Did the Pres. of Iran convince you that Bush is just war-mongering, AGAIN?

Question

Seems to me with the daily death rates of hundreds of people in IRAQ, IRAN will just not tolerate aggression from outside.

How can we make it clear to our leader, we do not want further war?

Answer 1

We can't

Aminijab (sp) Is as arrogant as Bush. He thinks he got away with the Embassy attack back in the 70's. He is convinced America did nothing then and will do nothing now.

Back then we were post Vietnam and did not want any more war. Today's America wants blood. And Bush will give it to them.

I see no way to avoid a war with Iran other than a coup. Even then the cult of She'a is stronger than ever.

Sorry my friend but like the snowball in a old Black &White Cartoon this baby is unstopable.

Go big Red Go

Answer 2

Of all the countries in the middle-east, Iran has the only legitimate reason for hating the USA. It's not a religious based hatred either. The fact that the Shah of Iran, a despot put in power by the USA, made Saddam look like a boy scout gets buried in history.
Iran suffered for decades under the Shah's rule. The people of Iran haven't forgotten the US role in that reign of terror. As of yet, Iran hasn't even gotten a "We're sorry about that" from the US.

Answer 3

To your first question--No.

What has Iraqi deaths have to do with Iran? Unless you are saying Iran is causing them.

Well you could over throw the whole cleric controlled government in Iran. That should send them the message.

Answer 4

I agree with the Centurion above me, I am not with you either. Yeah, I think Bush has dug a hole, but Im not siding with Iran. If this was a clear right and wrong issue, which it isnt, we would be in the right.

Answer 5

Iran will not change their hatred for America and will not
change their Muslim religion of killing the Infidels. You
cannot believe anything they say......that's the kind of
people they are. They love killing, so how could anyone
ever convince them we don't want further war? They
could care less what we think.

Answer 6

Well the president of Iran hates Israel so it is clear to see why the liberals love and worship him

Answer 7

no, but i'm convinced if he gets a chance he'll try to wipe Israel off the earth. and then we'd be next. even if you don't like Israel, you'd better pray he doesn't nuke them. they'll be a glowing pile of rock before you could blink.

and i'd actually prefer fighting Iran. i'm like that, when somebody commits an act of war against my country.

Lucas: as for over 50% of us being hicks, yeah i'm a hick and i'd rather be a hick than live next to you. this hick has better moral clarity than you ever will, and is smarter.

Answer 8

Are you kidding?

We knew that Bush is just war-mongering long before the president of Iran opened his mouth.

Answer 9

The president of Iran has even less credibility in my book than Bush so the answer is no.
But yes Bush is war mongering again and the world is eating it up.The propaganda machine to further demonize Iran,like they need that(for me knowing how they treat women and gay people is enough),is out in full force.An example:
The most infamous quote, "Israel must be wiped off the map", is the most glaringly wrong. In his October 2005 speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad never used the word "map" or the term "wiped off". According to Farsi-language experts like Juan Cole and even right-wing services like MEMRI, what he actually said was "this regime that is occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

What did he mean? In this speech to an annual anti-Zionist conference, Mr. Ahmadinejad was being prophetic, not threatening. He was citing Imam Khomeini, who said this line in the 1980s (a period when Israel was actually selling arms to Iran, so apparently it was not viewed as so ghastly then). Mr. Ahmadinejad had just reminded his audience that the Shah's regime, the Soviet Union, and Saddam Hussein had all seemed enormously powerful and immovable, yet the first two had vanished almost beyond recall and the third now languished in prison. So, too, the "occupying regime" in Jerusalem would someday be gone. His message was, in essence, "This too shall pass."

But what about his other "threats" against Israel? The blathersphere made great hay from his supposed comment later in the same speech, "There is no doubt: the new wave of assaults in Palestine will erase the stigma in [the] countenance of the Islamic world." "Stigma" was interpreted as "Israel" and "wave of assaults" was ominous. But what he actually said was, "I have no doubt that the new movement taking place in our dear Palestine is a wave of morality which is spanning the entire Islamic world and which will soon remove this stain of disgrace from the Islamic world." "Wave of morality" is not "wave of assaults." The preceding sentence had made clear that the "stain of disgrace" was the Muslim world's failure to eliminate the "occupying regime".

For months, scholars like Cole and journalists like the London Guardian's Jonathan Steele have been pointing out these mistranslations while more and more appear: for example, Mr. Ahmadinejad's comments at the Organization of Islamic Countries meeting on August 3, 2006. Radio Free Europe reported that he said "that the 'main cure' for crisis in the Middle East is the elimination of Israel." "Elimination of Israel" implies physical destruction: bombs, strafing, terror, throwing Jews into the sea. Tony Blair denounced the translated statement as ""quite shocking". But Mr. Ahmadinejad never said this. According to al-Jazeera, what he actually said was "The real cure for the conflict is the elimination of the Zionist regime, but there should be an immediate ceasefire first."

Nefarious agendas are evident in consistently translating "eliminating the occupation regime" as "destruction of Israel". "Regime" refers to governance, not populations or cities. "Zionist regime" is the government of Israel and its system of laws, which have annexed Palestinian land and hold millions of Palestinians under military occupation. Many mainstream human rights activists believe that Israel's "regime" must indeed be transformed, although they disagree how. Some hope that Israel can be redeemed by a change of philosophy and government (regime) that would allow a two-state solution. Others believe that Jewish statehood itself is inherently unjust, as it embeds racist principles into state governance, and call for its transformation into a secular democracy (change of regime). None of these ideas about regime change signifies the expulsion of Jews into the sea or the ravaging of their towns and cities. All signify profound political change, necessary to creating a just peace.

Mr. Ahmadinejad made other statements at the Organization of Islamic Countries that clearly indicated his understanding that Israel must be treated within the framework of international law. For instance, he recognized the reality of present borders when he said that "any aggressor should go back to the Lebanese international border". He recognized the authority of Israel and the role of diplomacy in observing, "The circumstances should be prepared for the return of the refugees and displaced people, and prisoners should be exchanged." He also called for a boycott: "We also propose that the Islamic nations immediately cut all their overt and covert political and economic relations with the Zionist regime." A double bushel of major Jewish peace groups, US church groups, and hordes of human rights organizations have said the same things.

I must admit I almost even fell for it so that must be one hell of a propaganda machine

Answer 10

No, all he did was convince me that we ARE on the right track and that our President is doing the right things!!

You may not want further war, but we are in it and it must be finished! Would you rather they continue to come to the USA and attack us in our own country? Think about that as you sit in your comfy office on your butt and judge President Bush for doing what he had to do to protect the people of the USA.