lol, wuf. Do you really think that picture means anything at all? It's not obliterating anything man. You could bring up pictures from elsewhere in the world, boy I wonder how many U.S. military bases are within 200 km of the Canadian or Mexican border. Does that mean the U.S. is threatening Canada? Logic fail. Come on man, you're smarter than that. Presence of military bases doesn't really mean much on its own. In all likelihood a good number of those bases predate any foreseen conflict with Iran.
EDIT: Just noticed that's it's pretty easy to figure out where those military bases originated from. Iraqi bases - Iraq war, ditto those in Afghanistan (oh but they were set up with the foresight that Iran would be invaded too amirite). Kuwait bases - first iraq war. Base in the middle of the sea. Base in the middle of the sea? Oh, you.
I want to point out here that several of my good and close friends are Iranian (I'm from Montreal, natch). And guess what - they don't hate Americans; if anything they have something against their own tyrannous government. Believe me when I say that demographics favour a cautious strategy with regards to Iran. Tehran is considered to be a very western-like city, fwiw.
If McCain ever unequivocally said he'd invade Iran, I've yet to hear it. I doubt you could prove that other than hearsay. McCain always struck me as a moderate, that is until he had the misfortune of running against Obama; then he was pretty much painted as a right-wing extremist -- how much of this was due to the fact that as the republican candidate he had to accept a bunch of policy views expected of republican presidential candidates, I don't know, but the media certainly played a part in this portrayal.
I don't think there is any genuine concern that Iran would be a serious threat to the United States. They are however a genuine threat to Israel, a close ally and friend of the United States. If you want to argue over the ethics of this alliance then be my guest, but it's not any of my concern. The threat to Israel is however beyond reproach.
As for polls - fine, perhaps Rasmussen was the wrong choice. Maybe I should have said Gallup, or are they also hopelessly biased and bad at statistics as you claim? Apparently so bad that someone without any understanding of statistics whatsoever (i.e. you) can point out just how bad they are. Do you have any idea how hard it would be for you to come up with any irrefutable evidence of the things you are saying?
BTW if Rasmussen was fudging numbers, how come absolutely nobody working for that firm picked up on it? I guess he's a right-wing loonie and he must pay off his own staff so he could spread his lies in an attempt to sway public opinion. Yeah, right. It's not like he's running a for-profit business or anything, where accusations of fudging numbers could be especially damaging to the reputation of his company. Oh...
When I say you're being black and white about things, it has little to do with whether I believe you're being genuine or truthful or not. It has to do with how you present your arguments with absolutely no uncertainty to them whatsoever, even though the claims you make cannot be proven. Further, making outrageous claims that are so far from what is generally accepted does not in any way prove that the reality is somewhere in between. I find it pretty annoying when you do those types of things.
Reply With Quote