While stoneric's wording may have been badly chosen I still found it understandable what his overall point was. He clarified it nicely with the sentence that followed the one in question. "And neither did Iran threaten to wipe israel off the map. It was all about regime change." One of the reasons I find context important to establish when analyzing quotes.
You raise a valid point JcP, that logically following the wording he was indeed incorrect. I just think this is a technicality on the side, the overall message was understandable.
Given this, his following reason (in conjunction with your own) do make, in my mind, a reasonable point:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stoneric
The links you provided have israel only threatening military action. ahmadinejad just talks in riddles and doesn't control the military anyway.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JcP
I find the most vocal spokesperson for the Iranians a pretty important source for threats.
|
We must recognize that Ahmadinejad is a political figure. As such an incredible amount of rhetoric is to be expected. That rhetoric is, as rhetoric is designed to do, meant to play to the emotions of the population in specific instances to foster support for their agenda in general. Interpreting the quote through this context can result in a vastly different conclusion than one gained through another lens. A person can and does manipulate this context to their desires.
We are then looking at a consideration that can be taken. Military figures threatening military action in specific, detailed ways, implies a vastly different context than a political figure speaking rhetorically to an audience. And though I would hope it goes without being said, I have been disappointed... Therefore, this by no means dismisses the threat that such quotations as Ahmadinejad's can represent.
There is then validity in both of your arguments. We are faced again with the importance of context.
Now on to the matter of when is war OK? Tough... As there is a tremendous amount of variables in play. We have to consider that war or just violence in general has been a method of conflict resolution for ages. It is arguably one of if not the oldest methods. It also was present long before conflict resolution as a means to survive, to get food. We are forced then to consider the use of violence or war against us and the consequences of such a situation.
In an idealistic world war is unnecessary, being superseded by the more modern methods of conflict resolution: conversation, diplomacy, compromise, cooperation, etc. Much needs to be done in order for such an event to occur, however I firmly refuse to believe it is not very possible. There is no OK in war. War is wrong, war is to be avoided, war is a horrible travesty of human integration. All attempts should be made to make sure that war is left at the wayside on our species tour of this tiny planet. Until that is done, I find it hard to believe we can consider ourselves civilized...
I enjoyed what Porcelain said on the subject, it rings with a lot of truth. The level of consequence associated with war and it's modern manifestation has raised to such an outrageous level. It is difficult to keep one's mind succumbing to apocalyptic fears in the face of nuclear war or even just nuclear deployment regardless of the official declaration of such an action. This only emphasizes the importance of war's removal from humanity's behavioral itinerary.
As has been said before and will again to be said many times more... War is a last resort. It is only to be used when your existence is threatened to the point of annihilation and there is no means available through which to pursue a resolution. In this sort of a situation I support and always will support self defense to whatever end it takes. I find it however incredibly difficult for me to tolerate the mishandling of a situation of such severity. Iraq in a sense a dynamic monument to this mishandling. It is amazing and depressing to me how people can excuse such a thing.