Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Jamie B on January 09, 2012, 02:23:24 PM
-
You save some of their clowns from Somali pirates:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/u-navy-rescues-iranians-somali-pirates-183323968.html;_ylt=AhCFht0L0WmB4nS3_3MxL_byWed_;_ylu=X3oDMTFla2kyZ2h0BG1pdANCbG9nIEJvZHkEcG9zAzExBHNlYwNNZWRpYUJsb2dCb2R5QXNzZW1ibHk-;_ylg=X3oDMTNiMXB0MXNmBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDZTJhNDYxMTUtMDIwNC0zMTY1LWEzNzEtYTcxZTg2NmEzMjFkBHBzdGNhdANvcmlnaW5hbHN8dGhlZW52b3kEcHQDc3RvcnlwYWdlBHRlc3QD;_ylv=3
Then they decide to execute an American former Marine for working with the CIA:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/iran-sentences-former-u-marine-death-151159772.html
We should have cut a deal to save Hekmati before saving their *expletive deleted*bag sailors.
Of course, I am still bitter about the hostages from many years ago.
-
Do you think the Iranian fishermen are somehow to blame?
-
Any American that chooses to go to Iran is doing so at great risk. Add in the fact of being a military veteran and you are definitely going to show up on their radar and be lucky if you aren't charged with spying.
-
Guy was probably spying. Does it suck that he's gonna get executed? Sure... but espionage is illegal in every country in the world, and these guys know what they're getting into when they choose the profession.
Iran is well within their rights as a sovereign nation to execute someone for espionage.
But I suppose we should play World Police some more and stop them? ;/
-
Not a world police supporter for the US>
My point was that if we were going to save Iran's sailors, we should have at least cut a deal to get the American back first.
-
With that background, I wouldn't be surprised if he was CIA - knows the language well enough to be a translator, ex-military, a legitimate reason to visit Iran. He'd be an ideal candidate.
I suspect that he won't be executed. I think we've got enough bargaining chips to get him back.
-
Not a world police supporter for the US>
My point was that if we were going to save Iran's sailors, we should have at least cut a deal to get the American back first.
Well, I think this just shows American ship crews and commanders are good people.
I mean, you are in charge of some kind of naval vessel in the Gulf of Aden [that's where the piracy is, right? I get the geography of it a bit confused], and you get news that pirates have kidnapped innocent people within reach of your ship, and your orders are to fight piracy. The choice seems clear here.
-
With that background, I wouldn't be surprised if he was CIA - knows the language well enough to be a translator, ex-military, a legitimate reason to visit Iran. He'd be an ideal candidate.
I suspect that he won't be executed. I think we've got enough bargaining chips to get him back.
Some of the other articles say that he did indeed work for the CIA in some capacity. But he was in iran on "personal" business?
Sounds legit.
Not.
-
He deserves a fair trial on the accusation - do we think Iran is going to impartially and transparently prove that this person was indeed a spy?
I don't believe he should be up for any punishment at all until proof, not just innuendo or suspicious circumstances, is offered.
-
He deserves a fair trial on the accusation - do we think Iran is going to impartially and transparently prove that this person was indeed a spy?
I don't believe he should be up for any punishment at all until proof, not just innuendo or suspicious circumstances, is offered.
He's not gonna get a fair trial. If he doesn't like that, maybe he should stay out of countries run by Islamic nutjobs.
This was either a case of A.) Him being a spy, or B.) Him being an idiot.
-
He's not gonna get a fair trial. If he doesn't like that, maybe he should stay out of countries run by Islamic nutjobs.
This was either a case of A.) Him being a spy, or B.) Him being an idiot.
Or maybe him wanting to see his elderly grandma one more time and taking a risk to do it - not that it's relevant. Violating people's rights isn't justified on the basis that they happened to wander into an oppressive state's grasp.
-
Or maybe him wanting to see his elderly grandma one more time and taking a risk to do it - not that it's relevant. Violating people's rights isn't justified on the basis that they happened to wander into an oppressive state's grasp.
So what would you like to be done about it?
Should we invade?
LOL
I'm squarely in the "this isn't our friggin problem" camp
-
Well, a person with 'Duel Citizenship' who asserts the offending country to be his real country/home... who is then screwed by his home country....
I'm with Fitz. Certainly try to politic and help the guy, but no call for politics by other means.
-
Well, I think this just shows American ship crews and commanders are good people.
I mean, you are in charge of some kind of naval vessel in the Gulf of Aden [that's where the piracy is, right? I get the geography of it a bit confused], and you get news that pirates have kidnapped innocent people within reach of your ship, and your orders are to fight piracy. The choice seems clear here.
I don't even see a conflict of interest between rescuing Iranian hostages of pirates and retrieving American hostages of the Iranian state. Rescue the hostages and keep it quiet while American hostage release is negotiated.
Wine and dine the Iranians [edit... Iranian fisherman] during the negotiations and we'll have that many more CIA [edit assets] in Iran.
-
Well, a person with 'Duel Citizenship' who asserts the offending country to be his real country/home... who is then screwed by his home country....
If it's "Duel" citizenship, can he challenge the judge to sabers or pistols at dawn? ;)
Dual citizenship or not, I find it hard to find sympathy for an American who goes into Iran - carrying US military ID, no less! - and gets into hot water, just as I find it hard to feel sorry for those who go to Iraq - Iraq! - for a hiking trip, and seek a little more adventure by traveling to the poorly-marked border area with Iran. :facepalm:
("The stupid, it hurts.")
-
The US really doesn't have a moral leg to stand on here. Our Government is clearly at undeclared war with Iran. He got caught inside their territory with military ID and he at least got a frigin "trial", which is more than the US Government affords foreigners AND EVEN US citizens found outside US borders who are accused of "trrism" before targeting them for assassination.
So while I do not want to see a fellow citizen executed under any circumstances, I must say that our Government best keep its lying mouth shut on this matter lest our rulers come out as total hypocrites (we already know they are that and worse, but still).
-
It's funny, a lot of the same people who screamed "ZOMG ILLEGAL WAR" about Iraq are now playing the "WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHINGZ!!!" card with iran.
They also did the same with Darfur.
I say, screw it. Let Iran do what Iran will do, and when they finally do something heinous, let the rest of the world clean it up.
I'm real tired of our government and politicians continuing to pursue asinine policies, play cloak and dagger games, etc. Because it's people like ME, not the idiots screaming for justice, who will pay the price in blood and tears when we finally "do something" about it.
-
I suspect Iran will do what they want to. They like to float threats.
So what would you like to be done about it?
Should we invade?
Don't be surprised if we do exactly that after a substantial air campaign. It is not just about the guy sentanced to death. No more working to create a democracy. Kick butt, take it, and keep it. Yes, this is all about oil and nuclear weapons poliferation throughout the Middle East after they have their nuke.
-
I suspect Iran will do what they want to. They like to float threats.
Don't be surprised if we do exactly that after a substantial air campaign. It is not just about the guy sentanced to death. No more working to create a democracy. Kick butt, take it, and keep it. Yes, this is all about oil and nuclear weapons poliferation throughout the Middle East after they have their nuke.
Show me one foreign war/occupation/action/etc. that was all about oil that actually resulted in lower US oil prices.
-
It would not be about price, it would be about stability of the market.
-
I'm pretty sure that we have another Carrier group headed for the Persian Gulf which will make two in the immediate area.
-
Uncle Sam kitty iz in yer gulf...savin' yer sailors!
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ft1.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcSykcfYu5svqQDjL932oDcQdF0A5brfxgTvbqr3KUuhRAEzcB_-&hash=7482bd6486a4aadf14fdfae7e22e87ed401b538a)
-
Kick butt, take it, and keep it.
That should be a cake walk... Yeah, like Mike said: "All you gotta do is repeat after me... abc, easy as... 123, or simple as... do re mi... abc,123, baby you and me!"
Except it'll only be you because I'm not lending any support for imperial adventures anymore. I'm SICK of being lied to and I'm sick of being scared into jumping to war.
There is no way the US Government isn't going down in history as the 21st century Nazi wannabes if they try to pull that one off.
And what exactly is the excuse this time for initiating aggression and destroying, then taking over a sovereign nation? WMDs? Again? LOL
If they want to sell that one again they are going to have to get someone better than Bachmann:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TFcV-AjqW8
-
Oooh, some for facts. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/115142-Iran-Sentences-Game-Developer-To-Death
The guy made some games for the army. Some very poor choices in travel plans...
-
He's just been sentenced to death because he was found guilty of charges that the CIA was paying him to make videogames that would affect public opinion on U.S. policies in the region.
Srsly?? That's some pretty weak tea.
-
I'm pretty sure that we have another Carrier group headed for the Persian Gulf which will make two in the immediate area.
Should make invading much easier for Romney, then.
-
BUT ITS OK AS LONG AS IT ISNT OBAMA LOLOLOLOL
-
:facepalm:
At this point I honestly think we should consider using nukes.
[tinfoil]
Fewer servicemen to return minus a limb or two ........ :'(
>:D
-
:facepalm:
At this point I honestly think we should consider using nukes.
[tinfoil]
Fewer servicemen to return minus a limb or two ........ :'(
>:D
I for one really don't look forward to a ground war with Iran.
-
BUT ITS OK AS LONG AS IT ISNT OBAMA LOLOLOLOL
It boggles my mind to hear the bobble heads on stage discussing Iran. And the Neocons fall for this *expletive deleted*it?
-
I also do not look forward to a war with Iran. I hope there is another solution. But if Iran gets Nukes and the means to deploy them, it will alter any stability that currently exists in the Middle East and in my opinion, the world. Because I think they will use them unlike the US and Russia. Iran is buddies with Venezuela (Chavez) who would like to be the next Cuba in the Caribbean. Yes, "we got trouble in Virgina City". Read "One Second After", it has Iran marked all over it.
I can't see another Iraq "experiment" happening. The problem is that it is the Iranian government not necessarily the Iranian people who are anti-US and anti Western nation.
-
I also do not look forward to a war with Iran. I hope there is another solution. But if Iran gets Nukes and the means to deploy them, it will alter any stability that currently exists in the Middle East and in my opinion, the world. Because I think they will use them unlike the US and Russia. Iran is buddies with Venezuela (Chavez) who would like to be the next Cuba in the Caribbean. Yes, "we got trouble in Virgina City". Read "One Second After", it has Iran marked all over it.
I can't see another Iraq "experiment" happening. The problem is that it is the Iranian government not necessarily the Iranian people who are anti-US and anti Western nation.
Actually if you were to really take time to research, a majority of Iranians are actully pro-Western/American. And until 1979 was just as if not more advanced than we were in some areas. The problem with Iran is the leadership. If the populace were to ever actually stand up and revolt it would actually be a good thing for the U.S.
-
That is my understanding as well. It was in part why Iraq was viewed as being a country able for a democracy of sorts where there are real elections, legal equality, and a rule of law.
But if the US attacks, the natural reaction of the people would likely be to support the government and fight for Iran same as the USA.
-
I also do not look forward to a war with Iran. I hope there is another solution. But if Iran gets Nukes and the means to deploy them, it will alter any stability that currently exists in the Middle East and in my opinion, the world. Because I think they will use them unlike the US and Russia. Iran is buddies with Venezuela (Chavez) who would like to be the next Cuba in the Caribbean. Yes, "we got trouble in Virgina City". Read "One Second After", it has Iran marked all over it.
I can't see another Iraq "experiment" happening. The problem is that it is the Iranian government not necessarily the Iranian people who are anti-US and anti Western nation.
Preemptive military force is the slippery slope of the failing empire.
-
That is my understanding as well. It was in part why Iraq was viewed as being a country able for a democracy of sorts where there are real elections, legal equality, and a rule of law.
But if the US attacks, the natural reaction of the people would likely be to support the government and fight for Iran same as the USA.
Such the reason is that we should not attack but at the same time covertly help any uprising against the current leadership.
-
Preemptive military force is the slippery slope of the failing empire.
Military force is a slippery slope for us also.
-
Preemptive military force is the slippery slope of the failing empire.
So is isolationism....... the world is full of "slippery slopes."
And, no, I am not arguing we should TKO Iran.
We may be a "failing 'empire' " but it won't happen because of A'stan, Iraq, or even Iran.
It will happen because of our own inability to control ourselves here ....a 15.3 TRILLION $$$ debt, a feckless president who ignores the Constitution....and all the other similar cr@p that's piled up since FDR..... :'(
-
So is isolationism....... the world is full of "slippery slopes."
And, no, I am not arguing we should TKO Iran.
We may be a "failing 'empire' " but it won't happen because of A'stan, Iraq, or even Iran.
It will happen because of our own inability to control ourselves here ....a 15.3 TRILLION $$$ debt, a feckless president who ignores the Constitution....and all the other similar cr@p that's piled up since FDR..... :'(
Undeclared and preemptive wars are a big part of that problem. Not only are they the shiny object to distract the slack-jawed masses, but the enormous military machine contributes to our over inflated budget and debt. How much did we piss away in Iraq, again? And after we *expletive deleted*ed up the taliban, how much have we wasted occupying that *expletive deleted*it hole? What about our bases in Europe, Japan, and Korea?
-
Entitlements comprise a greater % of the budget than military spending. Military spending was high during the Cold War but when that ended (assuming it really did end ...) military spending was cut a lot.
We might get away with reducing our presence in europe but if we brought the troops back from S. Korea, I think the N Koreans would come out and play and that wouldn't be a happy time for the South Koreans.
-
I for one really don't look forward to a ground war with Iran.
Classic blunder
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LUUk6wVNrY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LUUk6wVNrY)
-
I don't see any statements of mine here implying that war is the solution to this injustice - I'm calling it what it is. Even spies deserve more than a bs trial because that's the only way you actually know if someone is a spy, as opposed to a scapegoat.
Of course, the drumbeat is getting louder every day. Obama seems to be trying hard to provoke an incident so that he can attack Iran. It's insane, and risks nuclear wars with China or Russia (or both), but the hubris prevents most from seeing America's destruction as a realistic outcome.
And it isn't just Obama - the "we need to stop Iran!" chorus is being sung on this board and in every campaign but one.
-
I don't think Obama is trying to provoke Iran. It is the other way around.
Just remember, a war would probably get him re-elected.
-
I don't see any statements of mine here implying that war is the solution to this injustice - I'm calling it what it is. Even spies deserve more than a bs trial because that's the only way you actually know if someone is a spy, as opposed to a scapegoat.
Of course, the drumbeat is getting louder every day. Obama seems to be trying hard to provoke an incident so that he can attack Iran. It's insane, and risks nuclear wars with China or Russia (or both), but the hubris prevents most from seeing America's destruction as a realistic outcome.
And it isn't just Obama - the "we need to stop Iran!" chorus is being sung on this board and in every campaign but one.
I agree with DS.
I feel like I need a shower.
-
Even spies deserve more than a bs trial because that's the only way you actually know if someone is a spy, as opposed to a scapegoat.
Shut up. You don't get a lawyer. [/sen. graham(R)]
-
The establishment used up all their credibility with me when they got me to assent to the (2nd) Iraq war. Initially I wasn't much of a supporter of the first Gulf War but the resounding success of it and continual drumbeat of war in the editorials for the second wore me down and I accepted the "need' for the second round. A begrudging neocon is what I became, phew!
One of MY biggest disappointments with Obama is he didn't pull the plug in Afghanistan (sooner).
I'm way more on the Ron Paul side of the equation when it comes to this stuff. Call it fortress America or whatever, I really don't care. I'm sick of giving my assent (vote) to clowns I don't trust. Who then put people I love and/or respect at risk in foreign adventures, that have a tenuous connection to increasing our security.
-
I don't think Obama is trying to provoke Iran. It is the other way around.
Just remember, a war would probably get him re-elected.
How is Iran trying to provoke Obama???
They are sitting still while the US destroys their currency, and have not responded with violence to the assassinations and sabotage campaign directed against their national interests.
-
Yeah .... a well protected program to develop a nuclear bomb and feints at closing the Strait of Hormuz is "sitting still." [tinfoil]
-
What do you want to do?
Attack Iran?
Play spy vs spy with them until there is an international incident?
We've spread ourselves thin and haven't practiced total warfare against our enemies, or supposed enemies.
Really if someone is our enemy, nothing should be off the table.
If we aren't willing to to utterly and completely destroy them then are they really our enemy? or just an inconvenience?
-
What do you want to do?
Attack Iran?
Play spy vs spy with them until there is an international incident?
We've spread ourselves thin and haven't practiced total warfare against our enemies, or supposed enemies.
Really if someone is our enemy, nothing should be off the table.
If we aren't willing to to utterly and completely destroy them then are they really our enemy? or just an inconvenience?
I want Iran to stop developing a nuke and start to play nice.
Something tells me that Iran is going to continue to be the crazy undle in the neighborhood, though ..... [tinfoil]
-
I want Iran to stop developing a nuke and start to play nice.
Something tells me that Iran is going to continue to be the crazy undle in the neighborhood, though ..... [tinfoil]
Preemptive war then?
-
Yeah .... a well protected program to develop a nuclear bomb and feints at closing the Strait of Hormuz is "sitting still." [tinfoil]
Not to mention routinely stating a desire if not an intent to wipe Israel off the map.
I'm not suggesting we should invade Iran but ignoring them probably isn't the best idea.
-
Preemptive war then?
I was thinking more along the lines of saying "pretty please, stop being evil." [tinfoil]
Seriously I don't know about "preemptive war." I don't think we have the cajones or the $$$ for that. I'm also not sure it's really necessary since a smaller number of military strikes might possibly be enough to knock Iran's nuke program into stall mode.
I also think maybe Israel might do something. Interestingly, Russia is now becoming concerned about Iran's nuclear ambitions.
I really hate the idea of yet another action .... but I don't think Iran is going to stop just because people are wagging their fingers at them and yelling "naughty naughty."
The fissile material is the tough part. Once they have it the bomb is a cinch.
And they will have the BOMB if they're not stopped.
Remember; India got the bomb and we didn't even know they were developing one. They lit one off and the CIA goes; "what the heck was THAT? ? ? ? ?"
Iran is just being a little .... cruder in the upswing.
I have no good solutions. Just fears that Iran's leaders are nutty enough so that it won't be like it was when the Soviets got one. They were ruthless and expansionistic and evil but they were also sane and knew what the consequences of a nuclear war would be.
-
Preemptive war then?
I'd really rather not and hope it can be stopped without that. I don't think we need another boots on the ground war right now, can't afford it, and it'd likely just be another half assed politician micro managed fluster cluck that doesn't solve much anyway. I think we should be doing what we can to stop them though.
-
I'd really rather not and hope it can be stopped without that. I don't think we need another boots on the ground war right now, can't afford it, and it'd likely just be another half assed politician micro managed fluster cluck that doesn't solve much anyway. I think we should be doing what we can to stop them though.
Tomahawk saturation of their development facilities and some B2 delivered 30,000 lb bunker busters in a few key locations, but no actual troops then?
-
Tomahawk saturation of their development facilities and some B2 delivered 30,000 lb bunker busters in a few key locations, but no actual troops then?
IF, and I'm not advocating we jump into war like we did with Iraq, we go to war with Iran? Yeah, something like that. Take out every military facility we can locate on a map, bunker bust or otherwise blow up every nuclear facility we can locate. Anything that flies, floats, or sinks blown out of the sky and out of the water. Take out their entire military infrastructure and effectively neuter them.
If ground forces are needed, use them strategically where they make the most sense. Most importantly let the military fight the damn thing without government micro management, get it done, and get them home without having to spend another decade half assed pacifying the country, nation building things that will just get blown up again, and sinking money we don't have into it.
-
Tomahawk saturation of their development facilities and some B2 delivered 30,000 lb bunker busters in a few key locations, but no actual troops then?
If it comes to that, I think this is pretty much Israel's plan, minus the B-2 bombers.
-
If it comes to that, I think this is pretty much Israel's plan, minus the B-2 bombers.
lend lease a couple b2's?
-
To hell with Israel man. All they do is use and abuse their "special" relationship with the US. If we did lend B2's t them they would probably take the tech and sell it to China.
Check this out: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.0a48dca029ea3800c6e534eab94e8d0d.cb1&show_article=1
Not to mention routinely stating a desire if not an intent to wipe Israel off the map.
They actually never said that. It's a complete mangling of translation. Do a little research. The real quote is no where as inflammatory as that.
I don't see how any objective person can say that Iran is the one provoking the US, when it is the US that has military forces completely surrounding Iran on both sides, and it is American leaders who are constantly yapping about commanding Iran what to do and what not to do under threat of overt military aggression. We have already completely violated their air space and we are imposing sanctions that threaten to destroy their top industry and send their national economy down the drain. And I'm very suspicious that we have played a hand in the sabotaging and assassinations in that country. How the hell is all that not picking a fight?
And let's cut the "WMD" charade already. This is the second time we are being driven to START a war by lies and exaggerations. Leon Panetta even said that Iran is no where near making a bomb in the near future, nor is it pursuing one at present, only that they might "someday" choose to do so (in his opinion). IAEA reports show no indication of a military uranium enrichment program.
A war with Iran is not about protecting American lives, it is about eliminating a competing sovereign nation from the playing field so we don't have to negotiate with them to get our way in the resource dense region. It's all about power grabbing. I am sorry, we are NOT the good guys on this one.
-
They actually never said that. It's a complete mangling of translation. Do a little research. The real quote is no where as inflammatory as that.
really?
"Ahmadinejad quoted a remark from Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, who said that Israel "must be wiped out from the map of the world."
The president then said: "And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism," according to a quote published by IRNA"
15/1/2012 6:38
RUS
ENG
DEU
FRA
ARA
PER
ESP
JPN
CHN(S)
CHN(T)
|
RSS
|
iPhone
USD 14/01 31.583 -0.0977
EUR 14/01 40.6189 +0.3337
RTS 13/01 1441.99 -0.31%
MICEX 13/09 1501.98 +0.59%
RIA Novosti
News
Features, Opinion & Analysis
Multimedia
Art&Living
Blogs
Valdai Club
RIA Novosti
World
Iran warns it will 'wipe out' Israel if attacked
16:56 15/04/2008
TEHRAN, April 15 (RIA Novosti) - A senior Iranian commander warned on Tuesday that his military will wipe Israel off the world map if the Zionists attack the Islamic Republic.
"We must defend our state borders, and should Israel take any hostile action, we are ready to eliminate Israel from the world scene," Deputy Commander-in-Chief Mohammad Reza Ashtiani said.
He said that the Iranian army is on constant alert due to the presence of "foreign forces" in the region.
"It is ready to decisively repel any attack," he said.
Ashtiani's comments echo President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's infamous 2005 "World Without Zionism" speech, in which he railed against the Israelis' occupation of Jerusalem.
Iran's defense minister said last Monday the world needs a missile shield to protect against threats from Israel and the United States.
Mostafa Mohammad Najjar said U.S. claims that the European missile shield would defend against Iran's missiles were nothing but a sham.
He said Tehran was open to cooperation with every country except Israel, which Iran does not recognize, to ensure stability and security in the Middle East.
http://articles.cnn.com/2005-10-26/world/ahmadinejad_1_israel-jerusalem-day-islamic-world?_s=PM:WORLD
-
Well CNN, as well as other corporate chains, often times acts more as a .gov propaganda outlet than an independent news hub. There is controversy surrounding the translation and interpretation of those October 25, 2005 statements. Regarding the alleged threat/promise to "wipe Israel off the map" (or as CNN interpreted it "Iranian Leader: Wipe out Israel"):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-sedaei/the-biggest-lie-told-to-t_b_70248.html
Let's analyze what Ahmadinejad said. His exact words in Farsi were as follows: "Emam goft een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzegar mahv shavad."
The correct translation of the statement is as follows: "Imam said this occupying regime in Jerusalem must vanish from the page of times."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm
It's becoming clear. The statements of the Iranian President have been reflected by the media in a manipulated way. Iran's President betokens the removal of the regimes, that are in power in Israel and in the USA, to be possible aim for the future. This is correct. But he never demands the elimination or annihilation of Israel. He reveals that changes are potential. The Shah-Regime being supported by the USA in its own country has been vanquished. The eastern governance of the Soviet Union collapsed. Saddam Hussein's dominion drew to a close. Referring to this he voices his aspiration that changes will also be feasible in Israel respectively in Palestine. He adduces Ayatollah Khomeini referring to the Shah-Regime who in this context said that the regime (meaning the Shah-Regime) should be removed.
http://www.fox19.com/story/16401983/reality-check-was-ben-wrong-about-ahmadinejad-saying-he-would-wipe-israel-off-the-map
"Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian," says Juan Cole, a Middle East specialist at the University of Michigan.
Cole says that when more correctly translated, the Iranian President said, "he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."
Jonathan Steele, a columnist for the left-leaning Guardian newspaper in London, says it this way: "The Iranian President was quoting an ancient statement by Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that 'this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."
But not everyone agrees with that.
The only thing I think can be concluded from his speech, for certain, is that Iran's leaders have a lot of criticism and no love for either the Israeli or American Governments. He only makes reference to the "Regimes", not the people or nations. The mistranslated "wiping off the map" statement that many want to use as conclusive proof that Iran will develop a nuclear weapon solely to go on a suicide mission to harm US and Israeli citizens is bogus in that interpretation. It is no where nearly conclusive enough to justify any type of "preemptive" aggression on them, yet everyone keeps repeating it as if it were the smoking gun in the room that gives us the moral highground to go on a military escapade.