Would Attacking Iran Be Worth It?

[yinyinwang]

Originally Posted by Tricky

LOL. Who won it? Are you seriously suggesting that the breakup of Russia was due to a single factor? It happened over many years, not because Reagan made speeches on how the US needs to keep building weapons to attack the Evil Empire if necessary... Oh wait. Isn't that what you are afraid Iran is doing? Being too much like us?

Leadership certainly played a great role. Are you suggesting it was an accident?
You are right I am afraid a bad guy with the same pile of nukes like us.

[yinyinwang]

Originally Posted by Tricky

Gosh, that almost sounds like you don't care why others have different points of view. No wonder you have such a low view of diplomacy.

I care points of view, not intention statements, which most of time are just lies.

[yinyinwang]

Originally Posted by D'rok the Lacone

There has been no American diplomatic contact with Iran for 27 years until today's scheduled meeting in Baghdad.

Ya, you are right, but how to have a diplomatic contact with someone who can hold diplomatic staff as hostages?

I am not just talking about US diplomacy, also UN, which has just been kicked out by the Iranian government.

[yinyinwang]

Originally Posted by D'rok the Lacone

Are you seriously trying to assert the Iranian government is behind the Iraqi Sunni insurgency? Or am I mis-interpreting your mangled syntax?

Some Iranian soldiers got caught in Iraq and the most anti-US Iraqi happen to be someone back from Iran, you don't thing this is just coincident, do you?

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by yinyinwang

Ya, you are right, but how to have a diplomatic contact with someone who can hold diplomatic staff as hostages?

Not aiding the overthrow their democratically elected governments (Mossadegh) and the installation of a repressive dictator (Shah) would be a start.

Quote:

I am not just talking about US diplomacy, also UN, which has just been kicked out by the Iranian government.

My longer post outlines the reasons why Iran is currently less than cooperative with the UN.

[yinyinwang]

Originally Posted by D'rok the Lacone

Not aiding the overthrow their democratically elected governments (Mossadegh) and the installation of a repressive dictator (Shah) would be a start.

O really, so Iran used to be a democracy which was brought down by the US. Too bad they want it back now.

[yinyinwang]

Originally Posted by D'rok the Lacone

My longer post outlines the reasons why Iran is currently less than cooperative with the UN.

If you commit crimes you run the risk of losing rights.

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by yinyinwang

Some Iranian soldiers got caught in Iraq and the most anti-US Iraqi happen to be someone back from Iran, you don't thing this is just coincident, don't you?

Can you source that claim about Iranian soldiers in Iraq? You don't mean the consular officials that were there on the invitation of the Iraqi government do you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_atta...ffice_in_Arbil

About the other thing...I assume that you are talking about al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army. Do you really think that the Shia leaders (such as al-Sadr and al-Sistani) and militias are the insurgency? I think you'll find that they are, relatively speaking, forces of moderation in Iraq. This is in their interests because the American invasion has overthrown the Sunni minority that repressively ruled the country and has handed control of the country to the Shia majority. Al-Sadr wants the Americans out so the Shia can get on with the business of consolidating their power. This is also in Iran's interests. Al-Sistani and al-Sadr are influenced by Iran, but their actions have been primarily political and rhetorical (Najaf being the obvious exception). In fact, al-Sistani has consistently stepped in to broker peace and call for calm whenever tensions have gotten out of hand.

To put it simply, Iranian backed Shia factions in Iraq resist American occupation primarily through political action. The active insurgency consists mostly of the displaced Sunni minority.

Invading Iraq has ultimately served Iran's interests, not America's.

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by yinyinwang

O really, so Iran used to be a democracy which was brought down by the US. Too bad they want it back now.

Quote:

If you commit crimes you run the risk of losing rights.

No idea what you are trying to assert here. Can you clarify?

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by D'rok the Lacone

No idea what you are trying to assert here. Can you clarify?

Can you please explain why you dropped in the matter of the Shah coming to power to explain Iran of today? You seem to presume a universal antipathy among Persians, et al, to embrace the modern world with your stab at "causes" of US Iran tension. The news out of Iran suggests otherwise, among a great deal of the public.

I also think you are selectively ignoring a great deal of Islamic Revolutionary rhetoric of the early 1980's.

DR

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Can you please explain why you dropped in the matter of the Shah coming to power to explain Iran of today?

It's the 900 lb gorilla in the room when discussing American/Iranian relations. I'm not assigning complete blame to past American foreign policy for conditions today; I'm simply pointing out a significant factor in the climate of mutual distrust.

Quote:

You seem to presume a universal antipathy among Persians, et al, to embrace the modern world with your stab at "causes" of US Iran tension. The news out of Iran suggests otherwise, among a great deal of the public.

Not really. I'm trying - perhaps unsuccessfully - to rationally analyze the actions, rhetoric and behaviour of the Iranian regime...not its people. IMO, whatever grassroots inclinations towards western-style modernity that exist in Iran are not being helped by the current American approach.

Quote:

I also think you are selectively ignoring a great deal of Islamic Revolutionary rhetoric of the early 1980's.

How much of this was blowback from the policy of regime change that helped bring the Shah to power? Would these elements of Iranian society have been marginalized had the Mossadegh government been allowed to stand? These are unanswerable questions, but I feel that modernity had a chance to flourish in Iran in the 50's and America played a role in crushing it.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by D'rok the Lacone

How much of this was blowback from the policy of regime change that helped bring the Shah to power? Would these elements of Iranian society have been marginalized had the Mossadegh government been allowed to stand? These are unanswerable questions, but I feel that modernity had a chance to flourish in Iran in the 50's and America played a role in crushing it.

The Shah was big on modernization, which is part of what caused social blowback. To pretend that "democracy" was going to sustain itself in the mid 1950's in Iran is to make a lot of assumptions about the character of Iran and its neighbors. The reaction to the speed of modernization that one saw in Iran was called by some "future shock."

The rate of modernization, which is indeed a problem for many cultures, is not confined to the Persian culture.

DR

[yinyinwang]

Originally Posted by D'rok the Lacone

Can you source that claim about Iranian soldiers in Iraq? You don't mean the consular officials that were there on the invitation of the Iraqi government do you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_atta...ffice_in_Arbil

About the other thing...I assume that you are talking about al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army. Do you really think that the Shia leaders (such as al-Sadr and al-Sistani) and militias are the insurgency? I think you'll find that they are, relatively speaking, forces of moderation in Iraq. This is in their interests because the American invasion has overthrown the Sunni minority that repressively ruled the country and has handed control of the country to the Shia majority. Al-Sadr wants the Americans out so the Shia can get on with the business of consolidating their power. This is also in Iran's interests. Al-Sistani and al-Sadr are influenced by Iran, but their actions have been primarily political and rhetorical (Najaf being the obvious exception). In fact, al-Sistani has consistently stepped in to broker peace and call for calm whenever tensions have gotten out of hand.

To put it simply, Iranian backed Shia factions in Iraq resist American occupation primarily through political action. The active insurgency consists mostly of the displaced Sunni minority.

Invading Iraq has ultimately served Iran's interests, not America's.

You don't think kidnapping British soldiers in Iraqi water were just rumors, do you?
The IEDs are highly sophisticated, you don't think a bunch of "displaced" insurgency can do it, do you?
Al Qaeda is operating there too, not just Sunnis.
Iran certainly wants that way and you better wish them good luck.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

The more I read threads like this the more convinced I am that there are a lot of people who don't know diddly about:
1. Iran
2. The Middle East
3. International Relations
4. Realpolitik
5. The limitations of American military power

What is most disconcerting is that some of these people are or might wind up making decisions in Washington rather than call talk radio shows or post to the Internet.

This is most disconcerting? Moreso than Iran having nukes?

Interesting thought process.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by SezMe

It is a simple-minded question. The USSR had been in decline for decades trying to be a super-power while much of the nation existed in third-world conditions. We didn't win the cold war, they lost it - and the distinction is important.

Containment, combined with ratcheting up the technology to demonstrate freedom-based capitalism can grossly outproduce a command-and-control dictatorship isn't a win?

Quote:

Surely you don't hold the notion that Reagan saying, "Tear down that wall" really brought the cold war to an end. No, it was years of many complex world factors that lead to its collapse. The same thing would have happened had someone other than Reagan been President.

No, it would not necessarily have. I can easily conceive a continuation of Carter and the like keeping a lot less pressure on them.

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by yinyinwang

You don't think kidnapping British soldiers in Iraqi water were just rumors, do you?

Non sequitur. Your claim was that Iranian soldiers were captured in Iraq.

Quote:

The IEDs are highly sophisticated, you don't think a bunch of "displaced" insurgency can do it, do you?

I'm quite confident that military ordinance expertise exists natively in Iraq. They wouldn't have had much luck in the Iran/Iraq war without it. If you are going to make the claim that some weapons used by the insurgency contain parts manufactured in Iran and therefore Iran is culpable, then the American arms industry has much to answer for - perhaps the Lebanese should blame America when Israel bombards them with American weapons eh? (Hint...the answer is no).

Quote:

Al Qaeda is operating there too, not just Sunnis.

Al Qaeda is Sunni.

Quote:

Iran certainly wants that way and you better wish them good luck.

Luck has nothing to do with it. Blundering foolishness masquerading as American foreign policy does.

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

The Shah was big on modernization, which is part of what caused social blowback. To pretend that "democracy" was going to sustain itself in the mid 1950's in Iran is to make a lot of assumptions about the character of Iran and its neighbors. The reaction to the speed of modernization that one saw in Iran was called by some "future shock."

The rate of modernization, which is indeed a problem for many cultures, is not confined to the Persian culture.

DR

I claimed that democracy had a chance to sustain itself. That chance was extinguished with American help. Perhaps it may have been extinguished without such help, but that does not justify the intervention or make it any less relevant to current relations.

[yinyinwang]

Originally Posted by D'rok the Lacone

I'm quite confident that military ordinance expertise exists natively in Iraq. They wouldn't have had much luck in the Iran/Iraq war without it. If you are going to make the claim that some weapons used by the insurgency contain parts manufactured in Iran and therefore Iran is culpable, then the American arms industry has much to answer for - perhaps the Lebanese should blame America when Israel bombards them with American weapons eh? (Hint...the answer is no).

They should blame Iran for their money and rockets in Lebanon.

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by yinyinwang

They should blame Iran for their money and rockets in Lebanon.

Is everything Iran's fault? I think you need a new bogeyman:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Hmmm...can't seem to get the embedded video working. Oh well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeJsYWj5vto

[Soapy Sam]

Just a tiny reminder.

Iran (or as it used to be known "Persia", is not an Arab country.
The majority language is Farsi, not Arabic.
Most Iranians get at least as annoyed at being called "Arab" as Canadians do at being called "American" or vice versa.
Persia was a rather civilised place not only before America was known to Europe, but also before anyone ever heard of Allah.

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Beerina

Containment, combined with ratcheting up the technology to demonstrate freedom-based capitalism can grossly outproduce a command-and-control dictatorship isn't a win?

No. The US has a vast advantage over the USSR in resources. They barely have enough cropland to feed themselves. The collapse of Russian Communism may have actually been because the government was not adhering to socialist principals and distributing the limited wealth. Neither has the collapse of communism made Russia a particularly wonderful place. It is questionable indeed as to whether it was an overall net benefit for the world.

Originally Posted by Beerina

No, it would not necessarily have. I can easily conceive a continuation of Carter and the like keeping a lot less pressure on them.

I'm sure you can concieve it, but I seriously doubt it would have made any difference. The USSR imploded, it wasn't crushed. I suspect globalism had more to do with it than anything else. McDonald's did more to change Russia than McDonnell Douglas.

[yinyinwang]

Originally Posted by D'rok the Lacone

Is everything Iran's fault? I think you need a new bogeyman:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Hmmm...can't seem to get the embedded video working. Oh well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeJsYWj5vto

To your disappointment it is the fact.

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by yinyinwang

To your disappointment it is the fact.

If your arguments are any indication, I don't think facts greatly concern you.

[yinyinwang]

Originally Posted by D'rok the Lacone

If your arguments are any indication, I don't think facts greatly concern you.

O really, so the Iranian money and rockets in Lebanon are not facts, I invented it, if the facts do not favor you, blame the fact and the one who use it, that is what you have been doing.

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by yinyinwang

O really, so the Iranian money and rockets in Lebanon are not facts, I invented it,

You'll have to explain to me how Iran is to blame for Israel's actions. I may just be slow, but I think you missed the point of my analogy.

Quote:

if the facts do not favor you, blame the fact and the one who use it, that is what you have been doing.

I'm still waiting for some evidence to back up your claims that:
1. Iranian soldiers were captured in Iraq
2. Iran is behind the insurgency in Iraq
3. Al Qaeda is not Sunni
4. Sunni insurgents cannot make IED's without Iran's help.
4a. Implied by 4. That Iran, the center of Shia Islam, would materially aid the Sunni insurgency. These folks are also blowing up Shia neighbourhoods. Your assertion is about as likely as claiming that English Protestants materially aided the IRA.

If you present facts that support these assertions, I will retract my statements appropriately.

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by Tricky

No. The US has a vast advantage over the USSR in resources. They barely have enough cropland to feed themselves. The collapse of Russian Communism may have actually been because the government was not adhering to socialist principals and distributing the limited wealth. Neither has the collapse of communism made Russia a particularly wonderful place. It is questionable indeed as to whether it was an overall net benefit for the world.


I'm sure you can concieve it, but I seriously doubt it would have made any difference. The USSR imploded, it wasn't crushed. I suspect globalism had more to do with it than anything else. McDonald's did more to change Russia than McDonnell Douglas.

Don't forget about Mr. Gorbachev. If there is any argument to be made about the effects of leadership, Gorbachev's actions would make the most compelling case.

[yinyinwang]

Originally Posted by D'rok the Lacone

You'll have to explain to me how Iran is to blame for Israel's actions. I may just be slow, but I think you missed the point of my analogy.

Because Iran wants to wipe Israel out, am I right?

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by Tricky

You are right, that it boils down to semantics, so really the statement that started this derail can be interpreted almost any way you like.

Which is exactly the point I wanted our little debate to bring forth. Word usage, how those words are defined, and the pre-conceived notions of what certain words and phrases might mean, can play a huge role in shaping the course of a discussion on an issue. If there isn't some measure of common agreement as to what certain terms mean, the chances for misunderstaning go up considerably.

Originally Posted by Tricky

In any case, I would strongly advise the US not to engage in any sort of massive destruction in Iran, especially since they have done nothing that justifies such actions.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc

But, you're forgetting that the U.S. singlehandedly saved the universe from fascism...

The Commonwealth nations and Russia would, I suspect, strongly disagree with the assertion that the Nazi regime was defeated "singlehandedly" by the U.S. I also note that I don't recall anyone putting forth that claim.

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc

...and that everything the U.S. did during the course of WWII was a necessary part of the omnipotent FDR's plan. Nuking Japanese civilians was morally correctly by virtue of having been done by the winners of the war.

Having won the war has no bearing, in my view, on the morality, or lack thereof, of dropping the atomic bombs on Japan. A rational case can be made that such attacks were entirely justified and appropriate. I would also ask about what the substantive distinction is between atomic and non-atomic bombs being dropped, since sufficient numbers of the latter are quite capable of killing large numbers of people.

[yinyinwang]

Originally Posted by D'rok the Lacone

I'm still waiting for some evidence to back up your claims that:
1. Iranian soldiers were captured in Iraq
2. Iran is behind the insurgency in Iraq
3. Al Qaeda is not Sunni
4. Sunni insurgents cannot make IED's without Iran's help.
4a. Implied by 4. That Iran, the center of Shia Islam, would materially aid the Sunni insurgency. These folks are also blowing up Shia neighbourhoods. Your assertion is about as likely as claiming that English Protestants materially aided the IRA.

If you present facts that support these assertions, I will retract my statements appropriately.

I wish I have the time to dig up all the facts for you.

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by yinyinwang

Because Iran wants to wipe Israel out

Even if this was correct (it isn't), how would this make Iran responsible for Israel's actions?

Quote:

am I right?

No, you are not right:

"Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, translates the Persian phrase as:

The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).

According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian" and "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly:
[T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.

Iran has repeatedly rejected the allegations that Ahmadinejad has stated 'Israel must be wiped off the map'. On 20 February 2006, Iran’s foreign minister denied that Tehran wanted to see Israel “wiped off the map,” saying Ahmadinejad had been misunderstood. "Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned," Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference, speaking in English, after addressing the European Parliament. "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognise legally this regime," he said."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud...jad_and_Israel

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

The Commonwealth nations and Russia would, I suspect, strongly disagree with the assertion that the Nazi regime was defeated "singlehandedly" by the U.S. I also note that I don't recall anyone putting forth that claim.

I think your sarcasm detector might be on the fritz.

[yinyinwang]

Originally Posted by D'rok the Lacone

Even if this was correct (it isn't), how would this make Iran responsible for Israel's actions?

No, you are not right:
[/url]

So Iran is not responsible for its aggressive action to wipe Israel out, Israel should be responsible for its self-defence.

[yinyinwang]

O really, so the Iranian money and rockets in Lebanon are not facts, I invented it.

If you do not accept this is a fact.
Providing facts for you is just wast of time.

[Drysdale]

Originally Posted by D'rok the Lacone

Even if this was correct (it isn't), how would this make Iran responsible for Israel's actions?

No, you are not right:

"Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, translates the Persian phrase as:

The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).

According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian" and "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly:
[T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.

Iran has repeatedly rejected the allegations that Ahmadinejad has stated 'Israel must be wiped off the map'. On 20 February 2006, Iran’s foreign minister denied that Tehran wanted to see Israel “wiped off the map,” saying Ahmadinejad had been misunderstood. "Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned," Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference, speaking in English, after addressing the European Parliament. "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognise legally this regime," he said."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud...jad_and_Israel

Geez, talk about semantics.

So me saying "I'm going to stop your heart from beating", doesnt necessarily mean I'm going to kill you? Wow, I've seen stretches to make a point but this is up there.

And Cole isn't a guy I think I'd hang my hat on. His reputation is spotty to say the least.

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by yinyinwang

So Iran is not responsible for its aggressive action to wipe Israel out, Israel should be responsible for its self-defence.

You're really going to have to start backing this stuff up with some secondary sources. Iran is aggressively trying to wipe Israel out? Good grief. I have news for you....Israel has the preponderance of power in the region. Iran could no more wipe out Israel than Mexico could wipe out the USA, and Iran knows it. For crying out loud, Israel has an arsenal of nukes, a fleet F-15's, F-16's and Apache helicopters, communications satellites, missile defense systems and other hi-tech weaponry, and a professional fighting force (IDF). And then there's the material and tactical aid from America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli...e_and_manpower

Israel defeated the combined forces of Egypt, Jordan and Syria in six days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

You're going to have to do better than that.

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

Which is exactly the point I wanted our little debate to bring forth. Word usage, how those words are defined, and the pre-conceived notions of what certain words and phrases might mean, can play a huge role in shaping the course of a discussion on an issue. If there isn't some measure of common agreement as to what certain terms mean, the chances for misunderstaning go up considerably.

It would indeed be useful, but it become so cumbersome to have to define specifics of what you mean when you make a general statement. The first impulse is to go for the literal meaning, which is why metaphors like "corner to corner" are somewhat chancy to use in political discussions.

I have heard that French is the language that is often used in diplomacy because they so jealously guard their language from foreign intrusion and modernization that it is much more difficult to be misunderstood. Of course, it takes forever to say anything.

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

I would also ask about what the substantive distinction is between atomic and non-atomic bombs being dropped, since sufficient numbers of the latter are quite capable of killing large numbers of people.

An excellent point. Conventional bombs are weapons of mass destruction if you have enough of them, and one cannister of nerve gas is not a weapon of mass destruction.

[yinyinwang]

Originally Posted by D'rok the Lacone

You're really going to have to start backing this stuff up with some secondary sources. Iran is aggressively trying to wipe Israel out? Good grief. I have news for you....Israel has the preponderance of power in the region. Iran could no more wipe out Israel than Mexico could wipe out the USA, and Iran knows it. For crying out loud, Israel has an arsenal of nukes, a fleet F-15's, F-16's and Apache helicopters, communications satellites, missile defense systems and other hi-tech weaponry, and a professional fighting force (IDF). And then there's the material and tactical aid from America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli...e_and_manpower

Israel defeated the combined forces of Egypt, Jordan and Syria in six days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

You're going to have to do better than that.

What military force has Al Qaeda got, they attacked US, by your analogy, it was something no one will think about. But it is a fact.

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by Drysdale

So me saying "I'm going to stop your heart from beating", doesnt necessarily mean I'm going to kill you?

That certainly sounds like you mean to kill me, and if Ahmadinejad had said something like that you might have a point. Now if you had said "I wish you had never been born", or even "I wish your heart would stop beating", I might be offended but I would be much less likely to assume that you actually intended to kill me.

Do you see the difference? It may be semantics, but semantics are important in the political rhetoric of war. I would not preemptively try to kill you for either of these two statements, however reprehensible their sentiments may be.

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by yinyinwang

What military force has Al Qaeda got, they attacked US, by your analogy, it was something no one will think about. But it is a fact.

I don't understand what you are saying here or how it relates in any way to what I said. Al Qaeda has no military force to speak of, they attacked the US, and everyone thinks about it. In fact, some even think about it so much that they use it justify utterly unrelated military adventurism.


ETA: Are you somehow trying to equivocate Al Qaeda's attack on America with some imagined action of Iran against Israel? That's the best I can come up with given your post.

[Drysdale]

Originally Posted by D'rok the Lacone

That certainly sounds like you mean to kill me, and if Ahmadinejad had said something like that you might have a point. Now if you had said "I wish you had never been born", or even "I wish your heart would stop beating", I might be offended but I would be much less likely to assume that you actually intended to kill me.

Do you see the difference? It may be semantics, but semantics are important in the political rhetoric of war. I would not preemptively try to kill you for either of these two statements, however reprehensible their sentiments may be.

I honestly dont know what he really said, so unless you speak Arabic or whatever Ahmadinejad speaks, chances are though you dont either. I've read where he did say Israel needs to be wiped off the map, and thats from the Al Jazeera website which should know what he said I'd think.

Cole is giving his own translation of what he said, I think I'll take Al Jazeera's interpretation over Coles.