US Secretary Of Defense: Iran NOT Trying to Develop A Nuclear Weapon

I think it's ironic arguing for a tyrannical regime to run the Middle East whilst you're sitting at home in a western country. Obviously things must be better here if that's the life you choose? It is people thinking like that that gives a bad name to the rest of the immigrants and why many hate them so much imho.

 

Luckily I'm not living in a western world. Being said that, I live in a democratic country but there is no so-called "terrorists" trying to take away my freedom here. I think certain people in certain countries are just paranoid and use it as an excuse to attack other countries. They just can't live in a peaceful world.

 

Agreed to a point. I wasn't pointing at you as I think your argument is reasoned. I responded with what I was thinking when I read your post.

There certainly are paranoid people and that exacerbates a problem but when you throw in corruption that makes the peace even harder. Both sides entail both elements, and more (prejudice for one). For me it boils down to do I want Islam or Christianity running my life? No. Which would I prefer if I had to choose? Most certainly Christianty. What side of a fundamentalist religion do I really want to win? Ours.

 

I wasn't arguing with you either, I guess I still need to work on my English. LOL!

On the other hand, Christianity and Islam have live side-by-side for hundred of years, and I think if we put the leaders of both religions together and have discussion like an adult, both sides can be reasonable. I just think that somebody on the side (not Christian or Muslim) trying to ignite the fire between the 2 biggest religions on this planet. As I follow this section (Politic & Religions), I see few people who are trying to do that. The problem is, we don't know who they are working for because there is no way we can validate them. They could be working for someone else while pretending to be pro-Christian or pro-Muslim where in face in the real life, they are laughing at us.

 

Probably it was my English at fault there, argument meaning debate in my mind.

I agree there's much more than the religions in play though I think it all stems from that.

Wierdest part to me is that both are right in their conclusion, but both have seriously corrupted the journey.

 

Who's arguing for a tyrannical regime?

 

First off, you have to have a definition of what war actually is and in this instance, they are including any and all conflicts we've ever been involved in, and not just declared war. Here is a link: Wars America Has Been Involved In You will clearly see if you start with 1798, the first war after our independence, there have only been a total of 66 years of war. That is including the 2003 to present war on terror. That is all. Your 214 years is completely false. Small altercations are not war. You are using the same false science/facts with your numbers that certain companies use in their studies on such things as medications where they only take certain numbers while excluding others. 19 wars spanning 66 years, including 2012, is a fact. It's American History.

"Tim Osman" was in Pakistan because he freely traveled across the border when the U.S. military had a presence and were searching for him in Afghanistan. Would you stay in a country where military forces were looking for you when you could easily go to a neighboring country where you will be protected by that government? I know I would not. And he was affiliated with the Taliban, a terrorist organization linked to 9/11. We've already been over this but I know that you're ok with them operating because they are on the other side of the planet and somehow could never harm anyone despite being terrorists. Next you'll be spouting that Al Quaeda is not a terrorist organization either and they should be left alone.


[

You already are so I would say this is possible, but you are clearly ignoring logic on this one and stating that ALL Americans are clumped together. That argument will never win with anyone else, but you can keep spouting that and disagreeing.

Ok. I'll indulge you on this one. Peaceful protest does not work except to raise some awareness, but not for actual change on that large of a scale. Revolution would tear this country apart and is not in the best interest of anyone. As far as electing a candidate that would be against starting wars, there are some out there. For example, Ron Paul is one of them. I am a supporter of his. How can you lump me into a category of ALL Americans when I support a candidate that is against starting frivolous wars? But you will as you have up to this point. And I've already explained how certain candidates promise one thing and do another once they get into office. Americans are not mind readers and can know what every candidate is going to do at all times.

Israel was not the cause of 9/11. It was the hatred by a group of terrorists of Western culture and policy. There has been a hatred of Westernized thinking since the Crusades. This is not something that was just created in the mid-20th century as if there was no hatred before that. There is even talk within the Qur'an about a jihad against infidels not part of the Islamic faith.

For example. If a known terrorist that directly attacked the U.S. or one of it's allies exists within the boundaries of a country and the U.S. has been in diplomatic talks for months, then talks break down and all diplomatic channels are exhausted, what would your solution be? Would you just let the terrorists be that are in that country? Would you use Special Forces to extract said terrorist? What would your solution be outside of actual war then?

 

It seems that the truth about Iran as spoken by the US has always been a moveable object.

"The Halabja poison gas attack:

A preliminary Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) study at the time reported that it was Iran that was responsible for the attack, an assessment which was used subsequently by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for much of the early 1990s. The CIA's senior political analyst for the Iran-Iraq war, Stephen C. Pelletiere, co-authored an unclassified analysis of the war[25] which contained a brief summary of the DIA study's key points. The CIA altered its position radically in the late 1990s and cited Halabja frequently in its evidence of weapons of mass destruction before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Joost Hiltermann, who was the principal researcher for the Human Rights Watch between 1992–1994, conducted a two-year study of the massacre, including a field investigation in northern Iraq. According to his analysis of thousands of captured Iraqi secret police documents and declassified U.S. government documents, as well as interviews with scores of Kurdish survivors, senior Iraqi defectors and retired U.S. intelligence officers, it is clear that Iraq carried out the attack on Halabja, and that the United States, fully aware of this, accused Iran, Iraq's enemy in a fierce war, of being partly responsible for the attack.

The provision of chemical precursors from United States companies to Iraq was enabled by a Ronald Reagan administration policy that removed Iraq from the State Department's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. Leaked portions of Iraq's "Full, Final and Complete" disclosure of the sources for its weapons programs shows that thiodiglycol, a substance needed to manufacture mustard gas, was among the chemical precursors provided to Iraq from US companies such as Alcolac International and Phillips."

Guess it was OK to sell chemicals to make poison gas to other countries.

Now that the nuclear dudes are in Iran doing their inspections I guess the truth will finally win out. The report will probably say that "at this stage there is no evidence but we may not have been shown everything."

And the news comes that Saudi Arabia MAY be seeking a nuclear deterrent. But that will be OK because they are friends of the US.

http://www.theage.com.au/world/saudis-may-seek-nuclear-deterrent-20120129-1qo2t.html