While I generally agree there is one minor flaw in this assumption of logic. In Afghanistan, the Taliban had absolutely no chance of defeating the United States, and anybody with half a mind could see this. Unfortunately, Mullah Omar's version of the calculations included Islam > America. While I'm not going to comment on the truth or falseness of this position, it should have been understood to be a non-factor in the calculations. Instead, Afghanistan entered battle with the U.S. confidant of victory. Given the general descriptions of Mr. Ahmadinejad's sense of righteousness relating to his theology, one might wonder if he might make the same sort of calculation that Islam>Judaism trumps all of the other calculations. Even if Israel were to "wipe Iran off the face of the earth" Iran has sufficient strength to severely beat up Israel. Your arguments assume a specific set of variables in making the calculation that may not match the variables used by Iran.
What's the problem with loving Iran? Why did you allow yourself to step into that? There's nothing the matter with Iran as a country... i.e. the Iranian people...just it's leadership and some religious fanatics. It's not the first country that's screwed up because of who's in power at the moment. And why did fanatics gain power? Maybe we should have left them alone when they had a democratically elected secular leader ( see Mosaddeq).
It's all relative. Relative to its time, Nazi Germany was a military superpower that could only be overcome by its larger and more populated enemies (the USSR and the USA). The Germans nearly swept all of Europe without much resistence to its military machine. Relative to its neighbors and its enemies, Iran is nowhere near the status of Nazi Germany in WWII. His comparison was accurate. BTW, Nazi Germany was very close to developing their own nukes, but thankfully it wasn't meant to be (that and some German scientists ended up in the USSR and the USA only to help these two countries develop nukes).
Who said their President calls the shots? As for nukes, if I was some crooked regime on the US's blacklist, I would if I could. In Iran's case, Israel has them... Iran might not need nukes, but they damn well want them. Whether that's right or wrong is for the country with the biggest/most guns to decide...
Actually, they weren't as close as is often portrayed. They never got beyond the point where the U.S. was in about 1940. They never had a pile achieve critical mass and they never figured out a method to produce weapons grade nuclear material. Russia was further behind Germany. They really didn't have a program at all. Everything they used to build a bomb was stolen from the U.S. Thanks to the Tzars, Russia was an incredibly backward place entering the 20th century. Even though they played a lot of catch up, entering WWII they were probably technically proficient on a level equal to 1860's England. There was just a handful of people in the entire country who would be able to read the journal literature and understand most of the terminology. When you are busy feeding the proletariat and ensuring ideological soundness you don’t care much about promoting bourgeois concepts like culture and science. That all came after the war.
In relation to German and Iranian comparisons the following 2004 broadcast from Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting bears an incredible resemblance to a number of Nazi documents and writings (see DIE JÜDISCHE KRIEGSHETZE IN DEN USA at the bottom of the page). This is another example. [rquoter] <center>Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting</center> Zionist Influence in the US The Zionists have a pervasive influence in the US. This is something, which both US officials and Zionist leaders have agreed upon and put emphasis on its continuation. In order to maintain and enhance their power in the US, Zionists use different ways including control of the mass media and economy. Moreover, due to its high importance, the US presidential election has also become a focal point for Zionist political lobbying in the United States. In view of the fact the US president seems to hold the maximum power, the Zionists have done their best to impose their councilors upon him, in order to make the White House, world’s biggest military decision-making center, a tool in their hands. A glaring example of this is the current incumbent George Bush who is under the complete influence of the Zionists. This happened in his first term in office with many of his aides and councilors either Zionists or linked to the Jewish Zionist Lobby in the US. Getting control over mass media is considered to be one of the ways for wielding big influence not only over the US presidential election, but over all aspects of American life. The recent presidential elections showed the increasing reliance of presidential candidates on media propaganda. In view of the Zionist influence over the mass media, one can understand more about their impacts in the presidential election. In addition, the Zionists also have big influence over the US economy particularly in the financial and banking sectors. In the meantime, victory in the US presidential election is largely based on the amount of money that every candidate spends in the race. As American Political Analyst, Noam Chomsky believes the result of the US presidential election could be predicted by the amount of money spent for a candidate. Thus, one cannot deny the role of rich American Jews in the US presidential election due to their big influence over the US economy. These Jewish communities have expanded their influence over other elections in the US such as those for the Congress, the states and the Senate. The Jews in the US are the only group who try to support the interests of the Zionist regime. For example, the well-established and influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which has vast financial facilities at its disposal, plays a major part in this respect. This committee holds numerous meetings with top US economic and political figures and suggests plans in support of the Zionist regime. The AIPAC is actually the representative of Tel Aviv to support the candidate who is more inclined towards the interests of the Zionist regime. Of the other means that increase the Zionist influence in the US, one can refer to the Jewish population in the US. Although, they only include two percent of the US population but due to their organized participations in the election, their influence is more than their numbers. Sometimes eighty percent of the Jewish Americans participate in the election, and because of the importance and role of the US states they live in; their influence is very considerable. With this in mind, the US presidential candidates try to win the American Zionist’s support not only as a rich and influential minority but also as a group that can have big influence in the fate of the candidates. In short, the presidential candidates in every race try to win the support of the Jewish minority in every possible way. This happened in the recent presidential election between George Bush and his Democratic Rival, John Kerry who vied with each other to win the support of the Jewish endorsement. In order to win the Jewish support, John Kerry sent a Jewish emissary to address the Jewish Knesset. In addition to this, the Democratic Party sent more than ten thousands emails to the supporters of the Jewish community to hold some meeting with leaders and organizations of American Jewish community. The Republicans also through publishing a list of Bush’s services to Jews and introducing him as their close friend, did their best to make the Jews familiar with their interests. On the eve of the election, president Bush signed a new law that under which the US State Department is bound to confront what it calls anti-Semitism across the world. After signing this law, Bush in an extremist and illogical way declared that confronting anti-Semitism is a part of the defense of freedom. Of course, one of the aims of winning the support of Jews for presidential elections is getting the attention of international Zionism and the Zionist regime due to their pernicious influence in the result of the election. John Kerry in his campaign boasted that during twenty years of membership of the US Senate, he never voted even once against the security of the Israel. Kerry endorsed president Bush’s policies for the massacre of Palestinians by Israel and even said that in case of victory he will take punitive measures against all countries that supported the Palestinian resistance. Kerry also endorsed the assassinations of the Palestinians figures, settlements of Jews in the Gaza Strip and building the so-called buffer or racist wall. George Bush also followed the same policies and could win more attention of the American Jews due to the tendency of the Neo-Cons. and Christian Zionists towards the Israel. His support of the Zionists in his first term was so clear and fervent that the Zionist prime prime minister Ariel Sharon called him a man of peace. Sharon went on to say that without any doubt George Bush is the most faithful friend of Israel. Therefore, Bush’s victory in the recent election has been widely welcomed by the Zionist media. It proved that he has been elected for endorsing the atrocities and attacks of the Zionist regime against the Palestinians. The Myth of Anti-Semitism Friday 21 May 2004 May 14 reminds of a bitter event in the contemporary history of the world and the Middle East in particular. On this day in 1948, following years of terrorizing of Palestinians on their own land by waves of illegal Zionist immigrants from Europe, the illegitimate state of Israel was born. Armed Zionist gangs immediately drove away hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and the regime imposed war on neighboring Arab countries. Today, 56 years after the illegal creation of Israel on Palestinian soil by Britain and the big powers through manipulation at the UN, the Zionists continue to massacre the sons of the soil. But the irony is that despite its blatant oppression of, and its inhuman atrocities against Palestinians, the Zionist regime tries to portray itself as oppressed, and raises the dubious issue of anti-Semitism. It wants to tell the word that it is being discriminated against because of its Semitic origin, and unfortunately, the Christian world has taken the bait. Nothing could be far from the truth. The Zionist claim to being Semite is strongly rejected, since most of the Zionist settlers in Palestine are of East European Khazar stock with no ethnic connection to the ancient Israelite tribes. Of course, there are a small number of Jews who are descended from the Israelite tribes, but if the genealogies are to be studied properly, one would find many Palestinian Muslims and Christians who are of Israelite stock since their forefathers had accepted the messages of Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) and Prophet Mohammad (blessings of Allah be upon him and his progeny). Thus, the Zionist claim to be Semite and actions against them as anti-Semitic racial tendencies is entirely rejected. As a matter of fact the vast number of present day Semites are the Arabs and some of their neighbours. The Zionist drama to play the role of oppressed is rooted in European history. In Europe, in contrast to the privileges the Jews enjoyed in the Muslim world, they were discriminated against, and this led to the coining of the erroneous notion called anti-Semitism in late 19th century and early 20th century Europe. In early 20th century, Zionism exerted itself and with the help of European powers who mischievously harped on the anti-Semitic theory by allowing Jews to migrate in tens of thousands to the Arab-Islamic land of Palestine on the pretext that the ancient Israelites were based in a part of this land. The Zionists succeeded through tricks and distortion to claim that the Jews were a nation in need of a land. This is how they entered Palestine and spared no evil effort to work towards the creation of the Zionist entity. Adolf Hitler’s alleged massacre of the Jews came as a tailor-made plot and accelerated the rate of European Jewish migration to Palestine. Actually, it was the Nazi dictator, who because of his racist attitude on the claimed superiority of the Germans blew out of proportion the so-called Semitic connection of the European Jews. After World War II, the Zionists exploited mistreatment of a fraction of European Jews, when in fact he had killed tens of millions of fellow Christians, and attracted sympathies towards them. Researches have refuted the myth of the holocaust and the alleged figure of 6 million Jews sent to the gas chambers by Hitler. In fact, the total number of Jews throughout Europe, Russia included, did not reach 6 million during the Second World War days. Barely three years after the end of World War 2, the Zionists succeeded in usurping a part of Palestine and calling it Israel. Several researchers are of the opinion that Hitler cooperated with the Zionists and their quest for statehood. French Thinker, Roger Garaudi in his book entitled “The Founding Myths of Israel” has rejected the theory of the holocaust on the basis of documented evidence. Hungarian Writer, Louis Marschalko in his book entitled “The War Winners” writes that there were no more than 1 to 1.5 million Jews when Hitler took power in Germany, and he could have killed not more 500,000 to 600,000 Jews, compared to the tens of millions of Christians that he killed. France’s Professor, Rubert Frisun published a result of his study of Hitler’s so-called gas chambers in the daily Le Monde in 1978. He writes: "For years toiled in futility for any witness to the claimed gassing of Jews but found none. But instead, I found a very large number of documents to the contrary until I had to discontinue my research because of insults and threats against me. Such an attitude towards the logical rejection of the myth of the holocaust indicates how much the European governments are under the influence of the Zionists and are prepared to sacrifice their own slogans of democracy and human rights on the alter of Israel. Some of these governments have unfortunately taken the Zionist bate and are blindly harping on anti-Semitism despite the growing awareness of their own peoples against the long term Zionist threat to Europe and the world. In an opinion poll conducted by the European commission in October 2003, over 59 percent of the Europeans considered the Zionist regime the greatest threat to the international peace. This angered Israel and the European officials were forced to apologize. Several seminars were held in the past few months on causes of the European people’s opposition to the Zionist regime and Jews. The most important of them was held on April 28 and 29 in the German capital Berlin with the participation of high-ranking Israeli officials. The Zionist regime attempted at the Berlin conference to depict any criticism of the Zionist regime as anti-Semitism that deserves condemnations. Unfortunately the European governments have accepted this notion, when the savage measures of the Zionists have nothing to do with Judaism. Interestingly, a large number of Jews do not accept Israel. It is matter of regret that while European officials consider the exposure of Israel’s crimes as anti-Semitism they act differently against Muslims. The fact is that the growing sentiments of the European public against Israel has nothing to do with anti-Semitism but lies in the Zionist regime’s suppressive policies against the oppressed people of Palestine. This is a natural, since the Zionist killing of Palestinian men; women and children have aroused worldwide hatred of this illegal entity. The Zionist regime, meanwhile, shamelessly uses the ploy of anti-Semitism as a defence to hide its crimes against humanity in the usurped land of Palestine. [/rquoter] ... and it continues at the link above.
"Wiped off the map" hopefully does not mean wiping out the people of the country. It means he does not accept the existence of Israel as a political entity in the map of the Middle East (something most other states have accepted). But, not a very smart thing to say right at this time!!
Well, I understand that, but by 'close' I meant they could've in all likelihood developed a nuclear bomb within a decade or so, as is often speculated. Regardless of the timeline, the main point of focus was Iran's military strength vis-a-vis Nazi Germany's military machine; relative to their time, there is no comparison, Germany's military was a mighty one, and took the world's collective efforts to bring them down.
It should then be noted that until the rise of the NDASP the Germans were operating under the strict rules of disarmament from WWI. In 1934 they had defensive forces and by 1938 they were doing the Anschluss and ready for the 1939 invasion of Poland. Even so, now that I think about it Germany's military production was execptionaly small relative to Russia, England and U.S. lend-lease until 1942, when Fritz Todt died and Albert Speer became the production minister. Even then, they only managed to partly catch up to the rest of the world. Their dominance existed from tactics and training, not from manpower superority or (at least early on) from technology. The relevant point being that it doesn't take long to put together a formidable army if you are obsessed with it.
iran's population nears 70 million while israels is around 6. obviously the country with ten times the population will have a higher gdp. iranis have 7k per capita while israel has 20k. and militarily it is ludicrous to assume iran could have the capacity to 'wipe israel off' no matter what wackos who rule it might say.
What are you arguing? Azadre said that Iran's economy > Israel's. It isn't. Per capita has practically nothing to do with it. Are you saying that Luxembourg with it's $59,000 per capita could whup China witrh it's $5,900 per capita? Don't think it works that way, eh? As for wiping Israel off the map, again, it's a tiny country with few large cities. A small handfull of nukes would pretty much do it.
Understood. Relevant to our population, the U.S. also doesn't rely heavily on manpower, but rather on the world's most technologically superior military. In fact, that's usually an indication of how advanced a military machinary is: it relies less on people and more on its superior weapons. The only exception I can think of today is Israel, where there's a large military relative to their population (most estimate Israel to have 300-500k active and reservists, not to mention that every young adult has gone through military training as is required of an Israeli citizen).
No, it is a continuation of the decades old rhetoric. It absolutely means wiping it out. It was the battle cry during all of the ME wars and still is for the Palestinian terrorist groups.
If Iran develops nukes, it is every bit as threatening to the continued existence of the tiny nation of Israel as Nazi Germany was to it's neighbors.
That example doesn't really apply for a simpel reason: Luxembourg isn't a military power, Israel is a military state that has a population of soldiers, former soldiers, and future soldiers; you can't compare the two. The Israeli military is essentialy a micro version of the American military - they mostly use the same exact weapons we use or in some cases even improve upon them, duplicate them and produce them, and then sell them. Also, modern warfare relies much less on manpower and more so on advanced weaponry - mostly air and naval power. The Israelis easily dominate the Iranians in that aspect. If it was a ground combat, then the Israelis would have something to worry about, but even then they would only have to worry about Hezbollah and possibly the Syrians, as well as local Palestinian militants. So again, comparing Luxembourgh to a tiny nation like Israel which has nearly half a million troops (nearly as large as the entire Egyptian military, which is a country of nearly 80 million people) isn't accurate to say the least.
I won't speculate on that, but history has shown that Iran is not an aggressive nation alas Iraq was under Saddam, although I will admit their new leadership is showing signs that that might change. I certainly agree it's not a good idea to have a nuclear Iran, and I also think everyone would sleep better if the Middle East became a nukes-free zone (too many lunatics running around with trigger-happy fingers and lots of anger -- not a good recipe). But to compare the Nazis and a nation like Germany of the early 20th century -- which was time and time again commiting aggression against their neighbors and nations abroad, igniting two world wars in a span of 30 years -- is not historically accurate.
Why not read the progression of the topic before jumping in? It goes back to one thing that Azadre mentioned, 'Israeli economy > Iranian economy...whic is incorrect. Period. Then insane man mentioned how the per capita gdp was different, which is irrelevant. Even Azadre's initial point was irrelevant. N Korea's gdp is a measley $40B (less than 1/10th the size of Iran's) but no one is standing in line to mess with it.
