People keep repeating this, but I see no fundimental difference between the two phrases. Both phrases indicate a desire for complete elimination of another country.
This is his exact quote: "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad." This is the translation: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time". You’re a smart guy, don’t tell me that you see this as the same thing as “wiping Israel off the map” !?
I'm not so smart. I just see one as written more poetically. Seriously...please help. I can't see the difference between 'wiping off the map' and 'vanish from page of time.' What do you see as the diff?
Well from what I'm told you would take it to mean that "they shouldn't exist" …. Ask someone who speaks Farsi they’ll explain it to you why the language can be misinterpreted….. I’m no expert…. all I know is that people who HATE Ahmadinejad say that it’s been mistranslated.
I've tried twisting the various explanations to reach a meaning that signifies something significantly different then the 'mistranslated' version. I just can't. Maybe there's a nuance in Farsi whereby you can eliminate something without actually eliminating it? Don't know? Many political leaders say stupid or offensive things. It's just odd that this one is defended/rationalized through 'misintepretation' rather then context/ history/ other yet it is so hard to articulate what is so misleading by the translation.
I think the nuance here is "regime" vs "country". He wanted the "regime" to vanish but said nothing about the "country". I suppose you can understand that the Bush regime doesn't equal USA.
Well... since his comments occurred before Ariel Sharon had his brain hemorrhage, the 'regime' has changed, by your definition now that Ehud Olmert is the PM. So he should be satisfied or even happy, right? Do you really think that this was the intent of the nuance of 'regime'? He wanted a new Israeli government to be formed?
So, Ottmaton, what do you think of the Iranian speed boat affair? A real Iranian provocation or a clumsy US propaganda stunt? It is amazing in this day an age, particularly with the tattered credibility of the Bush Pentagon how skeptical many of the US public is.
No idea. I trust both of them equally. As in not much. What do you do when two pathological liars tell you two different stories? There is no 'Bush Pentagon' (beyond the office of the Secretary of Defense) which is why we were able to have stories several months ago about how the Pentagon is not in favor of the aggressive attitude towards Iran displayed by Bush. I know that you aren't fond of either Bush or the military, and from your perspective they often appear in lock-step. But they really are separate groups with different agendas and two different value systems.
I guess it will depend on what policies the next regime pursue. If they are similar, then I would think that he wants to change the new regime as well. It is kind of like if Giuliani is elected and keeps Bush's lying ways, would people not want the new Giuliani regime disappear?
Wiping off the map implies that you want to do away with the entire region. That you are willing to bomb not just the government, but the people with it and annihilate everything. The key word is Israel...shall be wiped off the map. The actual translation only refers to the regime or the government. There is no reference to destruction, but rather that the regime occupying Israel is illegal and should not exist.
They are not always in lock step. The military tried to keep us out of war with Iran with their leaks. I do believe that many of the generals acts like politicos and are not above playing politics. Petraeus appears to be a poltical pawn imho. General Colon Powell was another example of a political general, who was not very independent of his GOP benefactors who saw to his rapid promotion. He has served them loyally up until possibly recently. As far as me being fond of the military. We need a military for defensive purposes. We don't need to spend as much as the rest of the world put together (roughly).
Its funny to see how many people would have taken the shoot-first, sort-it-out later approach and gotten us into a war with Iran over what the Navy now says is a totally unclear incident where they don't know whose voices they heard or whether they even came from the boats.
I wonder what is Bush-Cheney's next gambit. Less than one year left for them to attack Iran. It is looking like they aren't going to be able to do it and the neocons must be having a fit. Aside from my general opposition to our frequent non-defensive wars, which waste money that could be used for development at home like, roads and bridges, education, health care, the social security system etc,. I was not looking forward to a couple buck a gallon increase in the price of gasoline and more problems with the stock market.
