http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=8068&NewsKind The former President of Iran recognizes the only way to Arab victory in the region- the nuclear annihilation of Israel. <b><i>...and the award for "The Most Damaging Idea Ever Created by Man" goes to (insert drumroll here)......... Organized Religion!!!! (insert worldwide cheering) M.C.- "We would like to accept this award on behalf of Abraham who cannot be with us tonight. It seems that his children have not learned to share yet, and he can't leave his house for very long because it is not in order."</i></b>
Why don't some of these SO CALLED concerned Arab nations, carve a chunk out of THEIR country and give it to the palestinian people? Don't the arab nations hate us for sticking our noses in everywhere, HMMMMM???? DaDakota
You're pathetic. That's completely twisting his words. Next time, why not find an article that actually says what you want it to say .
I am pathetic? Hmmm, that is an interesting way to enter a conversation. Let me restate my idea- the ex-President of Iran is <i>recognizing</i> the only way to defeat Israel- Arab nuclear arms. Recognizing is not the same as encouraging, supporting, or endorsing. I am not sure how you feel I have twisted anybody's words. The Arab world knows that if Israel is ever on the brink of defeat, a nuclear war will ensue without intervention from Western powers. This story, if coupled with the facts surrounding the religious struggle at the Temple of the Mount, makes for a very chilling future. Perhaps you can elaborate exactly how I am "pathetic". Thanks in advance.
CMRockFan, That seems to be a direct, purposeful mutilation of the facts. It is certain words taken out of context that cause ignorance and spread the seeds of global hatred. Please refrain from doing that in the future. And I agree with Haven, it seems deliberate and pathetic
We really need to persuade the Russians to cancel that reactor they're going to build for the Iranians. Or at least build one that can't produce fissible material... That, or try and give the coming Iranian revolution a little nudge.
I won't stoop to the level of name calling. I also won't presume to know what you are thinking, even though you appear to feel comfortable in your ability to read my mind. Mr. Khan, neither you nor Haven have made your case. In fact, I am not sure what point you are trying to make to me. Fact- Jerusalem, and the future of its religious icons, is the main source of conflict between Jews and Muslims. Fact- The Arabs will not get control of Jerusalem again without a war. Fact- The Arabs can not win a conventional war against Israel because Israel would resort to nuclear arms. Fact- The ex-President of Iran has recognized that if the Arabs are to pursue their stated goals, then nuclear war may be inevitable. Now, once more, please explain to me how I have mutilated any facts. I reject your unexplained, unsupported criticisms.
I think the sterotype of Iran is different from what the country truly is today. They now have the highest female literacy rate in the reigon, a true democracy and their experimentation with religious law seems to be fading quite Rapidly. Obviously with their Anti-US history, a reactor of that form would not be in our best interests, but I agree with what the Ex President said, in that with Israel's nuclear arsenal, and their historic disregard for Arab/Muslim lives, they would destroy half the middle east. Israel is here to stay people. I Just wish they would quit their agenda of pushing the remaining Palestinians out of the occupied territories and stop building settlements and come to a lasting peace. My thoughts are that Israel does not want peace, therefore they continue to build settlements in the Occupied lands and feel eventually there will be no Arabs/ Palestinians left and they can have their "Jewish" state, my question is how different is wanting to have a Jewish state different from Hitler Wanting to have an "Aryan" state. Before the lashings come out against me I feel that any state that focus's on one race or religion while excluding everyone else based on those factors is a rascist state. Anyone else in Israel is a third class citizen based on their religion/and or ethnic background?? Yeah...I really want to support this country with my US tax dollars.....
<i>Rafsanjani, speaking at the weekly Muslim prayers in Tehran, said that because Israel does not have enough soldiers to defend itself, Western powers had "provided her with unconventional arms of mass destruction, chemical and nuclear." "The use of an atomic bomb against Israel would totally destroy Israel, while (the same) against the Islamic world would only cause damage. Such a scenario is not inconceivable," he said. </i> Now please Mr. Khan- who is twisting words now? Rafsanjani is recognizing the only conceivable way to defeat Israel in the above statement.
Khan: You're correct on two of three points, but they do not have a true democracy. Yes, the populace can elect the president, but the president does not run the country - the mullahs do, and they are not elected officials. Khamenei is called the "Supreme Leader" for a reason, and he is not an elected official. The mullahs are the landowners and spiritual leaders, and they control the army, they control the press, and they will void any election that they do not like (they have done so in the past - see Tehran mayoral elections). They actually have more of a feudal system with the facade of democracy... Turkey has a true democracy. Iran does not. And as for your assessments of Israel's intentions... You could not possibly have things more backwards. Just the simple fact that you did not once mention Palestinian terrorism shows that you are biased against Israel; you apparently just expect that the Israelis should roll over and let the Arabs kill them all... But your suspicion that Israel wants to wipe the Arabs out is ridiculous; if that was their goal, then there wouldn't be any Arabs left. Unlike the Arabs, Israel really does have the capability to exterminate its enemies, it has simply chosen not to do so. I am curious whether you think the Arabs would show as much restraint, were they in possession of a nuclear arsenal and Israel was not?
Perhaps naive is a better word than pathetic. Why? You have absolutely no understanding of "deterrence." Nobody uses nuclear weapons. Well, terrorists might... but states certainly don't. You might want to check out some of the following names and check our deterrence theory: Kenneth Waltz, John Gaddis, Daniel Ellsberg, Robert Art. Just some quick suggestions. There are also some very good case studies of the Cuban Missile Crisis, certain Taiwan Strait crises in the early 60's, and the Sino-Russian border conflict in 1969. Essentiall, Deterrence has kept the peace over the past century - or at least limited conflict escalation. Most modern work in the realm of foreign relations is actually predicated on the idea that deterrence works. If you have nukes, it dramatically increases your ability to prevent other states from attempting to impose their will upon you. Using them is self-defeating, since it basically ensures destruction on a level that renders the accomplishing of the original goal irrelevant and no longer worth while. Some have even suggested that nuclear weapons are nearly totally worthless in state-to-state relations. Mao, for instance, believed they were largely a paper tiger, and only acquired a limited number in case of a miscalculation... and because the US and the Soviet Union at least, bought deterrence theory hook-line-and-sinker. Limited war is fine... but keep escalating, and you fear risking letting the tiger out of its cage. And then, no objective is worth the price. Iran's prime minister is demonstrating the superiority of advantage that the surrounding Arab states would have over Israel if they acquired nuclear weapons. Right now, deterrence theory indicates that Israel has the advantage. However, the ex-president is perfectly right: if there was a nuclear war, Israel would be obliterated. The Arab states would merely be horribly ruined. Hence, they have the ability to blink last. Your statement simply demonstrated tremendous naivete. State-to-state nuclear war will never happen except in a miscalculation.
Haven, first you said I was "pathetic", and accused me of twisting Rafsanjani's words. Apparently, you have abandoned your previous position without a proper apology (sniff, sniff ). Now you have changed course to accuse me of being naive, because you claim that I have failed to understand that Rafsanjani is really talking about deterrence. Of course, there is no way you could come to your conclusion from either the article I posted or my messages- but why should that keep you from turning me into a straw man ripe for you academic reaper? Take a deep breath young Haven, and realize that before we can learn from eachother, we must understand eachother's positions on the topic at hand. I have presented an article that shows that the ex-President of Iran understands the importance, and consequences, of possessing nuclear arms. Without nukes, the Arabs don't have a chance of achieving their goals. The Arabs and Jews both want Jerusalem, and control of the Temple Mount. It is my belief that both sides will kill and sacrifice to get their way. Soon, both sides will be threatening eachother with nukes to fulfill their dogmatic religious visions, and I don't see a compromise on the horizon. These are the realities of the situation in my opinion. If you really care to discuss this with me, try to teach me something. The content of your messages seem to express an intellect that could be very interesting in a polite discussion. Name calling is not interesting.
Actually, I was just trying to be nice. I do believe your post was disingenuous. By no means did he intimate what you did. And even if you weren't being disingenuous, you don't know what you're talking about. If you did understand the situation, then you wouldn't have mentioned the article, as it's largely irrelevant. You mention that you "belief" both sides are willing to sacrifice... but states just don't function that way. It's all empty rhetoric. Deterrence has never failed before, and I have trouble believing it will fail now. There are some people who dispute deterrence as a useful tool to keep peace, but such theory is largely premised upon: 1. fear of proliferation into terrorist hands 2. likelihood of miscalculation as more nukes come into the world During a period of overwhelming US nuclear superiority, the US is assured first-strike capability and second strike capability... which means it doesn't really help anybody else to maintain Cold War-style levels of alert, which reduces the chances of error. Most deterrence scholars actually believe nuclear proliferation would be good for keeping the peace, as it renders war more risky. But I'm not going to cover deterrence theory here. If you're interested, there are plenty of relatively accessible books on the issue, particularly by Waltz.
cmrockfan: I hate to say it, but the article you presented does not support your arguments. This is not to say that you're wrong - I actually believe that you're pretty much right, personally. Just to say that haven's right in pointing out that the article doesn't support your arguments. Hint: Use logic. haven will work with you on that, and if you use it right it will support your arguments, because they are inherently logical. But so are haven's arguments... So find other sources. Carry on.
We can stop there. You said I twisted Rafjansani's words, and then went off on another tangent. Show me where I twisted his words or quit again. Treeman, when I posted that article, I was merely making an observation that <i>is</i> supported by the article. In fact, I specifically ask F.D. Khan and Haven to show me how I twisted anybody's words. Khan chose not to answer, and Haven changed the subject. All of my subsequent opinions stand separate from the article in response to Haven's posts.
cmrockfan: Rafsanjani did not say that Iran should change the nuclear balance in the ME. Actually, it could be argued that he was against Arabs getting nuclear weapons, which actually wouldn't be too much of a surprise, as Arabs and Persians are typically at each others' throats... It could be inferred from other Iranian actions that the Iranians seek to upset the nuclear balance of power in the ME (I tried to point you in the direction of the reactor the Russians are building for them - look there), but it can't be argued from the article you posted here that the Iranians intend to nuke the Jews. I'm on your side, really... Just trying to tell you that this source sucks. Find another one that says the same thing with more legitemacy. It won't be hard.
He said absolutely nothing of the kind that you intimated. He never said that nuclear arms would be necessary to conquer Israel. He said that they might break the equilibrium of current deterrence. So you were wrong, explicitly. Then you were wrong, implicitly: the logical ramification of your title would suggest that this would be bad for peace in the Middle East. Traditional deterrence theory, which is widely accepted in the state department and in the academic community, would hold you wrong. Hence, my initial statement "you twisted his words" and my further argument. Not a tangent, but a response to your underlying claims.
Aside from Intents of the President or the Passage, CMRockFan, I do agree with you 100% that Organized Religion has been used to manipulate, hate and control others since the dawn of time. What better drug is there than that of heaven and the afterlife.
