- Joined
- Jan 11, 2012
- Messages
- 5,134
- Reaction score
- 6,123
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
The source is the absence of the US or UN declaration that Iran is a threat to the US.
Nonsense you refuse to provide a source.
The source is the absence of the US or UN declaration that Iran is a threat to the US.
Legal problem solved. Once they do so, it will be perceived by many as an admission Iran is making nukes. Obama or any future president would never be able to hold Israel back at that point. An attack on Iran by Israel would happen for certain. The US would probably join in. I prefer it as it stands, then an attack by anyone may not be happen at all.
Nonsense you refuse to provide a source.
Okay, I just completed a thorough search and found no declaration of military threat by the US or the UN. If you don't believe me, prove me wrong.
so, if iran withdraws from the NPT like israel, then it can develop nuclear weapons freely, like israel
Lots of countries have nukes, we have about 10,000 ourselves. All Obama has to do to hold Israel back is say, if you do it, you are on your own, you will get no further military assistance or financial aid from the US.
That was not my position at all I stated the Iranian Ambassador claimed as much.
Perhaps we have reached the end of this discussion.
I don't follow your reasoning. The US has attacked more nations in modern history than Iran. We have have even used nukes on civilian populations. No other nuclear state has done that.
I didn't disagree he said it, my point was that it was irrelevant as evidenced by the lack of an official statement from the US or the UN that Iran was a military threat to the US.
If you cannot provide proof the US or the UN has stated Iran is a military threat, then it would indeed appear to be the end of this discussion.
First I gotta say, I do find it funny that whenever someone tries to assert something (like this topic or SSM...JUST for example) they always limit history to "modern history", and then go back as far as they can for the worst offense.
Also the US has never used a nuclear weapon on anyone. They did use two Atom Bombs though. And yes there is a difference. One is a hell of a lot more powerful than the other. But that is being semantical so I'll just leave it at this.
Bold: Openly yes. But we do not know how many nations that Iran has attacked through various terrorist groups...like hezbollah. And yes, I do consider them directly responsible for each of Hezbollah's attacks.
In fact the last two NIE reports -- the consensus reports of our 16 intelligence services -- have concluded that Iran is NOT trying to develop a nuclear weapon. Odd how no one ever mentions that.
To what are your referring exactly? Our use of nukes on civilians was within our modern history.
Then you would also have to consider any actions by countries that received American aid to be the responsibility of the US.
But that is really unnecessary to make the point. The US alone has killed far more people in other countries than Iran and hezbollah combined. We killed a million in Vietnam alone.
In fact the last two NIE reports -- the consensus reports of our 16 intelligence services -- have concluded that Iran is NOT trying to develop a nuclear weapon. Odd how no one ever mentions that.
There is a huge difference between giving aid with the intent to help secure peace and feed people and giving aid with the intent to cause harm.
Lately I have doubted that number for Vietnam because of whats been happening with the death statistics with Iraq. Many people are trying to include the deaths caused by "insurgents" as the fault of the US. I wonder if the same thing happened with the Vietnam statistics.
Yeah, there would be if that were true. But in fact, most of our modern wars and attacks on other nations has been about world hegemony to make our fat rich people even richer.
I guess you are not old enough to remember, that unlike in Iraq, we actually counted our kills in Vietnam. But since that info was used by the anti-war movement to help end the war, the military stopped counting our kills.
Opinion only.
Yes I am too young. It ended a few short months before I was born.
I wish it was only my opinion, my country would have much less needless blood on its hands.
Here's a timeline of US hegemony:
Enforcing American Hegemony - A Timeline
Biased site.
ad hominen
How in the world is that an ad hominen?
You deemed it biased without refuting the content, or even reading it.
That does not make it an ad hom.
"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.
And you don't need to read much to know when you're on a biased site.
I posted the info, of which there was a lot, at 2:23. You responded within that same minute, 2:23. How much could you have read?
If you think it is biased, it should be easy for you to refute what it says, though you haven't refuted anything, have you?
"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.
I posted the info, of which there was a lot, at 2:23. You responded within that same minute, 2:23. How much could you have read?
If you think it is biased, it should be easy for you to refute what it says, though you haven't refuted anything, have you?
I did not say that you or the author of that site was biased. I said the site was biased. The site is not a person and I know nothing of the person that wrote that site so have no opinion on him/her/them either way. Heck from what I saw the site didn't even name an author.
I read the first paragraph. Which was enough for me.
And the reason that I am not bothering to refute any of it is for the simple fact that when I go to dispute something I do my homework beforehand. And I don't feel like spending hours looking up and pointing at every little thing wrong with that site that I come across.
Biased site.