Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie
I would say that a lot of the people that dynamo is listing who describe Iran as a "terrorist" state have a vested interest in war-mongering. They make a lot of money for their cronies in the defense contracting industry by making sure we always have a boogeyman that we need to spend so much money on for "defense". And that includes both Democrat and Republican bureaucrats.
I'm not saying that Iran isn't "dangerous" or whatever...but hell, who is more dangerous than the United States?
We actually invade other countries without them attacking us first. We actually USED nuclear weapons on people. We spy on everyone around the world (including our own citizens). And if our govt. gets it's way...we'll have our own version of the "Berlin Wall" across Mexico.
I got a feeling that most countries leaders are far more afraid of the United States than we are of them.
I mean...we spend more than the next ten countries combined on our military. And Iran is nowhere NEAR that league of countries.
And again...just how DO you pretend to be everybody's boss and "stop" them from building a nuclear bomb?
Science is science. This ain't 1945. And there are scientists in every developed country who KNOW how to make them.
Do we kill them all? Do we inject them with something that will erase their memory?
I'm not arguing. Just thinking out loud.
This is not what our country is SUPPOSED to be. We are supposed to be that "beacon of hope" to the world.
Now, if our bureaucrats can actually broker a deal that offers Iran enough incentive (by relaxing the sanctions we've had on them for decades) to not build a weapon...that's great!
But thinking that we are "allowing" them or any other sovereign nation to do anything they want it very egotistical.
|
the list of random links to news articles i cited re: iran sponsored terrorism that dates back 30+ years? you think random journalists have a vested interest in war-mongering?
or are you speaking to the list of advisors of 1 think tank that a couple of my fans are trying to use to gotcha me on?
either way, i usually don't disagree with you and i don't this time either. i see things some degree different from you and combined with your being able to not be disrespectful in debate, i find that is where good spirited debate lies, not with someone who is steadfastly opposed to me/views and can't think for themselves so they lash out and have lingering butthurt after i reply with authority.
i'm otr here stating that USA should step down from being leader of the western world and pass the baton to Canada, let's those knuckleheads see how hard the job is.
more importantly though, the USA has enemies and that's a fact. and iran is one of those. and their plans of ME domination are well-documented. that's an important enough reason for me to take this accord seriously and critique the living shit out of it.
regardless of what color the president is, red or blue.