Iran will do military exercise on how to close Strait of Hormuz

Status
Not open for further replies.
If it were up to me, I would, but then what would it be, "The Government of the Jewish State"?

Bush was not a regime he was a president(If it was called the U.S. of Bush you might have a point), we don't believe we own this land out of birth right, we know we took it, there's a difference.

IRAQ is a good point, but it's a puppet government.

According to the Republicans, Obama is a regime, according the the liberals, Bush was a regime. Regime has negative connotations attached to it but all it means is the governing body. Bush and his administration would be a regime, Obama and his administration would be a regime.

anyhoo.
 
If it were up to me, I would, but then what would it be, "The Government of the Jewish State"?

Bush was not a regime he was a president(If it was called the U.S. of Bush you might have a point), we don't believe we own this land out of birth right, we know we took it, there's a difference.

IRAQ is a good point, but it's a puppet government. (EDIT: And it is not defined by a people/religion)

lol what? Iran has President too.

I think you're just confused with words because of stereotype attached to it.
 
lol what? Iran has President too.

I think you're just confused with words because of stereotype attached to it.


We don't call it the United States of Americans, it's called the United States of America (a location) its government is created by the people not because of it.

Iran is a location primarily composed of Arabs and it's run by a religion, however, it's people are not defined by the religion they are defined by its location, it is not called Islam of Iran or Iran of Islam or Shiite.

The Jewish State of Israel is defined by its people who are identified by a nationality that is a religion, it can't be the united Arab/Jewish states because then it wouldn't be a Jewish State. If you get rid of the government in Israel you get rid of The State of Israel because it is no longer the Jewish State.

It sounds confusing because it is confusing, not because it's not true.

Ask someone who is Jewish if you changed the government of Israel if would it still be Israel?

You believe you could change the government and it would still exist. In any other case I might agree, but I do not believe that it would.
 
Last edited:
According to the Republicans, Obama is a regime, according the the liberals, Bush was a regime. Regime has negative connotations attached to it but all it means is the governing body. Bush and his administration would be a regime, Obama and his administration would be a regime.

anyhoo.

If you mean the people who currently control the government, how would that apply to a monarchy? If one king dies does the regime change?

If so, what you are saying is Iran just wants only the current people removed and we know that is NOT the case. Iran wants the entire power structure removed.

So, your argument cannot be regime change using that logic.
 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acnEIUKI7_Y&feature=player_embedded]Racial segregation in Israeli schools - YouTube[/ame]

Why the heck anyone supports Israel is beyond me.
 
If you mean the people who currently control the government, how would that apply to a monarchy? If one king dies does the regime change?

If so, what you are saying is Iran just wants only the current people removed and we know that is NOT the case. Iran wants the entire power structure removed.

So, your argument cannot be regime change using that logic.

There are five political parties in Israel...the one in power IS the regime because it's the governing body...the one in power, the one who makes decisions.

"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.

Certainly, Ahmadinejad translates this quotation about a change of regime into the occupied Palestine. This has to be legitimate. To long for modified political conditions in a country is a world-wide day-to-day business by all means. But to commute a demand for removal of a 'regime' into a demand for removal of a state is serious deception and dangerous demagogy"

The US overthrew Iran's democratic government in the 60s when Iran wanted to nationalize their own oil and then set up a puppet government, the Shah who was autocractic. The Shah got overthrown by Khomeini. Suddenly no one is looking after US' interests in iranian oil so what happened next? US put Saddam in power then funded his war against Iran and at the same time, funded an uprising in Iran against the Khomeini.

You can imagine, with this history, why Iran does not like the US. And now that the US played a role in establishing Israel that resulted in displacing the Palestine and this has been an ongoing conflict for decades with US' support, Iran wants them both out of the Mid-East if their politics continue to be detrimental to the stability of the Mid-East.

Essentially, Iran would like Israel and the US to change their policies to promote a more stable mid-East. That's ultimately what it's about.
 
Essentially, Iran would like Israel and the US to change their policies to promote a more stable mid-East. That's ultimately what it's about.

When the U.S. changes a regime, like it did in Iran and Iraq, the entire power structure is uprooted and the government dissolved. If the president of Iran means (and I think he does) a regime change in that sense you are correct.

Do you actually believe the president of Iran, who supports factions whose constitutions explicitly deny and sometimes call for the destruction of Israel, only wants, "policy" changes?

You are correct, he never said to wipe out Israel because he only wants it removed and by that removal he means gone.

Sometimes what is actually said is really implied. It's like being in NY, "It is what it is".
 
When the U.S. changes a regime, like it did in Iran and Iraq, the entire power structure is uprooted and the government dissolved. If the president of Iran means (and I think he does) a regime change in that sense you are correct.

Do you actually believe the president of Iran, who supports factions whose constitutions explicitly deny and sometimes call for the destruction of Israel, only wants, "policy" changes?

You are correct, he never said to wipe out Israel because he only wants it removed and by that removal he means gone.

Sometimes what is actually said is really implied. It's like being in NY, "It is what it is".

Can you show me any documentation proving this? "Do you actually believe the president of Iran, who supports factions whose constitutions explicitly deny and sometimes call for the destruction of Israel, only wants, "policy" changes? "

Furthermore, Iran is against Zionism, not Israel.

here's another article talking about how words got lost in translation and it's very interesting.

http://antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025

The whole "wiped off the map" came from this one sentence:

"The Proof:

The full quote translated directly to English:

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

Word by word translation:

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

Here is the full transcript of the speech in Farsi, archived on Ahmadinejad's web site

The Speech and Context:

While the false "wiped off the map" extract has been repeated infinitely without verification, Ahmadinejad's actual speech itself has been almost entirely ignored. Given the importance placed on the "map" comment, it would be sensible to present his words in their full context to get a fuller understanding of his position. In fact, by looking at the entire speech, there is a clear, logical trajectory leading up to his call for a "world without Zionism." One may disagree with his reasoning, but critical appraisals are infeasible without first knowing what that reasoning is."

In his speech, Ahmadinejad declares that Zionism is the West's apparatus of political oppression against Muslims. He says the "Zionist regime" was imposed on the Islamic world as a strategic bridgehead to ensure domination of the region and its assets. Palestine, he insists, is the frontline of the Islamic world's struggle with American hegemony, and its fate will have repercussions for the entire Middle East.

Ahmadinejad acknowledges that the removal of America's powerful grip on the region via the Zionists may seem unimaginable to some, but reminds the audience that, as Khomeini predicted, other seemingly invincible empires have disappeared and now only exist in history books. He then proceeds to list three such regimes that have collapsed, crumbled or vanished, all within the last 30 years..."

It's really important ones know what was actually said before leaping to conclusions.
 
Of course we do that same thing, do you think we would let Iran out do us?

do you know what our "Fast and Furious" operation is? We supplied our military-grade weapons to Mexican drug cartels and then we blamed our gun stores and gun laws as scapegoats for bloodbaths in Mexico.
 
Here is one, if you want 20 more let me know:
Israel detains ship loaded with weapons - CNN.com

"Ben Yehuda said there were enough weapons to keep Hezbollah fighting for a month though he offered no direct evidence to substantiate the claim that the weapons were bound for Hezbollah."

Hezbollah was first created as a resistance movement to Israel's invasion of Lebanon. then it stayed in place to make sure Lebanon didn't get colonized by France or the US.

You can see why Israel is not popular in the mid-East, they displaced the Palestines, invaded Egypt, invaded Lebanon, launched pre-emptive strikes on Syria, Egypt and Jordan, and did not comply to an UN-brokered agreement to return Golan Heights to Syria.

this might give one an idea why Israel is not popular in the Mid-East. Israel failed to comply with restoring some land to palestine and to syria. It was the Mid-East who was willing to reach peaceful agreements with Israel based on Israel's promise to comply with reverting back to 1967 borderlines (which is what Obama is pushing for now) but when Israel refused, hostilities arose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top