So You Want to Have an INTELLIGENT Debate on Iran?

It was a reasoned article that recognized the difficulty of getting a deal done. What more do you want? They're both old farts now, they don't have any axes to grind. What they do have is years of experience negotiating with foreign governments. It would be a bad idea to dismiss out of hand what they have to say on the matter. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Still, can't be denied that both of them are republicans. It skews the POV no matter how smart/brilliant you are, and I'm sure you know that.

Cut the bullshit motherfucker. Don't act all unsullied now and act surprised that this happened.His name isn't "Obaminable" and you damn well know that. Only your dipshit-in-arms lustyTurd is stupid enough to fall for this BS.
I don't care what anyone says, if you are being a smart ass, I'll call you out anytime, anywhere. Especially dipshits like you.
Stop trying to back all over the bullshit you posted earlier. It's pathetic. Purring like a cat doesn't work when you're ugly as a mole-rat. Originally Posted by shanm

Why are you quoting me? I didn't say that shit.

Still, can't be denied that both of them are republicans. It skews the POV no matter how smart/brilliant you are, and I'm sure you know that. Originally Posted by shanm

So? They're both republicans. And? Logical is logical.

Why are you quoting me? I didn't say that shit. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Yeah I dont know why it says your name when it was posted by LLidiot.

So? They're both republicans. And? Logical is logical. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Its obvious that you havent been here long. Do you think those on the other side would be quiet about this if the situation were reversed? Perfect example was the Elizabeth Warren thread posted a month or so ago. You can go back and read it. She talked about getting money out of politics and all the dullards had to say was that shes a dimocrat hack selling more "kool-aid". Sense goes out the window when youre married to the O'reilly factor.
This would be the shit storm of the year if a dem had posted an article with two fellow democrats and labelled them "not partisan".

Its obvious that you havent been here long. Do you think those on the other side would be quiet about this if the situation were reversed? Perfect example was the Elizabeth Warren thread posted a month or so ago. You can go back and read it. She talked about getting money out of politics and all the dullards had to say was that shes a dimocrat hack selling more "kool-aid". Sense goes out the window when youre married to the O'reilly factor.
This would be the shit storm of the year if a dem had posted an article with two fellow democrats and labelled them "not partisan". Originally Posted by shanm

I know they're both republicans but I read what they had to say. What they had to say made sense. You're throwing out what they have to say simply because of the letter beside their name. I can't help how the other side would act. I'm only responsible for myself in this instance. O'Reilly is a fool. Anyone who takes anything he says seriously beyond some intrinsic entertainment value at watching him get all worked up, is not in their right mind. He plays the victim too much. It's always a war on this, a war on that.

Why am I not surprised to see LLIdiot pissing in the punchbowl for a change.

There are not two more corporatist, statist elitists on the face of the earth than Schulz and Kissinger. They are articulating only the opinion of the owners of the country. Don't be fooled.

"Very well-written piece. They obviously bring years of experience to bear on the subject. I like the sentence near the end where they say 'the passions of the region allied with weapons of mass destruction may impel deepening American involvement'. That's a civil way of saying muslim extremists can't be allowed to have the bomb. And I agree. As the rest of the piece illustrates however, the prospect of reaching that goal is daunting." I have to ask, what do you think the daunting price will be if we fail? I cannot help but see the next world war starting here with nuclear weapons. Are you ready to hear the news of an entire navy fleet damaged or sunk by a nuclear weapon. (I'm sure someone is shouting how, how are they going to do that? huh?huh?) Put a nuke on a small fishing boat, put it in the path of a fleet, at the appropriate time it is triggered. I'm sure that you will take out the destroyer sent out to check it out, a few other support ships, some aircraft in the air and on the flight deck, and you may even catch the hangar bay doors open to flash fry some sailors and start fires inside the ship. That is where we are heading.

I thought they wanted to have an "INTELLIGENT Debate" here. Who was the Dipshit that invited JDIdiot to become involved in this discussion?

Next thing you know JDIdiot will shift the focus from an "INTELLIGENT Debate" to a wild, outlandish conspiracy theory involving an allegedly hijacked 777 that is now parked on a remote island, camouflaged by thousands upon thousands of shrubs.

Still, can't be denied that both of them are republicans. It skews the POV no matter how smart/brilliant you are, and I'm sure you know that. Originally Posted by shanm

This would be the shit storm of the year if a dem had posted an article with two fellow democrats and labelled them "not partisan". Originally Posted by shanm

Actually shammy, I lied. The article was written by Zbigniew Brzezinski and Madeleine Albright. I changed the names to fuck with you. Now that you know that, do have anything intelligent to say about what they wrote?

There are not two more corporatist, statist elitists on the face of the earth than Schulz and Kissinger. They are articulating only the opinion of the owners of the country. Don't be fooled. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

That's not a very intelligent comment, COG. But typical of you anyway. Nobody knows what "corporatist" or "statist" means. And as far as I can tell, nuclear weapons don't differentiate between owners and non-owners, or between elitists and egalitarians.

Iran as it exist now, basically a Religious Thugocracy, is only about 35 years old. Other Administrations have attempted to " negotiate" with them from a position of strength, which is the one thing they understand. Originally Posted by Jackie S

That's why the want nuclear warheadS, AND that's why they'll get them.

The "framework" is kicking the can down the road, which Iran is on and going down daily. Iran learned from Iraq and North Korea. Iraq showed them the inefficiency of U.N./AE inspections and North Korea shows them the lack of "will" of the U.S. to respond unilaterally without U.N. backing.

They need 2-3 months. No wonder the Russians are providing a missile defense.

I've not read or seen anything about Iran wanting a UN resolution. Everything I've read has said they will not agree to a deal unless the sanctions are lifted immediately. Why would they take the chance of going to the UN? I'm going to need a link or something on that. That doesn't sound right. Russia WANTS the sanctions removed. Hell, they do business with them now, imagine if it was legitimate to do business with Iran. Originally Posted by WombRaider

The so called "snap-back" of the sanctions means if Iran violates the sanctions are "automatically" in place again. That's in the WH "wish list" of proposed elements of the so-called "framework" ... Based on rhetoric over the past week or so Iranian officials have stated they oppose any "snap-back" provision in any agreement, did not agree to any, and want the sanctions lifted immediately when the deal is signed.

A U.N. resolution is in place, which apparently has already been ignored and is being ignored. Here's what happens "internationally" ... during the Carter administration the U.S. imposed a grain embargo on the Soviets ... France bought the grain from the U.S. ... off loaded it onto French docks and on loaded it onto Russian ships. France just "flipped" the grain.

Once we vacate Afghanistan getting shit into and out of Iran will be easy for their partner-Russia. For the most part that's all Afghanistan has been in the region for 100's of years anyway is a "trading route" for neighbors.

The "devil" may be in the "details" but the implementation of the "details" has been proven to be problematic at best. It appears from the WH acknowledgment on the "wish list" of provisions, that Iran is so far ahead of where Iraq was in any WMD facilities and programs, as well as North Korea, that, as suggested in the article, inspections, verifications, and enforcements will be improbable, if not impossible, to conduct and/or implement.

Apparently from "hints" in the "wish list" (and from comments in the media from Iran) the Iranians want some sort of an "arbitration" type agreement to determine "violations." There is a suggestion in the media the Iranians want a prior agreed "burden of proof" with "judicial review" in an international court.....yet to be determined. Remember the White House is admitting the Iranians are 2-3 months away from developing a nuclear warhead with their existing program. How long have these "negotiations" been ongoing? Arbitration/Litigation takes years.

One does not agree to resolve a dispute with the potentials of this one by "agreeing" to litigate down the road to determine if there has been a violation by which to base the obtaining of "sanctions" against the party who wishes to "activate" the "potentials' against their neighbors. They don't care whether they die or not, we do. That's not a decent bargaining position. They are willing to do, we are not. They know it.

Actually shammy, I lied. The article was written by Zbigniew Brzezinski and Madeleine Albright. I changed the names to fuck with you. Now that you know that, do have anything intelligent to say about what they wrote? Originally Posted by lustylad

Except it was written by the two original gentlemen

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-iran...ces-1428447582