why should I believe ANYTHING about the President of Iran???

[LSK]

Why should I believe he actually said anything about wanting to wipe out Israel?

Why should I believe he is a nutcase that wants to destroy the west??

Given all the fucking bullshit that our CORPORATE media has spewed forth about Iraq that WAS NOT TRUE - why should I believe that Iran is a threat at all???

How do know if ANY OF IT IS TRUE?????

I dont believe Iran is run by a bunch of bloodthirsty madmen. I believe they just want to sell their fucking oil and are shitting in their pants that they become invaded just like Iraq was.

[info being]

1. I saw the speech where he said those things

Unless the translator was lying.

[LSK]

3. how do you know he isnt?

Where did you see the speech?

[TheWraith]

12. Yeah, because every translator employed by every news organization,

As well as every speaker of Farsi in the general population, is in on the conspiracy. Because that's what would be needed in order to cover up something like that.

[CJCRANE]

2. He said "wipe off the map".

A map is a piece of paper but the media spins it as though he said he wanted to nuke Israel.

He's never actually claimed to want nukes or nuke anyone.

[bdamomma]

13. he said

he needed it for nuclear power. we have the lunatics in office who invaded a innocent country, weapons of mass destruction none, Osama Bin Laden no, these are war criminals.

[whopis01]

4. kick n/t

[BlackHeart]

5. Iran is dangerous

but our screwing around with Iraq is going to make taking care of Iran difficult.

[LSK]

6. why?

Thanks for your well thought out reasoning and proof. Not.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seabeyond]

20. like iraq WAS (not is now) dangerous????? n/t

[rustydog]

7. You mean you don't believe Pentagon propagandistic news releases

You have some reason to doubt President Bush's intelligence sources?

Do you really believe Bush would use false intelligence information to justify a pre-emptive Nuclear strike against a nation that lacks the ability to attack the United States?

If you listen to Scott mcClellan...this Iran war talk is "wild speculation" by the media...McClellan would not lie to us would he?

I'm sure Bush would allow inspectors to complete their duties of ensuring the nuclear program in Iran meets international standards. He surely wouldn't order them out the claim Iran chased them out therefore we need to use bunker-busting nukes to preserve the security of America.

:sarcasm:

[tocqueville]

9. because plenty of independent media througout the world

are reporting it

[LSK]

10. lots of reports of Iraq's WMD program came from overseas

Did you miss the article in Rolling Stone magazine about the CIA planting stories in the Australian newspapers?

[tocqueville]

16. A lot of Iran information comes from Iran itself, Asian and Arabic

media. Asia Times gives excellent information about Iran for example.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page.html

the WH spin about Iraq could maybe work after 9/11 (and was mostly directed at the home front) but far more difficult to repeat. Other countries' media were more cautious, but of course reported Condi's and Colin's spin. Today it's another story. And today Bush has lost most of its credibility after the Iraq debacle and the internal one.

So when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is depicted the way he is, the sources are not (only) the WH. Read only :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad

And about Iran's WMDs, what I know of, nobody has said that they really had some. But the problem is (was) that they could acquire some, and the time period for that varies. In my opinion, what the EU and other countries are most concerned with a nuclear Iran, is not that Iran would use the stuff (more than in a political posture) but by the fact that other countries in the region (specially Egypt and Saudi-Arabia) would go nuclear in "self-defense". And THAT could mean real trouble.

[TheWraith]

11. You're succumbing to paranoia and a black/white mentality.

Just because one side of an argument is bad doesn't mean that the other side is good. In case you weren't aware, Iran really is run by the religious clerics, and they decide who gets to run for office. Pretending that they're all sweetness and light is silly, not to mention it's fodder for the wingnuts who want to say that Democrats are pro-Iran, or whatever other garbage.

Try reading the reports from Amnesty International and other watchdog groups. Or for that matter, check out the Iranian media--they're happy to report on their top man's statements.

[The Stranger]

14. But that really doesn't address the issue.

Even if Iran isn't "sweetness and light," that doesn't mean that we should drop nuclear weapons on them, obliterating their environment and poisoning innocent people there for thousands of years to come.

Talk about fucking black and white thinking!

[LSK]

15. it also doesnt mean that they are a threat or want war with us

[TheWraith]

17. Strawman much?

Did I say anything about launching nukes? No? Then you need to apologize. I addressed the issue--you're the one who's twisting things to fit your agenda.

[The Stranger]

18. What is it with this talk of an "agenda"?

As far as launching nukes, that is the point of the thread. And that is what the Bush regime is imminently considering. And that would be absolutely catastrophic for any number of reasons, and for everyone.

So trying to avoid this, claim "strawman," and demand an apology really doesn't quite do it.

[seabeyond]

19. especially hearing neutrals saying decade like they did before iraq

while bush is down to what, nuclear in 2 days????? same as iraq

little boy that cried wolfie