popsjumper 2 #26 December 2, 2011 QuoteReally, why should Iran not have a Nuke? Who are they going to use it on? My thought is that they are more likely than many others to actually use it...on whoever.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #27 December 2, 2011 Some incidents to consider by the US & Soviets: http://www.cracked.com/article_19546_7-nuclear-weapon-screw-ups-you-wont-believe-we-survived.html"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #28 December 2, 2011 Quote They've not started a war with anyone for 3,000 years the USA has started a war in the last decade and killed hundreds of thousands? So what makes Iran in your eyes a renegade country? The second Persian invasion of Greece was 480–479 BC. the first Persian invasion of Greece was 492–490 BC. Both are less than 3,000 years ago.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #29 December 2, 2011 Here you go, Happy Christmas... http://tinyurl.com/cjsjrgn Should save you some time When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #30 December 2, 2011 Quote Here you go, Happy Christmas... http://tinyurl.com/cjsjrgn Should save you some time Have you been taking lessons from my ex-wife? She'd make blatantly false statements and somehow it was always my fault.If you don't make false claims you won't get called on them.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #31 December 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote Iran is attacking Israel right now through their surrogates who are supported and supplied by Iran and exist only for the purpose of Israel's destruction. That purpose is clearly stated in their own charters. Skyrad shouldn't torpedo his own thesis with such a blatant lie. It encourages me to ignore what is a fair question overall. There is no lie, Americans funded the IRA, Libya gave them bases, training, weapons and explosives but the British government was attacked by the IRA. Israel is attacked by Hamas and Hisbollah not by Iran. Private Americans != America. But when Reagan funded the Contras, yes, America was attacking Nicaragua. And right now, Iran is attacking Israel, just using the proxy method that the US and USSR did to great damage to the third world during the Cold War. So let's dismiss this 3000 year bullshit (or if you yield to Kallend, your 2400 year bullshit) As for trying to translate his speech into a better light, denying a wish to wipe out the Israelis sounds a bit more convincing if the guy wasn't hosting Holocaust denier conventions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #32 December 2, 2011 I wasn't trying to make translate his speech in a better light simply in an accurate one.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #33 December 2, 2011 QuoteI wasn't trying to make translate his speech in a better light simply in an accurate one. and as I wrote, denier status challenges your accuracy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #34 December 2, 2011 Not at all, its in black and white in a language which is easy to translate. His views on the holocaust are repugnant to me but a questioning and disbelief in history does not mean that he wishes or intends to carry out mass murder of Jews. By your logic if people deny the facts of 9/11 makes them Al Quieda supporters.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #35 December 2, 2011 QuoteI wasn't trying to make translate his speech in a better light simply in an accurate one. I think that "vanish from the pages of time" or "be wiped off of the map" or "wiped of the face of the earth" are all metaphors for "cease to exist". How the translation is nit-picked is really not that important. I don't think that anyone with any brains actually took any of the phrases literally. Sort of like when someone says "I'm gonna kick your ass" that is rarely what actually happens. Also - why would Iran use Iranians to attack Israel when there are still plenty of Palestinians in the Arab concentration camps left to do it for them. The stated goals of both Hamas and Hezbollah (and Iran) are the destruction of Israel and Jewish governance and the installation of Islamic government (or more accurately, Islamist rule). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #36 December 2, 2011 QuoteI think that "vanish from the pages of time" or "be wiped off of the map" or "wiped of the face of the earth" are all metaphors for "cease to exist". True, but that doesn't establish what the subject is. When people say they wish the Obama Administration dies in the next election, do they really mean all Americans die after the next election? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #37 December 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteI think that "vanish from the pages of time" or "be wiped off of the map" or "wiped of the face of the earth" are all metaphors for "cease to exist". True, but that doesn't establish what the subject is. When people say they wish the Obama Administration dies in the next election, do they really mean all Americans die after the next election? Using Skyrad's translation: "this regime occupying Jerusalem". Since Israel is a parliamentary democracy, the "regime occupying Jerusalem" can be interpreted to mean the government and the population that elects them. I agree that Hamas and Hezbollah are much more direct in the wording of their goal in Israel and did not use metaphors. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #38 December 2, 2011 QuoteNot at all, its in black and white in a language which is easy to translate. His views on the holocaust are repugnant to me but a questioning and disbelief in history does not mean that he wishes or intends to carry out mass murder of Jews. By your logic if people deny the facts of 9/11 makes them Al Quieda supporters. Language is rarely black and white. And shockingly, politicians lie or use very carefully selected phrases when they speak. When a Democrat campaigns for President and says "I'm a supporter of sportsman rights and I've hunted before," one can translate that very quickly to "I've going to pass as much gun control as politically feasible." Only the naive will take the statement at face value. Or more classically, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #39 December 2, 2011 One other note: How is the attack and kidnapping on the embassy in 1979 not a hostile action against another nation? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 379 #40 December 3, 2011 QuoteOne other note: How is the attack and kidnapping on the embassy in 1979 not a hostile action against another nation?Good question. Here's another: How is overthrowing a democratically elected government and imposing a ruthless totalitarian dictator not a hostile nation against another nation? The situation with Iran sucks, and it may not be solvable in our lifetimes, but it is wholly the creation of the US and British governments. And yes, it was all about oil. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrmnlViscocity 0 #41 December 3, 2011 Why should anyone have the bomb? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,079 #42 December 3, 2011 >Why should anyone have the bomb? Well, historically, the worst possible case is only one country having the bomb. The idea is that no one has it; the next level of ideal is that everyone has it. There's nothing like the threat of nuclear annihilation to bring otherwise obstreperous countries to the negotiating table. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #43 December 3, 2011 QuoteQuoteOne other note: How is the attack and kidnapping on the embassy in 1979 not a hostile action against another nation?Good question. Here's another: How is overthrowing a democratically elected government and imposing a ruthless totalitarian dictator not a hostile nation against another nation? completely irrelevant. No one claimed that the US hasn't committed a hostile act in the last 3000 years. Stay on topic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
falxori 0 #44 December 3, 2011 QuoteThere's nothing like the threat of nuclear annihilation to bring otherwise obstreperous countries to the negotiating table. I am less worried by a country using it and more by something blowing up in a major city without a clear return address. "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #45 December 3, 2011 QuoteWhy should anyone have the bomb? Ya just can't put the Genie back in the bottle... uninventing 'The Bomb' is not an option. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trafficdiver 8 #46 December 3, 2011 QuoteReally, why should Iran not have a Nuke? Who are they going to use it on? Israel? Hardly, they can't use it on Israel without killing their Palestinian allies or the Arab countries surrounding them. Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain were positive Hitler would not re-arm the Rhineland, They were wrong... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trafficdiver 8 #47 December 3, 2011 Quote>Why should anyone have the bomb? Well, historically, the worst possible case is only one country having the bomb. The idea is that no one has it; the next level of ideal is that everyone has it. There's nothing like the threat of nuclear annihilation to bring otherwise obstreperous countries to the negotiating table. Do you believe in cultural relativity? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #48 December 3, 2011 Quote I am less worried by a country using it and more by something blowing up in a major city without a clear return address. Oooooooo! Excellent! My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #49 December 3, 2011 Quote ...obstreperous... Translation for the normal people: "Noisily and stubbornly defiant" Quit using 50-cent words. Your one warning. My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #50 December 3, 2011 QuoteWell, historically, the worst possible case is only one country having the bomb. So at the end of WWII when the U.S. was the only nation with the bomb, and they used it to end the war early and save a million casualties, on both sides of the conflict, that was the "worst possible case"? You would have preferred a conventional invasion of the home islands of Japan, and a million more dead and wounded? You prefer a million casualties without the bomb to a 100,000 with it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
