Originally Posted by tonton
Segovius? Would you mind if I passed you the torch? Exactly. And that's one thing that's wrong with the US.
Actually it sounds like the brave words of a expat who would be thousands of miles from any threat.
Actually, I'd say they are pretty good analogies, becaue they drive the point home. Until Iran builds a nuclear weapon, they do not have a nuclear weapon. They're nowhere close to building a nuclear weapon now, and we'd know it unambiguously if they were.
Do you understand that the difference in weapons grade and power generation grade uranium is only in how much it has been enriched? Sorry but your statements here seem to lack that understanding. Reactor grade uranium only needs to be enriched to 3-4%. Going beyond that has no power generating purpose. NONE. The second they claim the ability and demonstrate they have gone beyond that, which they have by the way, it is only for one purpose. You do not need weapons grade enrichment to generate power.
"Don't deal in the intent game?" Are you kidding? Your entire premise is built on second-guessing Iran's intent!
I noted Iran's actions, not their intent. Declaring that enrichment above the level necessary for power generation is innocuous until proven otherwise when it has no legitimate purpose, isn't discussing intentions. They already have taken action by installing the centrifuges and declaring they have achieved the result.
If they were planning on doing it secretly, do you think they would announce it? They are responding to threats with a "back off!"
The fact that your entire premise is based upon second-gussing Iran's intent only hammers home the point of your hypocrisy.
Yes they would announce it. Part of their government holding power involves fear. Iran is very close to having the religious elements tossed from power. There is a very strong rebellion in Iran that could move the country in a more modern and moderate direction. That would be impossible if the current leadership gets a nuclear weapon. Then it would become a dictatorship because no one need give up an office when they have a bomb instead of some rifles to hold that power in place. Look at North Korea for an example of this.
And no one needs to threaten other sovereign countries with attack when they aren't doing anything wrong.
Ya think? Ya think maybe they're trying to tell the West to fuck off?
Clearly you do not understand that enrichment above a certain percent automatically classifies them as "doing (something) wrong."
And if the US again takes illegal unilateral action, it will speak plenty.
Indeed it might get Obama reelected and given his current poll numbers you might have to start calling him a preemptive warmonger. It is only hypocrisy now that stops such claims considering his surge in Afghanistan, increased military spending, no closing of GB, etc.
You might have a point if I didn't agree completely that Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's foreign policy is wacko right-wing.
Ooh! A violation! Let's nuke 'em before they cross against a red light!
Venom aside, you should do some reading on enrichment. Iran already has all the capability to prove nuclear power for it's people. Going beyond that is simply a ruse. It isn't an intention because there is no other outcome for the already undertaken actions.
Yeah, there re no bodies to count yet, so let's get the game started! Dead bodies, yeah! As long as they are ragheads! ♪♫Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran!♬♪ Sounds like a catchy tune!
More racism (obviously to protect from racism by the wonderful reasoning here.) It isn't surprising given the source.
Originally Posted by tonton
Iran: "Hey, guys, listen, we don't want nuclear weapons. We have a right to nuclear power."
West: "If you had the capability to enrich weapons grade uranium now, you'd have a nuclear weapon now! That's all that's stopping you!"
Iran: "We have that capability, and we still don't want a nuclear weapon."
West: "Hey!!!!! Look!!!!! Iran is capable of enriching weapons grade uranium!!!! They're building a bomb! Nuke em first!"
This shows a real lack of understanding. Let's fix it.
Iran: Hey guys, even while sitting on massive oil reserves and having plenty of energy, we need nuclear power. We have a right to nuclear power.
West: No problem, the enrichment level for power generation is 4%. You can install the equipment and we will monitor the creation of 4% enrichment uranium.
Iran: Hey, btw, we forgot to mention it but we have this new enrichment facility that you didn't know about and also these new centrifuges that we installed. We'd also like to let you know we have 20% enriched uranium.
West: That is a problem. That could produce a dirty nuke and isn't necessary for power generation.
Iran: Well we think it is and we need power for our people.
West: 4% gets you power and the reality is that even with inspections happening this has occurred.
Iran: Hey 20%, it's just a nice round number for us. We announced it as such for... well because it was a happy announcement.
West: Everyone agree on sanctions yet?
Originally Posted by tonton
To argue that that is a threat is just insane and not reasonable.
Your interpretation is a threat simply because you WANT it to be to justify your intended actions.
You can argue with the made up quotes all you want.
Originally Posted by segovius
Even Trumpt admits there was no word 'map'.
And even Trumpt will have to admit there has been saturation coverage of the phrase 'wiped off the map'.
So (you would hope) that Trumpt will have to admit that 'wiped of map' is at best an ignorant mist-translaition and mistake and at worst a continued lie,From here it should be a short leap to ask the question: "if the original unaltered quote IS actually a threat then why mis-tranlslate and adjust it and disseminate the false adjusted quote?"
Why not just give out the REAL original non-map quote if it is such a threat...then no-one would have anything to argue about.
They transformed into 'wipe off map' because in its original form Ahemedinejad's words were not a threat and 'wipe off map' is.
It's Iraq all over again and I think that we all know that.
Enjoy your short leaps, illogical though they may be. There are about five "admits" in there all with progressive leaps from the first leap. Read your writing again. You forgive the first leap, and then each sentence is a progressive leap to get to your own position.
My reasoning stands and does not need the word map to make it stand so. Talk of wiping off/away a country, be it from a map or pages of time, or anything of that nature constitutes a threat. The backfill and spin on it won't alter that conclusion.