Iran says U.S., Israel would be crazy to attack
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
N Korea stages mass military parade for late leader
( 2 )
-
Maid kills Singaporean widow after being called stupid
( 2 )
-
At least 356 killed in Honduras prison fire
( 3 )
-
Republicans oppose any cuts in nuclear weapons
( 23 )
-
Russia: West 'slammed door' on Syria at U.N.
( 11 )
-
- Financial Advisor
- Select Asset Management KK, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥100,000 ~ ¥999,999 Paid Training Commission Based
-
- Corporate Business English Trainers
- ACT Systems, Inc.（株式会社アクト・システムズ）, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥269,500 ~ ¥280,000 / Month
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
Order by Time Order by Popularity
56 Comments
Login to comment
0
Sarge
I say Iran would be crazy to attack Israel.
0
sabiwabi
"the United States and Israel would be crazy to attack his country" Yes, but unfortunately, they both have demonstrated their craziness on numerous occasions!
0
dano2002
one day the world will not need oil and these buffoons will have no value to the world.
0
RepublicofTexas
I agree, the oil producing nations really need to start diversifying their economies. Iran like North Korea needs to stop these little provocative, attention-seeking outbursts, if they ever want to be taken seriously.
0
sabiwabi
these buffoons? US and Israel?
0
skipthesong
“We are for stability in Iraq ... within a democratic system and framework that brings all who wish to operate within that framework together,” he said." Of course, as long as it meets Islamic needs.
0
thedeath
i really want to see the 2 crazy nations attract them. let give them some real nuke since they really asking for it.
0
adaydream
McCain is talking more nuclear power plants in the US while Isreal and the United States are talking about taking out Iran for the very same thing. How hypocritical. < :-)
0
SezWho2
The attempt to master nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and to be a capable alternative provider of nuclear fuel for such purposes would not be an attempt to diversify?
Yes, one day the world might not need oil. Why should Iran go a-begging in such event?
0
shayouzoku
right, because it's clear that their only intent to master nuclear technology is for entirely peaceful purposes. there's no way it could be to even out the power balance with israel, which does have nuclear weapons.
0
SezWho2
No, that's not clear. But it is definitely not clear that Iran's intent is to "even out" the power balance with Israel.
Furthermore why should Israel have nuclear weapons and why should any of its neighbors acquiesce to Israel having a power superiority over it?
It's rather silly to call for Iran to develop alternative technologies and then complain when it develops the same technologies that other countries already have.
0
Helter_Skelter
Actually, given the potential global consequences of this terrorist-exporting holocaust-denying fundamentalist Islamic regime obtaining nuclear weapons, it seems crazy not to.
0
thepro
We know already know they are crazy
0
SezWho2
It might not be crazy if Iran were actually trying to develop such weapons and if an attack could prevent it from doing so. Evidence to date does not show the former and there is widespread doubt that the latter could be accomplished.
Under those circumstances, and given the ill-will an will create or exacerbate, the balance of seeming craziness weighs more heavily toward an attack.
0
SuperLib
So we pretty much agree that the US and Israel would be crazy to attack and Iran is crazy period. ;)
0
SezWho2
No, I don't think we agree there.
0
Sarge
Sez - So, you think it wouldn't be crazy for the U.S. or Israel to attack Iran, and Ahmadinejad is perfectly sane?
0
Statistician
My guess is that Bush and the Israelis will go at the end of July with a very hard strike - early enough for some dust to start to settle before the American elections and for the gasoline price to be well on the way down again by the start of November. But not so soon that the full political and economic fallout from the attack will be becoming apparent.
0
TonyUS
Iran has all the energy resources it needs. Why nuclear? They do not need it and should not have it. They are lead by radicals and the world will be safer if they are denied nuclear . If it is going to take force to stop them , then let it be. It seems there in the beginning they were not going to accept any dealings and go forward no matter what. The closer the threat of force have come, now they are playing a part in,,,, hmm maybe we can reach a deal.. Where did this change of haert come from? They know they can be stopped if not in one way, but can be in another!!!
0
RepublicofTexas
I have no problem with nations seeking to acquire nuclear power for civilian purposes. However, it is crazy statements like these that prove that Iran is far too unstable a country to posses such a responsibility.
0
SezWho2
Sarge,
Can you name even one person who is "perfectly" sane?
I think Ahmadinejad is calculating and rational. I don't think he is going to attack, particularly after his government warns others not to attack Iran.
And, no, I don't think it would be wise for Israel or the US to attack Iran.
0
SezWho2
RepublicofTexas,
Crazy statements like what?
0
LFRAgain
Because Israel has not made it state policy to see that Iran is "wiped off the map." The same can't be said for Iran where the party line is and has always been complete and total opposition to the existence of an Israeli state.
All things being equal, with both Iran and Israel having nuclear weapons, I have very little doubt that Iran would hesitate to use them to achieve their goal of wiping Israel from the region.
To be fair, Israel has most certainly brought most of this unending nightmare upon itself by A) arrogantly and brazenly colonizing an already settled region with the blessings of other imperialist nations, and B) continue to make territory grabs in the name of "security," with little regard to the safety of Palestinian civilians in the wrong place at the wrong time. Israel put itself in this position the moment European Jews demanded a homeland after WWII and insisted it be located in the heart of region with its own passionate religion. Plainly put, Israel started this.
But that doesn't justify nuclear annihilation. Given the Middle-East's track record against Israel so far, including launching two full-scale wars, the continued funding of guerilla terrorist groups like Hezbollah, punctuated with the horrific practice of using human bombs against civilian targets, it’s not too much of a stretch to imagine the wrong person with the wrong amount of political clout in places like Iran deciding that a nuclear strike against Tel Aviv is just what’s needed to cleanse the region once and for all of Jews. Given everything that’s come out Ahmadinejad’s mouth since he became president of Iran, there’s no reason not to believe that he may very well be that person.
No nuclear technology for Iran until they develop and express a foreign policy that isn’t as grim and unrelenting as it has been since the Islamic revolution of ‘79.
0
Helter_Skelter
SezWho2
Does the fact that Ahmadinejad invited neo-Nazi David Duke to be a keynote speaker at the Iranian holocaust-denial conference, and then called for the Jewish state to be wiped off the map, cause you any concern? And if not, can you at least see how the Israelis might be just a bit nervous about this guy acquiring a nuke that could annihilate them with a single strike?
And what's with all these No-Nuke leftists now supporting the Iranian nuclear program? <:-D
0
sabiwabi
Sorry, but it is not state policy to do so, except in eyes of those gullible enough to believe everything they hear from zionist propaganda. Anyway, if anyone has been doing any map wiping, its Israel, and they seem intent to continue doing so.
0
Rizvi
Today is 3rd July Today American Warship fired two missiles over Iranian Pessenger Plane and all the pessenger have died. Iran has been never the aggressor throughout its History nor its foreign policy instigate aggressorship. It has been under strict sanction since emerging of Islamic Revolution in 1979, Its all parliament was detonated twice even then they staged another third election only in one year. Its unprecedented. Then aroused Saddam to attack newly revolutionary country who were fighting interior terrorits, Western Government gave lot of Chemical weapons to Saddam, Irans is the victim of Chemical bombing, UN confirmed. Now like Iraq attack which is based on lies report of WMD, they are again lying over Iran while US millitary Intelligence confirmed that long ago Iran foresake nueclear weapons programme.
0
pointofview
Even if we don
t like the pushiness of the U.S well have to accept the fact that they are the "BOSSES" in the world today and if they feel threatened by other regions around the world like Iran, N. Korea, African Nations etc. they are going to act accordingly. If there is risk to be considered, especially nuclear, then The U.S and in this case Israel are going to intervene. The UN has had absolutely no progress with any major conflicts. Can`t wait forever. The nadir of world problems continues to get worse. Everything is festering and soon it will come to a head. We may not like the way things are done by The US but could you imagine how things would be if Russia or China were the "BOSSES."0
Rizvi
Looking the prevailing present revolutionary policies including Settlement of N.Korea issue; returning "Occupied Golan Heights" to Syria; Returing "Occupied Sheba Farms" to Lebonon; Seize Fire truce with Hamas; now "Prisoner exchange" with Hezbollah etc; all showing signs to outrightly to isolate Iran internationally and possibilly attack on it.
However, when two American Hellicopters were collided each other in an Iranian desert "Tabbus" during Cammando action after extensive training, the then President of America, President Cartor viewd it as an open Miracle of present age and announded that "God is with Iran" that was his wording.
0
nethanyahubush
Iran is right. US and Israel are crazy if they attack Iran. Iran has never invaded an another country in its history unlike USA and Israel. Iran has never threatened Israel. USA is useless puppet state for apartheid Israel. Both war mongering and a threat to peace and stability for the civilised.
0
Loki520
It's a good think Rizvi and Nethanyahu are here to keep us straight. Without them, we might fall prey to those little things called "facts" and "reality".
0
skipthesong
Well, after reading all these posts pro-Iran, all we can do is wait. But, what if Iran does build a nuke and shoots it at the Jews? They are after all a menace to the Islamic society, aren't they? That little piece of sand is far too much.
What happens if other countries, where Jews live, become Islamic? Would their living places be too much for Iran then as well?
0
FromEurope
Many people are not aware of what exactly Ahmadinejad said about Israeli government. Here, the article from the Jersalem Post.
"The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom,"
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1164881878838&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
0
Loki520
Pipe dreams all.
Dream on Iran... dream on... You picked the wrong nationality to desire "wiping" off the map. The ONE group of people that have had someone try that to them already. I can promise you that you won't even get close to achieving your dream.
And we will ALL pay a nasty the price for that.
0
nethanyahubush
Wrong Loki520. Iran has never used the word map in any speech. What map? THats the pipedream. This hoax and the propaganda from US and Israel has already been proven false by people and scholars all over the world. Just as it also is proven false that Saddam did not have WMD. It is the Zionist puppets who live in a pipe dream. The sooner Americans realize this the less stupid they will look.
Ahmadinejad said. He hoped The Zionist regime occupying Jerusalem would vanish from the page of time. There was no Map. I will tell you a country which has been wiped off the map. Its called Palestine.
Ahmadinejad was expressing his future hope that the Zionist apartheid regime in Israel would fall, not that Iran was going to physically annex the country and its population.
WHy is it that Americans support Israel so much? A country which is labeled an apartheid country also known as the most racist country on this planet. Sharon used to say we own US and the Americans know it. Nethanyahu said 9/11 was good. Israel bombed USS Liberty killing and injuring many American lives. Mossad agents were celebtrating jumping up and down filming on tape when Twin Towers crumbled.
0
SuperLib
LOL
0
nethanyahubush
Nelson Mandela. LOL SuperLib
0
USNinJapan2
Geez, I didn't know that the origin of Ahmadinejad's 'wiped off the map' comment was the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, which is state-run. Oh the irony...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MahmoudAhmadinejadand_Israel
0
Loki520
So your rebuttal is that he didn't use the word "map"? Your free to feel that way, but you need to take it up with the butthats in Iran, that work for the OFFICIAL Iranian government, that did the translation.
Now, tell me the official Iranian line on how military parades in Iran feature ballistic missiles adorned with the slogan 'Israel must be uprooted and erased from history'. That is a DIRECT translation, and please please PLEASE let poor ole ignorant me know how that means the "regime" in Isreal.
But let's assume your right, and that the brainwashing your espousing is the official party line. How stupid do you have to be to say things that are easily translated incorrectly as this? Politics, and diplomacy, demand CAREFUL words and actions, each of which have an intent. If Ahmadwhatshisname isn't savvy enough to understand, and play on the world level, you may want to replace him before Isreal does. After all, THEY feel threatened by his words, and THEY actually DO have the ability to wipe someone off the map. And because of this nutcases words, they have absolutely no problem doing so if they feel threatened in the slightest.
Spin it how you want. He said what he said, and there are dozens of other examples (parades with said slogans) that clearly show his desire was that which you insist was incorrectly translated.
The problem is you guys fail to fully understand the resolve of the Israeli state. You better learn quick.
0
SezWho2
FLRAgain,
I don't think that wiping Israel off the map is official state policy in Iran. Furthermore, it isn't difficult to imagine any number of things, including pigs flying, but that doesn't mean that they are realistic scenarios.
0
adaydream
I hear the fear mongering that the pro-warmongering bunch want to get across. Their theme song, "Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran" makes for wonderful wake-up music.
Sarge wrote, "Ahmadinejad is perfectly sane?" Oh yes he's sane. He's just sitting back and waiting for the US to screw up. And if we attack, it'll be a mistake we will never ever forget. I know attacking Iraq was a mistake. Going into Iran would be ludicris. < :-)
0
SezWho2
Helter Skelter,
Of course I can see how the Israelis might be concerned. But it's a far cry from being concerned to attacking a nuclear program that you do not know exists and which at most you can only hope to set back and not stop.
That Ahmadinejad invited Duke and then called for the Israel to be wiped off the map does not make him any less calculating and rational. And it causes me less concern than the fact that the good old US of A provides David Duke a safe haven for his hatred. Free speech here--protected speech there.
As for the no-nuke leftists supporting the Iranian nuclear program, why don't you ask one. As far as I know there are people who don't believe that anyone should have nuclear weapons but do believe that technologically able countries should have "atoms for peace". If you see a contradiction there I'm afraid I can't help you.
0
sailwind
Brilliant post Sezwho
And it causes me less concern than the fact that the good old US of A provides David Duke a safe haven for his hatred. Free speech here--protected speech there.
David Duke is protected there as long as his speech supports the regime line. Wonder how long this racist bastard would be able to yap in Iran if he told Ahmadinejad to pound sand?
I'm thinking not much, your view?
0
nethanyahubush
So your rebuttal is that he didn't use the word "map"? Your free to feel that way, but you need to take it up with the butthats in Iran, that work for the OFFICIAL Iranian government, that did the translation.
Actually if you knew Farsi you would know that this was a speech called a World Without Zionism. Not Judaism or for that matter Fascism. He was expecting hope that the criminal apartheid regime in Jerusalem would come to an end. His opinions are alligned with South African anti apartheid activists unlike USA.
0
Helter_Skelter
Oh, that's much better. LOL!
0
Helter_Skelter
SezWho2
This isn't about free speech. It's about the president of a nation inviting a neo-Nazi to participate in a state-sponsored holocaust-denial conference. Would you be so cavalier if Bush had done it? Geez, what won't you excuse in your disdain for America?
0
Loki520
Net... I don't need to know Farsi... Translations are are provided by the Iran State Owned media... and THEY are the one's that initially stated "map".
And very NICE avoidance of the ballistic missles with the direct translation that includes UPROOTED and ERASED from history. So.. to paraphrase you... "If you knew English..." you would know that things such as the slogans on those missiles as well as other things PROVE that the "map" comment, mistranslated or not, was NOT false.
"Criminal apartheid regime" in Jerusalem? Please inform me of which legitimate court they've been convicted for you to call them CRIMINAL.
Be careful... your hate is showing.
Irrelevant twisting of words in 3....2.....1.....
0
LFRAgain
SezWho,
The president of any state publicly declaring that s/he would like to see another state "wiped off the map," "erased from existence," "purged from the pages of time," or whatever clever euphemism one might want to dress it up in, kind of, sort of, no, no . . . does imply state policy. If it's not policy, then Ahmadinejad shouldn't be saying as such. His "World Without Zionism" speech is pretty clear in its message, namely a better world without Zionism, e.g., the Israeli state.
Simply saying it isn't so can't erase the historical record, any more than Iran backpedalling from its official state-run media English translation of Ahmadinejad's original statement, in which the words "wipe off the map" do indeed make an appearance, makes the original meaning any less ominous or offensive.
0
sailwind
I guess he needed to clarify his wipe off the map remark.
"Those who think they can revive the stinking corpse of the usurping and fake Israeli regime by throwing a birthday party are seriously mistaken," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying by the official IRNA news agency.
"Today the reason for the Zionist regime's existence is questioned, and this regime is on its way to annihilation," he said.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ix-viVGAnfS1RHJGzZHSGjnzDIXg
It doesn't get any clearer than that. Spin in 3, 2, 1.
0
sailwind
And calling people war mongering Zionists puppets really doesn't help change peoples opinions on this issue, by the way.
0
LFRAgain
That's incredibly selective interpretation, and I'm particularly impressed with how an example of US military campaigns automatically earns Israel the same label. Last I read, Isreal had precisely zero troops in Vietnam, Korea, or the Balkan Wars. But no need for you to worry about facts, eh? You just twist them to your own needs when and where it suits you. Convenient that.
Interestingly, you also tend to gloss over the circumstances behind most of America's military decisions over the past half-century. The Korean War? Ask the South Korean people if they're upset about United Nations intervention. Ask South Vietnamese civilians who were overrun by North Vietnamese soldiers if they were pleased to see the United Nations retreat from a losing battle. Check with any Croatian or Albanian friends you might have and see if they harbor ill-will against UN intervention in Serbia's campaign of ethnic cleansing.
See how that works? Put a little more detail into your half-baked arguments, and we get a much clearer picture. Your attempt to make the US out as the Evil Empire sort of loses its sting when confronted with the truth.
0
SezWho2
sailwind,
No, I don't think that Duke would last long in Iran if he said things which were anti-regime and if they were not useful to the regime. But what does that have to do with my point?
0
SezWho2
HelterSkelter,
No disdain for America here. Quite a bit of disdain for Bush and some disdain for Americans who hide behind patriotism in order to avoid the real problems that America is facing.
I don't think that Bush would invite Duke to a holocaust denial conference because I don't think he would even hold such a conference. But if he were to do so, I think I would observe that Bush had flip-flopped on Israel but that its not the worst thing he had ever done.
Hope this answers your question.
0
SezWho2
Loki520,
First off, words matter. So it does matter how you choose to translate Ahmadinejad's Farsi.
Secondly, the audience matters. If you are not of the audience which was the intended recipient of the message, you probably lack the means to interpret it.
Third, and maybe more importantly, Ahmadinejad is not the decider when it comes to state policy. He has some power, yes. That's about it.
0
SezWho2
sailwind,
I think we'll leave it to you to try to spin a sound bite. Unless he was speaking in English, this is a translation. Can you demonstrate that a better translation of annihilation was not extinction?
Even native speakers grab the wrong word from time to time. Some of them are presidents. So it would presumably be easier for a second language speaker to do the same.
Basically, you can't build a case on a quote whose provenance cannot be traced.
0
sailwind
Simple Sez,
Give me one quote from this jerk that 'clarified' his remarks, since that would be so easy to do on his part.
Knock yerself on that one, ain't like he hasn't had plenty of chances to clear up his farsi to the rest of the world.
0
RedMeatKoolAid
"Basically, you can't build a case on a quote whose provenance cannot be traced."
Brighter and brighter charades. Very impressed by the contortions, by the way your eager exoneration of a regime that is outright hostile to democratic Israel and the US (and is actively abetting Lebanon's destruction) actually takes the form of arguing for the widest possible interpretation of repeated allusions to a thermonuclear final solution for Israel, and from a puppet president who is by all accounts a fanatical devotee to a militant brand of apocalyptic Mohammedism.
The rest of us simpletons read about and see 'Death to Israel', 'Death to America' painted on the missiles the mad mullahs have paraded around Teheran and all too often jump to conclusions.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/mrl-iran.htm
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=27159TheDayBeforeAhmadinejadsUSVisit-DownWithUSA(Update-ArabicReadsDeathto_USA)&only
or http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog archives Sat, Sep 22, 2007
Back to top