NEWS: Coming Soon: War With Iran

like it is mentioned above in a differant post by someone else, there is more than one insurgency group in Iraq, and not all of them are funded by Iran, the reason that the sunni's are more active is because they are more or less fighting for their survival in a nation that is dominated and controlled by shi'as more loyal to Iran than anyone else

and also, as a side not to anyone who thinks Iran is the biggest problem in the mid-east, it may be that way to america, but keep in mind that the only time there was relative peace was when persians were in control, and yes, I realize that was ethnocentric

but also, keep in mind that Iran was the only one that actively opposed the taliban in afghanistan and the only one who supplied the Northern Alliance (that was headed by a Persian) with funds and arms until the US decided to step in and undermine Iran

Iran has time and time again offered to assist the US in helping with Iraq and Afghanistan, and has extended its hand in diplomacy many a time, tell me who the one at fault is here?

This just in.

Link

More details..

The talk about attacking Iran appears to be only about destroying centrifuges, and also it would take at least a year and probably 3-8 years for Iran to make one single bomb.

Link

Every expert I've heard discuss an attack to take out the centrifuges has said it will not be possible to take them out with bombs. Seems the Iranians learned somthing when the Israelis last bombed them. They put their shit deep in the earth, surrounded by lots of cement and steel.

This has been discussed ad nauseum on this site, so I'll just leave it at this:

If we end up attacking Iran, I'm moving elsewhere.

Will you really, Mr. Alec Baldwin?

Yes, I will. Think I'm kidding? Just wait. I'll be posting from Djibouti.

In fairness, he's probably thinking of the Shahnameh (or something similar), but yeah, you're correct.

I'd so be all over that. That would just about make my life!

was meaning to say destined for war but not in specific Iran. tension is building ever so steadily. just my opinion though

well to an extent, they're both right

it's not so much that we paint pictures with words, it's just the way we say things can't be directly translated, and the closest translations, such as "isreal needs to be wiped off the map" doesn't fully convey the meaning of the original

Oh I totally get that. I mean, I've read a lot of German philosophy and I've been told by a philosopher who speaks German that you're just not going to grasp the nuance unless you learn to read and understand the German language (I had trouble with some of the conceptions). There's translation issues between any language. There are some cultures for instance that don't even have a word for "lightning" or "thunder", so how do you deal with that?

And I think you're pretty much agreeing with me and oyaji. "Painting pictures" sounds like poetry or imagery that may be associated with epic poetry or literature in general, but not necessarily as a mode of communication. Thus, my reference to the Shahnameh. I'm not discounting what FearTheReaper said by any means either. I'm sure when his friend was discussing the issue that linguistic specificity was not at issue and that it was more of a generalization of the language (a metaphor if you will to describe issues in technical transcription).

I am not a big fan of the Mexican government. I would be all over it if I thoujgh the other government had a half-ass good record on the rights of individuals, but Mexico does not.

I might still for economic reasons if some of my business ideas pan out. (So I can own land in Mexico more than IIRC 100 km south of the US border.)

How about just for a year long vacation?

And I don't agree with our government now, but I haven't revoked my own citizenship (not yet anyway).

To shed some light on the issues with translation and what-not, I've linked two articles that I find pertinent.
first:?Does Iran's President really mean what they say?

next:Propaganda Machines

That seems to be a common problem we have in teh States--like when Chavez allegedly said that he wanted to bring the US government down. In most parts of the world, the word "government" means the current administration, i.e. the prime minister and her/his cabinet in parliamentary systems. I don't think that Chavez really meant that he wanted to bring down our venerable Constitution--I think he meant what we often refer to as "The Bush Regime." But the mistranslation works perfectly with our propaganda machine and so it's never challenged in the mainstream media.

So in a nutshell, you are saying to expect a war because Bush's buddies will lose the next election?

This is the major reason why i stopped voting over 20 years a go (yes, I am that old). Politicians sadly live for money and power; seemingly not to do the wishes, needs or desires of the people who they represent.

Send Bush and his buddies off to Iraq instead of those Fleets, Planes, and Troops; things will end quietly and the world can have some peace, atleast for a little while...