were still planning on living in the colonies. With Israel, if you replace it with a Palestinian state, Israel gets destroyed. What I wrote is true completely and it is what is meant by 'regime change' which is another catch phrase dreamed up to make Israel disappearing sound more pleasant.

Can you understand that? I asked for the quote, so that I could, quite literally, get on the same page.

Fair enough. Next time, how about a "please" or something just to keep things friendly?...please?

One error. One. And you keep bringing it up like a child.

I only brought it up at all when you saw fit to suggest I was "boggled" because I asked you a simple question. You give what you get...be nice if you want people to be nice...

No its not.

Yes, 'boggled' is sharp. Especially since I merely asked you a simple (two word) question which you decided was a chance to "pounce". May I suggest you keep the kool-aid and boggled remarks to yourself and just enjoy the conversation for what it is without the need to insult other people's intelligence.

In some ways I agree. In others, I don't. I do not find that to be a clear cut issue...

Fair enough. Neither do I...

With that, I am merely pointing out that Iran is doing the same things America has done and is doing, although the Iranians are doing it to a lesser extent.

Well, I would argue that the US also has and is doing a lot more good for the world than Iran has and is. That should work itself into the balance when discussing the two nations.

sabiwabi,

I have never heard Bush in one speech correcting such a mistake from a previous speech. So just because we did not hear Bush himself correcting his mistakes does not mean that he meant all those wacky things he said.

This would have a point if you thought or if anyone thought President Ahmadinejad misspoke as Bush has done. However, I don't remember anyone (including you) every suggesting that. So, this analogy is not applicable...

You are clinging on to something meaningless if your basing everything on the Iranian leader’s lack of correction.

If I were misquoted or mistranslated I were sure speak up about it, as would you I am sure. That he does not speaks volumes...

I know you stated a few times that you know that most fluent Farsi speakers agree with the "wipe off the map" translation

They agree with the meaning of the words "wipe off the map". That does not mean those are the only words one can use to say the same thing. There is no mistaking what the man wants to say. In fact, I would guess you would cheer on the meaning of those words...

I think Likeitis said it all when he replied to you with: “The quote is correct. The translation is wrong.”

The translation matches the meaning of the quote...it is correct in that it reflects what President Ahmadinejad wanted to say... President Ahmadinejad has not suggested he was misquoted or that people have misunderstood what he said in 2005.

Also, don’t you mean "Otukaresama"?

Yes, I mistyped. (See how easy that is? Now you know I didn't mean the Japanese for 'tired shark' means 'thanks". Now if Ahmadinejad would only do us the honor of clarifying his remarks... )

The BBC is probably one medium that used the service of a Farsi translator when they wrote in 2007: "In October 2005, the Iranian president made a statement in which he envisaged the replacement of Israel with a Palestinian state. This was widely translated as a call for Israel to be "wiped off the map"."

The BBC used their own translators in 2005 and translated it as "wipe off the map". I assume in 2007 they are giving the other side of the argument the benefit of the doubt. Nothing wrong with that. I like the BBC for exactly this reason.

Bottom line, President Ahmadinejad has continued to leave it up to others to explain what he meant to say, but in doing so, has left open the possibility he meant exactly what IRNA translated. I believe he likes it this way. In fact, I think you like it this way, too...

If I were misquoted or mistranslated I were sure speak up about it, as would you I am sure. That he does not speaks volumes...

Indeed, you or I would, because we seem to have soooo much free time on our hands. But me think he's a busy guy. There is no need for him to personally come out and correct this, others have done it for him.

Besides, the original quote is out there. And there is a world of difference between "I envisage the replacement of Israel with a Palestinian state" and "I vow to wipe Israel off the map".

But me think he's a busy guy.

Nah...it would take him all of 30 seconds if he wanted to correct a mistake he felt was made. Others (including you) cannot read his mind. Only he knows what he meant to say. There is a need for him to personally correct it if he wants to be thought of as a responsible leader. I think he (and you) prefer to have people in the Middle East think he was suggesting Israel be made to disappear. He has said nothing since that time to suggest he was mistranslated. 'I was mistranslated.' There, that took my 5.6 seconds to type...even with my busy day I could fit that in. I think President Ahmadinejad could too, if he wanted. He doesn't seem to want to...

Besides, the original quote is out there. And there is a world of difference between "I envisage the replacement of Israel with a Palestinian state" and "I vow to wipe Israel off the map"

His statement refers to him hoping for the state of Israel to 'disappear' to use another term for the quote. He does not mention in that sentence that he 'envisages' replacing Israel with a Palestninian state. I have never said he personally was suggesting Iran attack Israel. However, his suggesting a country should be made to disappear, vanish, be wiped out, replaced with another country, whatever term you want to use, is irresponsible for a person who would like to be considered a responsible leader. However, if you are trying to get people stirred up and angry, it is perfect. That is why he declines to specifically discuss what he said and answer specific questions about it.

I have never said he personally was suggesting Iran attack Israel.

So why, then, is Iran considered such a threat to Israel? He and others have said many times that Iran was not a threat to any country.

One comment he made (and many like it) that seems to go unnoticed is the following:

"Do you respect the right to self-determination for the Palestinian nation? Yes or no? Is Palestine, as a nation, considered a nation with the right to live under humane conditions or not? Let's allow those rights to be enforced for these 5 million displaced people."

So why, then, is Iran considered such a threat to Israel?

They arm and support Hezbollah and Hamas in addition to his suggesting Israel should be made to disappear. These are a threats.

One comment he made...

The comment you wrote has nothing to do with him calling for Israel to disappear...

By the way, I think Palestine should exist side-by-side in peace with Israel, so you are preaching to choir with your quote...However, I also think Israel has a right to peacefully exist as well. You and President Ahmadinejad do not...