Why A Yes Vote For The Iran Nuclear Deal Is A No-Brainer

So wait a minute- didn't you earlier state that there are no rules in this forum? Now you are stating that hijacking threads is a violation- which one is it- you idiot? Also, I have posted my thought various times on the vote moron. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Not only did I say there were rules of this forum, I posted them. Welcome to ignore moron.

Not only did I say there were rules of this forum, I posted them. Welcome to ignore moron. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Stick to the topic asswipe!!!

Did your pay get doubled? I heard some mods got a 50% increase in TS pussy.



Glad you're back. Originally Posted by gnadfly

ROFL

Why are you violating the court order? Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

It's a fake account- I have the court ordered documents- I am reporting this to my attorney. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

WE lawyers up!

You and Rey are pushing my buttons- both of those comments were very unnecessary- I will give you both 24 hours to edit or apologize- I have a political question to ask WW and you guys turn this into an attack and personal agenda against me. When the hell is this nonsense going to stop? I have my attorney on speed dial- you have been warned- I have zero tolerance for cyber threats and bullying- I am going to ask you nicely to stop- if not their will be legal consequences- I am not going to warn either one of you again- is that understood? Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

This is where you are wrong my friend- and I use the word "friend" very loosely. My attorney has already subpoenaed ECCIE and got a list of forum rules- you are NOT allowed to attack someone viciously and/or have a personal agenda/vendetta against that individual- I know the law and perhaps you need to contact one of the MODS so they can explain how incorrect your ASSumptions are regarding forum rules and regulations. Apparently JCM thought the same way you did and you see he is now gone- if you would like to join him for a 6 month vacation and pay some hefty legal fees keep up your agenda. If you can't respond to me directly with a political response than do not respond to me at all- I am not going to playing these silly games I played with Dirty Dog and COG- I have already spent too much on attorney fees to get the previous MOD removed and I am sick of the bullshit. I am a Christian man and I have permission to be in these forums and I am not going to be a scapegoats for your vicious and vile attacks or your personal agendas/vendettas. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Why are you violating the court order? Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

You ever heard of someone hijacking an account- i.e- hacking into someone's account- that is not the real JCM- someone said he deactivated his account over the Ashley Madison ordeal and how conveniently he returns after I posted that my attorney got rid of him- I think IB or someone else is behind this ordeal- it's bullshit and a major farce- I am going to get behind this- notice how I B never accepted my offer- I think one of those goons somehow resurrected his account- I am waiting to hear back from my attorney to get to the bottom of this- either JCM800's account has been compromised or my attorney lied to me and owes me a refund. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Who I do I need to contact to get released from my contract here- anyone know? Thee are just too many individuals with personal agendas/vendettas against me- enough is enough!!!! Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Hey dickface when you sign up on this site- there's a disclaimer asking you if you agree to terms and conditions of this site- which by law is an electronic verbal contract you idiot!!! Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

So wait a minute- didn't you earlier state that there are no rules in this forum? Now you are stating that hijacking threads is a violation- which one is it- you idiot? Also, I have posted my thought various times on the vote moron. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911
This is where you are wrong my friend- and I use the word "friend" very loosely. My attorney has already subpoenaed ECCIE and got a list of forum rules- you are NOT allowed to attack someone viciously and/or have a personal agenda/vendetta against that individual- I know the law and perhaps you need to contact one of the MODS so they can explain how incorrect your ASSumptions are regarding forum rules and regulations. Apparently JCM thought the same way you did and you see he is now gone- if you would like to join him for a 6 month vacation and pay some hefty legal fees keep up your agenda. If you can't respond to me directly with a political response than do not respond to me at all- I am not going to playing these silly games I played with Dirty Dog and COG- I have already spent too much on attorney fees to get the previous MOD removed and I am sick of the bullshit. I am a Christian man and I have permission to be in these forums and I am not going to be a scapegoats for your vicious and vile attacks or your personal agendas/vendettas.

you are a "christian man" with 83 full service reviews on a whore board. ahahahahahaha

Stick to the topic asswipe!!! Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

You being a lying piece of shit is the topic. WeeEndowed1.911", produce the documents or leave the site.

You being a lying piece of shit is the topic. WeeEndowed1.911", produce the documents or leave the site. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

KNOCK IT OFF COG- YOU ARE THE FUCKING REASON THIS WHOLE DIATRIBE WAS STARTED YOU POS!!!!

KNOCK IT OFF COG- YOU ARE THE FUCKING REASON THIS WHOLE DIATRIBE WAS STARTED YOU POS!!!! Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

do you fucking realize that you, by making this some bigass moral stand about lawyering up about staying on topic, have gone off topic?

if your penis was 36 inches long it would still be larger than your IQ.




sue me dickhead. sic Lawyer J. Noble Dagget on me.

There's a problem with that pipe dream. This historically proven incompetent Defense Secretary make similar assumptions about Iran now that he did when he was Defense Secretary. He assumes that the Iranians will live up to their side the agreement. In fact, they were already caught cheating during the lead up to the negotiations.

And, who would agree to an agreement that allows the "offending" time to drag its feet? Then we have a report talking about Iranians checking suspected sites. We're not dealing with a country like what we have in United States.

The Iranians have absolutely no intention of living up to their side of the agreement. Anybody that thinks that this will make the world safer is a brainwashed idiot that's incapable of gathering information about what's going on in the world, analyzing it, and coming up with an actual picture of what's going on around the world.

But, but, nuclear physicists said it was a good idea! Their opinion relies on the Iranians being completely truthful, and being thorough with disclosing everything that they have affected by the agreement.

Back in the 1990s, another Democrat administration pulled a similar stunt with the North Koreans. Result? The North Koreans detonated a nuclear bomb the following century.

The elected officials in Iran are just a "front," a "puppet government" for the real people in power. The real people in power are radical Islamists that want nothing more than the destruction of the West, of Israel, and the establishment of global radical Islamic law.

In fact, not long after the "agreement was made," this video surfaced. In it, it depicts a bunch of radical Islamists, Israel's traditional enemies, ready to overrun Jerusalem. The Iranians have been funding these terrorists. They see the results of this agreement as providing them with more money to do just that.

The video speaks a million words in addition to the actual words that show up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83D-5NaOknE

flghtr65: What does that have to do with this fact?

Harold Brown has shown a historically proven pattern of incompetency when it comes to geostrategic issues. As secretary of defense, he presided over the gutting of the US military at a time that the Soviet Union was working feverishly to surpass us militarily.

He, as secretary of defense, should of been keen on that and should of infused common sense when it came to treatment of the US military, as well as when it came to how to deal with the geopolitical atmosphere surrounding world.

Nope, he played along and help facilitate a "hollow military." Thus, contributing to increasing America's vulnerability in the face of our adversaries either gaining in number, or surpassing us militarily. The Soviet Union did just that, in the early 1980s. I remember watching the news segment, on the evening news, when they announced that fact.

There are other things that happened, involving his incompetency with national security, that leads credence, to the statements on this thread, accurately calling his judgment to question.

His lack of judgment as secretary defense contributed to the weakening of our once great nation. He's currently cheering a decision that increases the power of one of our adversaries relative to us.

flghtr65: Either the United States adheres to the agreement already approved by all participants (except the United States and Iran) or Congress denies U.S. adherence to the deal.

We, as Americans, don't need to play "follow the leader" behind other countries. Who cares if other countries approved it. If it's not in our best long-term interests, specifically, not in our best long-term security interest, we're under no obligation to approve it because "other countries" approved it.

That's not how America works.

Yes, Congress has a right to disapprove of it. And they should. If Obama vetoes it, then it's completely on him and the Democrats that enabled him. Forcing Obama to veto it would be the best strategy that the Republicans could utilize.

flghtr65: If the United States and Iran join the others, Iran must dilute or export its existing enriched uranium so that it does not have enough for a nuclear weapon. The deal also would roll back, for 10 to 15 years, Iran's capability to enrich enough uranium to be able to produce a nuclear weapon.

Hmmm, where have I seen something like that before? Oh yeah, that's right, the fiasco involving North Korea and their move towards generating nuclear weapons. The same concept was supposed to apply to North Korea. In exchange, the US promised certain things for North Korea's cooperation.

The intent? To prevent North Korea from obtaining nuclear weapons. Guess what else they had? They had North Korea's safeguards that was supposed to keep them in compliance with these agreements to prevent North Korea from obtaining nuclear weapons.

But, North Korea being what it is, reneged on its end, sparking further attempts to get it to be compliant. The US promises to normalize economic relationships with North Korea. You know how that would ultimately work out.

In addition to the nuclear program, the Iranians are developing missiles that can reach longer-range. You know, like what North Korea was doing the same time as developing nuclear weapons.

Both Iran and North Korea were labeled as members of the axis of evil for a reason.

Those of us that oppose the deal with Iran are doing so based on historical precedents when it comes to dealing with regimes, with no respect for human rights, when it comes to these things.

We're going to see a repeat in the near or distant future with Iran. This is why I hope the Republican led Congress disapproves of the deal, then launches an unsuccessful effort to override Obama's veto. This way, when crap hits the fan, you "Obama's good, Bush is bad" people would have a hard time shifting the blame from Caligula the Crazy to Bush or the Republicans.

flghtr65: It seems that the republicans in Congress, would rather Iran keep their Uranium and get a nuclear bomb in a year or two. Instead of rolling back Iran's capability to produce a nuclear weapon.

Wrong. The Republicans in Congress are opposed to setting the conditions up that would help the Iranians achieve their goals of developing a nuclear weapon. This agreement does just that.

You, like the rest of the liberals/progressives, are under the assumption that the Iranians will live up to their agreement. They won't. Because of the ruling radical Islamic elite, they can't be trusted. The cold hard reality is that like North Korea, the Iranians will continue to cheat this deal and they will continue full speed ahead with their goals.

This time, not under pressure of current sanctions.

The Iranians will not voluntarily rollback their capability to produce a nuclear weapon. It did not work with North Korea, it will not work with Iran. Forcing the Iranians to buckle, economically, is more effective. The more susceptible they become, to the ruling elite, to the frustrations of their people who want democracy.

Their people must consistently be placed in a state to where they blame the government for the ongoing economic pressure that they experience.

These rapid, reimplementation, of sanctions if they break this deal will not work anymore than what a similar reimplementation did with regards to North Korea.

flghtr65: Regardless of what the USA does, Iran will getting some of their money back. The other countries are going forward, with or without the USA.

I could care less about the other countries do. I'd rather that we continue to hold their pre 1979 assets frozen, and US sanctions continued to be placed on them, until they meet the conditions that our previous presidents placed on them.

Those other countries are closer to Iran, and have more to lose if they play into Iran's hands. If they want to be stupid, and hand Iran the rounds they need to shoot them with, so be it.

flghtr65: I haven't been proven wrong on anything.

You've been proven wrong on this thread by multiple posters. I've proven you wrong on the other threads as well as this one.

flghtr65: If the USA agrees to this deal Iran will not be getting a bomb for at least 10 years.

You mean, like, how a similar deal was supposed to prevent North Korea from getting the nuclear bomb? Anybody that thinks that this deal will prevent Iran from getting a bomb until later down the road is a fool.

The lifting of sanctions, and the unfreezing of their assets, would give them the funding that they need to accelerate the development of their nuclear program. The agreement is irrelevant to when Iran would generate a nuclear bomb.

Also, they've proven that they will cheat the deal, they were caught cheating even during the negotiations. There is an excellent chance that they will find a way to circumvent the deal to continue on developing their nuclear program.

flghtr65: It will take them time to harvest enough Uranium to get as close as they are today on another bomb.

In order to make that a reality, we would have to guarantee that we can seal off every point of entry into that country. We would have to completely secure the Persian Gulf, and any other entry into Iran, to ensure that they don't get the materials they need.

We would have to get Iran to completely disclose their entire nuclear program, outside of what they declared.

On top of that, we would have to have a more robust inspection program that would allow us to watch every move that their scientists and engineers make. The agreement, as currently written, makes that impossible.

Without the guarantee, there's no way in hell that we could prevent them from generating, or getting enough uranium, to get their first nuclear bomb in a timely manner.

flghtr65: Harold Brown was Physicist before he became Secretary of Defense.

Some of the military missions that I've done involved interdiction. He may know the theory involved with creating a nuclear bomb, but he has demonstrated a lack of knowledge of tactical military operations, as well as tactical level operations outside of the military.

His theories doesn't entertain the logistics and tactics involved with preventing the Iranians from having the materials they need.

He talks about "arms-control" negotiations he was involved with. Is he talking about with regards to the Soviet Union? The Soviets cheated on every single treaty that they had with us involving nuclear weapons. His so-called "safeguards" and "intrusive inspections" did not stop the Soviets from circumventing every single nuclear related treaty that they signed with the United States.

It wasn't until Ronald Reagan pushed forward with the Strategic Defense Initiative that the Soviets clamped down and offered to actually abide by these treaties.

No, these inspections are not more intrusive. Especially when the Iranians could dictate whether Americans are involved with inspections or not, when the Iranians could be given time between when they're warned about an inspection when the inspection happens, and when the Iranians could send Iranians into "verify compliance with the treaty."

Really?

Keep in mind that the people that truly run Iran are the radical Islamic elites. Chances are that anybody working for the government that does these inspections would be doing so as puppets for these radical elites.

That's like getting someone, busted for running a marijuana farm, to monitor himself to ensure that he is not running these marijuana farms.

His comments about Iran wanting revenge is idiotic, and a throwback to the policy of appeasement that his boss, and the Democratic Party in general, have argued for. Recently, the Iranian's wanted to send a couple ships close to US territorial waters. One of the ships was darn near sunk by the U.S. Navy. They wanted to send that ship close to US territorial waters just to some their nose at us.

When that ship came within sight of the Atlantic Ocean, the Iranian government changed its mind. Where was that thirst for revenge?

Harold Brown advanced many of the arguments that are consistent with what was advance by the appeasement liberals. If we do this, the bad guys will get mad. Part of the reason to why Ronald Ragan is one of the greatest presidents that we've had is that he disregarded what our enemies would think about our actions.

What others on this thread have said against Harold Brown is dead center mass. Harold Brown is incompetent when it comes to geostrategic and geopolitical issues. The track record for the Carter administration is proof of that.

flghtr65: Brown is saying that if Iran would try to cheat and convert the reactor that is under construction in to a reactor that makes uranium and it is not detected he is saying that they could get a bomb in one to two years instead of 4 months (if the deal did not go through).

Brown is making a wild guess with his assumption that the inspections, the agreement, would delay their creation of a nuclear bomb. For his theory to work, the inspection team would have to be there, in the right places, to prevent Iran, or rather, to slow them down, with making progress towards a nuclear weapon.

His assumptions assume that the inspection teams will cover 100% of Iran's nuclear infrastructure. This assumption depends on the Iranians being 100% honest about the program.

If the inspection team sent to Iraq, post invasion, were not able to find a bunch of buried fighter jets, until someone pointed out a tail sticking out of the sand, what makes you think that inspection team sent to Iran will be able to spot every single part of an Iranian nuclear infrastructure?

They wouldn't.

They're going to cheat with this deal, just as they have during the sanctions. Whether the inspection teams are there or not is irrelevant. If they are making progress toward a bomb, they will make it the same amount of time regardless of whether there are inspection teams or not.

The agreement, for inspections, are set up to allow the Iranians the ability to hide their activities.

flghtr65: The sanctions by all the countries would go back on.

Which would be not be as much of a punishment on them as additional sanctions piled onto ongoing sanctions would be.

While the sanctions are lifted, Iran can make rapid progress economically and elsewhere. If sanctions go back on, the Iranians would be in a better position in the face of the sanctions. That is in opposition to where they stand now, with sections in place, if additional sections are put in place.

flghtr65: You wouldn't be able to roll back making of the bomb if the conversion of the reactor goes undetected.

Which is going to happen regardless of whether they have inspection teams in Iran or not.

flghtr65: WTF, excellent post. You have the top nuclear physicists in the world agreeing with this deal. In that letter they have backed up what Brown has said, with a lot more detail.

No, it was not an excellent article, or post. The agreement, as written, has holes large enough for a truck to drive through. In theory, if the Iranians are doing what they are supposed to do based on the deal, then what the scientists say about the agreement would matter.

In reality, that's not what's going to happen. The Iranians are going to cheat on the deal. Not only that, in order for the deal to work, they have to be prevented from receiving materials related to the program. Cutting the production of these materials wouldn't matter if they have them elsewhere.

If they could continue receiving materials needed to continue developing a nuclear weapon, that deal would not matter. What those physicists say wouldn't matter either.

They are assuming that the Iranian's are serious about living up to the deal, which they have no intentions of doing. All that does is facilitate them getting a nuclear bomb.

flghtr65: The joke is on you Einstein. Go read post 105. You have the worlds best nuclear physicists agreeing to the deal. They have backed up everything Brown said in the letter they sent to President Obama.

No, the joke is on anybody that thinks the words of nuclear physicist, who only have bookish knowledge when it comes to operations required, outside of nuclear physics, to prevent the Iranians from creating a nuclear bomb.

Absent of completed choking off their ability to import the materials needed to generate a nuclear bomb, what these scientists say would not matter. Their opinion is based on the assumption that the Iranians will comply, will be completely honest, etc.

That's not going to happen. They're going to cheat this deal as much as they can. They're going to circumvent this deal, and make it extremely difficult to do what those nuclear physicists claimed that agreement would do.

Odumba is making the same mistakes that Clinton made in the 1990s. This deal only facilitates the eventuality that Iran would test a nuclear bomb.

flghtr65: When you got your GED, physics was not a required class right?

Apparently, neither logic, nor logical thought, was required when you got your GED.

flghtr65: A. Vote yes, Iran gets rid of 90% of their Uranium and their ability to make a nuclear weapon gets pushed out 10-15 years. The USA will lift economic sanctions and Iran will have access to their money about 150 billion Dollars.

First, the text of the agreement does not support your statement of 90% of the uranium being done away with. In fact, based on what I've read in the deal, they actually get to keep a good amount of their uranium.

Second, the Iranians keep their uranium via circumventing the agreement, a.k.a. cheating, and subsequently getting a nuclear weapon. All this, while getting all this money left and right. Anybody that thinks that the Iranians will live up to the deal, and do what you say they will do here, is a gullible fool.

flghtr65: B. Vote no, The USA keeps the economic sanctions on Iran. Iran will not get access to their money. Iran will get to keep their Uranium, harvest more and will likely have a nuclear bomb in less than 2 years.

Again, based on what I read in the text of the agreement, Iran gets to keep a good percent of their uranium. There being allowed to keep enough for certain research and development. Iran is also allowed to engage in joint peaceful nuclear use research.

The Iranian's will manage to keep enough uranium if the US votes yes, not just the US votes no. Also, a vote "yes" would not stop Iran from getting the nuclear weapon.

By the way, we have surpassed the forecasted "Iran would have a nuclear bomb" timeline that others have projected before. So, the two years, versus the 10 years, are arbitrary numbers thrown around that don't reflect reality.

flghtr65: It is not that Al Maliki wouldn't play ball with regards to wanting the USA there and working out a "collateral damage" agreement if there was a confrontation.

That played a big role in the beginning, but not so much toward the end. As we got closer to the drop dead date for the US forces to pullout, even he moved closer to what the US wanted.

flghtr65: The real issue is that Al Maliki did not want an inclusive government with all of the other "sects".

An issue that our ambassador was able to counter when US forces were there. His initial objection to keeping us there was the very fact that he wanted to start playing his games. Something he couldn't do when US forces were there.

But, even he started to see the reality of what could happen if the US forces were pulled out of Iraq before the Iraqis were truly ready to do everything without our support.

In the end, the US military managed to get a tentative agreement that allowed the US to get what it wanted. Odumba lifted the bar to impossible levels, ensuring that we did not get that agreement.

flghtr65: Since the Iraq government was not inclusive the other "sects" were not strong enough to defend themselves.

Not quite true. It's as I've argued. The US military needed to remain in Iraq to continue building on the strength of the Iraqi forces. The amount of time that we did train them was not sufficient. Again, historically, in order to get the German, Japanese, South Korean armies up to par, we had to stay longer than eight years.

We still do joint training exercises with these countries armies.

Had the US military been allowed to stay and do what they needed to do to shore up Iraqi security and military forces, ISIS would've been defeated at the Syrian border.

Odumba's poor judgment, and failure to work with the military, is what led to weakening forces there. It has also contributed greatly to the ISIS problem.

flghtr65: What the scientists have said in the letter to President Obama trumps anything the retired generals have said.

Wrong, the opinions of the scientists, in this case, do not trump anything said by the retired admirals and generals. Why? The scientists assume that the Iranians will live up to their end of the bargain. However, when it comes to the logistics and operations surrounding Iran's nuclear program, this is something that falls in the domain of the retired admirals and generals.

All that mumbo-jumbo that the scientists spew would be great in a perfect world. Unfortunately, in the real world, factors come into play that fall in the domain of the military and other operational elements that understand a thing or two about logistics, and the need to cut it off in order to cut off an adversary.

flghtr65: The mechanisms used to detect cheating are BETTER NOW. The declared nuclear sites will be monitored 24/7 from day one. Any new site that is detected can be monitored as well.

First, our satellite technology is not what you think of it. The big thing is that we could train our satellites to focus on known nuclear sites. However, if you think that you could just focused satellites on all of Iran, and detect any other activity, you have to get that science fiction movie mentality out of your mind.

In fact, you can focus a satellite on an entire country, and completely miss important things going on.

Second, our satellites move around the world. So, there are periods when, the satellites orbit out of the area, when the Iranians could do things that they're not supposed to do.

Third, your side of the argument consistently ignored the fact that satellite images of the Iraqis moving WMD around to circumvent inspections. If your side of the argument refuses to accept such arguments, your side of the argument does not have a leg to stand on arguing about our satellite technology.

Fourth, our satellite technology was not able to detect every efforts that the Iraqis engaged in to bury things. For example, had it not been for the tail fin of a fighter jet buried in the desert, we would not have known that a bunch of fighter jets were buried in the sand. Where were our satellites?

We may have advanced in technology since then, but the issues and concepts and problems remain the same.

flghtr65: The scientists with the "G" security clearance know more about nuclear physics and bombs than anyone on EARTH. If they feel good about the deal, that is good enough for me.

However, they are generally clueless about the military/operational actions needed to circumvent the agreement and provide the supplies needed for the Iranians to do what they need to do to create a bomb. If the scientist believe that the Iranians would live up to their deal, which is required for the factors in their letter to apply, and do exactly what the agreement requires them to do, then they're naïve.

Their opinion, that ignores these outside factors, is nowhere near being good enough to make me feel good about the deal. I don't feel good about the deal, and I see that as yet another one of Odumba's blunders.

flghtr65: Iran will not be able to cheat.

Nothing in the text of the agreement prohibits the Iranians from being able to cheat. In fact, the agreement has a hierarchy of "resolution" levels. If this agreement was "cheat proof," why would they have this hierarchy of grievance levels?

When it is all said and done, the Iranians would have more than enough time to clear out and sanitize sites that the inspectors want to see.

flghtr65: If they try they will get caught.

Like the North Koreans, they can and will cheat and get away with it. We will find out about it when they conduct their first nuclear explosion experiment.

flghtr65: According to the scientists with "G" security clearance.

Although the agreement limits the Iranians to a limit on the quantity of one item or another, there's nothing in the agreement that prohibits the Iranians from going above those limits. The agreement relies on the Iranians to live up to their agreement.

Some of these things, that the Iranians are supposed to dismantle, don't take place until years later. They are allowed to continue to enrich uranium at some of their sites, per the agreement. I don't see how this is an "airtight" agreement, when the Iranians are provided opportunities that the North Koreans weren't provided.

flghtr65: It also focuses on whether Iran could use the accord as diplomatic cover to pursue nuclear weapons in secret.

From the agreement:

"75. In furtherance of implementation of the JCPOA, if the IAEA has concerns regarding undeclared nuclear materials or activities, or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA, at locations that have not been declared under the comprehensive safeguards agreement or Additional Protocol, the IAEA will provide Iran the basis for such concerns and request clarification."

First, there's no guarantee that the Iranians were completely honest about their entire nuclear program. Hence, this part of the agreement. However, based on Iran's past behaviors, I would not expect the Iranians to come clean.

Further down, paragraph 77, Iran is given the opportunity to provide alternative means of resolving the IAEA's issues.

The more you go through the agreement, the more you see that Iran is given a large leeway. They made out like bandits in this agreement.

flghtr65: The deal's plan for resolving disputes, the letter says, greatly mitigates "concerns about clandestine activities."

No it doesn't. It provides a hierarchy of resolution, if the lower form of resolution doesn't work. Collectively, the days required for each level gives Iran more than enough time to arrange the environment, to move things around, or do anything else to hide their activities.

This resolution process is explained in detail starting with paragraph 36.

flghtr65: It hails the 24-day cap on Iranian delays to site investigations as "unprecedented," adding that the agreement "will allow effective challenge inspection for the suspected activities of greatest concern."

Then, the Iranians could block them beyond the 24 day point. When it happens, the resolution hierarchy that I explained earlier kicks in. Now, you had 15 days here 15 days there 30 days elsewhere, and those 24 days drag out. More than enough time for the Iranian's to un-azz the AO to make it look like they are in compliance when they're not.

However, all mentions of "delay" in the agreement is immediately preceded by "without." So, if your scientists got information about this "24 -- day cap," it must've been from another document.

flghtr65: It also welcomes as without precedent the deal's explicit banning of research on nuclear weapons "rather than only their manufacture," as established in the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty, the top arms-control agreement of the nuclear age.

Actually, there is precedent. The agreement with North Korea also prohibited their manufacture and research on nuclear weapon development. That did not work. Don't expect it work in this case either.

Also, the Iranians have continuously insisted that their program is for peaceful purposes. Of course they're going to sign a declaration matching that insistence. However, as with the North Koreans, only fools would believe that the Iranians would follow through.

flghtr65: "In contrast," it says, "we find that the deal includes important long-term verification procedures that last until 2040, and others that last indefinitely."

Actually, using the "constraints" listed in the agreement, assuming that the Iranians do exactly what they're supposed to do per the agreement, Iran would feasibly be able to create a nuclear weapon after 25 years. However, the success of the agreement hinges heavily on the Iranians being honest, and disclosing everything. If they don't, then they could develop a nuclear weapon regardless of what the agreement says.

flghtr65: If Iran is caught cheating, the consequences will be the USA will strictly enforce the deal and attack Iran if necessary.

Nothing in the agreement authorizes the United States to attack Iran. The agreement, binding the US, has a hierarchy of resolution process, each requiring a certain amount of days to take place.

If Odumba says that he'd attack, that'd get a big LOL. He won't.

Also, strictly enforce the deal? The way it's written, the agreement allows Iran a lot of leeway, and it gives Iran enough time to move things around before letting inspectors inspect a suspected site. The way the agreement is written, Iran has plenty of opportunities to cheat.

flghtr65: The senator wanted public assurances that the administration would use military force against Iran if necessary,

Given Obama's trend of indecisiveness, and backing down from an implied threat he made with regards to Syria, that's not going to happen. If the Iranians renege on the deal, Obama will not take military action on Iran.

flghtr65: that it would redouble efforts to maintain Israel's military edge,

That won't happen either. Obama would blow steam up our allies' azzes about doing things like that, but he'll do nothing. Based on what he has done so far in his presidency, Obama is going to take a path that weakens our allies and strengthens our adversaries.

Again, I'm projecting that based on his modus operandi during his presidency, itself predicted by the trend he set by his voting records and his history.

flghtr65: and that it would pursue enforcement with as much vigor as it did this deal, among other things.

With the way the deal is written, Odumba cold enforce it with an anvil. That's not going to prevent the fact that there are enough loopholes, in the agreement as written, for Iran to cheat, and to play games with the inspectors and the international community.

As long as a Democrat is president, the Iranians are going to push the envelope. Originally Posted by herfacechair

HF, you ever have "Q" security clearance? The answer is no, right? You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. We know there is a possibility that Iran will try to cheat, the scientists with the "Q" security clearance say that if Iran cheats they will get CAUGHT. You think Iran can move a centrifuge around without it being detected? I trust the scientists more than I trust you. It's not just the scientists, there were 36 active generals and high ranked officers who agree with the scientists in the link posted by WTF.

You ever see the James Bond movie Thunderball , near the end of the movie Agent 007 gives the "Bond" girl a Geiger counter to check for radioactivity of the suspected bombs on the ship. Geiger counters today work the same way, they just don't make as much noise.

The deal is really pretty simple a vote no and Iran gets a bomb in less than one year. They have already harnessed quite a bit of Enriched Uranium (that would be Isotope U-235, the radioactive one).

A vote yes and they don't get a bomb for 15 years. No one has said that they(Iran) are never going to get a bomb. You can't compare this with North Korea.

Even Colin Powell who was SOS under Bush43 agrees with the deal. Wasn't he also former Chairman of Joints chief of Staff.

There is no need to debate this further, 34 democratic and independent senators have said they would vote yes for the deal and this would block a veto override attempt by the republicans. The Deal is going in.

The point about Iraq needing a more inclusive government (to include all the sects) came from General Dempsey current chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff. You think you know more than him?

Bush43 and his 77 average in History from Yale was the Worst President in history by far. His 69% disapproval rating confirms that. Iraq SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN INVADED. The only weapons found were weapons that The USA had sold to Iraq as far back as 1980. They corroded to the point where they were no longer functional. This was in the New York times , the link was supplied by J.D. Barleycorn. I am not posting it again.

Tell me how I lost an argument on the ACA. Part D cost the taxpayer 800 billion over a ten years. The ACA cost 1.2 Trillion over 10 years. The ACA does more than help seniors pay for their prescriptions. The ACA is getting health insurance coverage to 20 million more people. Before the ACA only 82% of the population was covered, now 92% is covered.

Did you hear of Scott Walker's replacement proposal for the ACA. You still get a subsidy from the Federal government, but it is based on your age, not your income. Young people have a lower risk to getting sick in comparison to older people, that does not mean that young people never have a severe illness. His proposal is almost like plagerism. Are you kidding?

KNOCK IT OFF COG- YOU ARE THE FUCKING REASON THIS WHOLE DIATRIBE WAS STARTED YOU POS!!!! Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

So they finally let you out after your melt down. You are the whole reason for all of this, personally I think your a borderline retard with social anxiety disorder. This would explain why you live in your moms basement, spend all day looking up unapplicable laws, assume a lawyer persona and think your going to fool a room full of adults with your bullshit. When your disability check arrives you hire a friend for an hour and when your through you spend the rest of the evening prayer that god is going to forgive you for putting your tongue in her fartbox. Does that about some up your days.

CuteOldGuy: I support leaving Iran alone.

Iran does not support leaving the West alone. It speaks volumes when their supreme leader keeps making "Death to America" comments. He's not just expressing an opinion, but he's rallying his constituents, other radical Islamists, to support his regime throughout Iran.

Again, the ruling elite believe in accomplishing their manifest destiny. I talk about "their", I'm not just talk about Iran's elite, I'm talking about the radicals throughout the region. Their ruling elite don't recognize national boundaries the way we do. In their eyes, those boundaries don't exist in regions that are predominantly Islam.

They identify the region as the "Islamic Nation." They identify Western Civilization, including the United States, as the "Christian Nation." They envision the expansion of the former at the expense of the latter.

They, and their proxies, see the United States as the "Keystone" that holds up the West, and, by extension, the West as the "Keystone" the holds up the rest the world. Destroy the ultimate Keystone, United States, and the rest comes tumbling down.

Again, that's needed for them to be able to accomplish their ultimate manifest destiny.

CuteOldGuy: They are no threat.

They are a threat, that's evident by their funding of their proxies, "terrorists" operating against Israel and elsewhere. With the money that is going to be released by the sanctions, they are going to become an even bigger threat. They will be a bigger strategic threat to the region, and a bigger asymmetric threat to the rest the world.

CuteOldGuy: They are only a threat if we keep screwing with them.

Like WTF, you need to quit thinking that they think in western terms. They don't. Their ruling elites believe in a manifest destiny involving the rest of the world, the whole world, being converted to Islam.

The only way that they will not be a threat to us is for us to convert to their version of Islam.

CuteOldGuy: How many countries has Iran attacked, compared to the USA?

Take the number of countries that have suffered terrorist attacks in the hands of Iranian funded terrorists, and you will have your answer. Your question assumes something that's outside of asymmetrical warfare, the reality with Iran lies within asymmetrical warfare.

We believe in expanding economic free-trade to more countries. That tends to benefit everybody involved. I know for fact, from having been to countries in four different continents outside of North America, that populations around the world want to become like us, and want the philosophy that we are exporting.

I have yet to be in a single country that wants to embrace Iran's radical form of Islam. Not even in Iraq, where I combat deployed to during Operation Iraqi freedom.

CuteOldGuy: They are being used as a pawn to justify even more defense spending, and more income in the pockets of war profiteers.

Realistically, if we were to take your solutions about how to deal with Iran, guess what? The geostrategic and geopolitical situation will end up changing to where the Department of Defense and the defense industry ends up getting more money, out of necessity.

No, they're not being used as a pawn to justify defense spending. We see them for what they are.

CuteOldGuy: If our foreign policy wasn't so stupid, Iran would be our biggest ally in the region, even better than Israel. And all Iran would demand is for us to stay out of their internal affairs.

From a historical standpoint, our foreign policy is what it is given that like other countries around the world, we are pursuing our national security, economic, and political interests. If the United States were to disappear overnight, along with all her people, it won't be long before another country steps in and does exactly what we're doing.

If you don't believe me, look to Southeast Asia and see what the Chinese are doing in pursuit of their own economic and political interests. The Russians taking and annexing Crimea? That's Putin pursuing Russian strategic, political, and economic interests.

This happens at all levels, from the global level all away down to local level.

However, compared to that of the non-Western countries, I would take our foreign policy over theirs.

As much as you would like to believe otherwise, Iran, in its current political state, is no friend of the United States. We could give them everything that they wanted, and their ruling elite would still want for our destruction. The only way that Iran would truly be our ally, with their current political setup, is if the United States population converted in mass to the Iranian version of Islam.

The other way, for Iran to be our ally, our true ally, would be for a change in political setup that removes the radical Islamic elite from power, and puts in place a true democratic government.

However, if we do not convert to the Iranian version of Islam, the real Iranian leadership would prevent Iran from being our true allies.

Our staying out of "their" affairs would mean just sitting by and doing nothing as they enable terrorists to destabilize our allies in the Middle East.

CuteOldGuy: No. But if we left them alone, they'd happily kill each other, rather than us.

The killings there will stop when a dominant group ends up uniting all of them under one rule. This is kind of like what happened before the Huns were able to threaten the Romans, and before the Mongols were able to threaten the Chinese. In fact, this like what happened before the Muslims pushed out and expanded beyond the Arabian Peninsula.

Those groups that you talk about, that are killing each other, all intend to reestablish the Moorish/Islamic caliphates and emirates, and then to continue on where they left off.

Also, just think of the humanitarian crisis that would result from that. Not only would we see destabilization in the Middle East, we would see a slow breakdown with European political and economic infrastructure.

Massive migrations, from the Islamic nations into Europe, saturating the European population with more Muslims, would only hasten Europe's movement towards Islamization.

Far-fetched? Even some of the European governments project that certain European countries will be Islamic countries this century. This is inevitable when European whites are declining relative to an explosion of growth of their Muslim populations.

CuteOldGuy: If you hadn't noticed, the biggest arms dealer to terrorists is us, not them. You ok with that?

Yes, but we do not believe in carrying out an action with the view of forcing people to convert to our philosophy or face death.

CuteOldGuy: We gave arms to the Syrian Rebels, which became ISIS.

ISIS evolved from Al-Qaeda in Iraq. They were defeated in Iraq, then they took off elsewhere. The United States was arming what they thought were moderate Islamists, but they were careful not to support radical Islamists.

In fact, Al-Qaeda disowned ISIS. We didn't arm them.

Syrian Rebels is too broad a term to describe the groups fighting the Syrian regime. There are multiple groups of people, not aligned under a single goal, fighting each other and the Syrian army.

So, you cannot tie our arming "the Syrian rebels" as our "arming" ISIS.

CuteOldGuy: We armed bin Laden when he was opposing the Russians in Afghanistan.

Not true. There were two groups of fighters against the Soviets in Afghanistan. One group were the Afghani group. That was the group that the United States insisted on supporting. The United States was adamant about not supporting those groups that came in from outside of Afghanistan.

Osama bin Laden was one of those people that was from outside of Afghanistan. These Arabs received their funding and arming from the countries in the Arab world. Not from the United States.

In fact, Osama Bin Ladin was a logistics officer that operated in Pakistan. His job was to make sure that fighters, coming from throughout the Arab world, were outfitted to conduct combat operations against the Soviets.

So, we did not arm Osama bin Laden or his group.

CuteOldGuy: We armed Egyptian rebels, now the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Muslim Brotherhood existed for decades, and were prevented from becoming a viable force in Egypt. The government that did so were our allies. Now, after they had taken over Egypt, they inherited US supplied weapons. You can't call that as our "arming" them.

CuteOldGuy: We are arming practically every side over there.

No, we are not arming every side over there, practically or otherwise. The US does its best to be selective as to which side gets weapons and training. The other terrorists, the radical Islamist, get their weapons predominantly from other sources. This plan isn't infallible, but it's not out to what you describe.

CuteOldGuy: It's good business. The USA is the biggest arms supplier to terrorists in the world. Wake up!

You need to qualify your statement. If you talk about the government, it's selective as to who gets to purchase its weapons. However, left out of your post is the fact that there is a large black-market for weapons sales. Those take place independent of US government oversight, given that this is the black market.

Claiming that the US government, or this country in general, is the biggest supplier of weapons to terrorists in the world is disingenuous and reeks of academic dishonesty when the black market aspect is left out.

CuteOldGuy: These wars are not about rights or freedom, they are about profits. Immoral, illegal profits. That's why there is no definition of victory. If these wars end, a lot of people will lose money. They won't end.

Wrong on all counts.

First, I know, for fact, that's more money could be made by allowing the economy to run in a true free-market method. In order to be able to do this, you need a stable government in place. This government assures that the mechanisms needed for the economy to run, in a true free-market method, are in place.

It so happens, that the government, that's required in conjunction with a population that respects rule of law, is the same kind of government that requires freedom and democracy. This, goes hand-in-hand, with true rights and freedom. What this all boils down to is "property rights."

Even when you talk about American freedom and democracy, it boils down to the right to life, property, and liberty. These three go hand-in-hand in fostering prosperity.

So yes, these wars are about freedom and democracy. Those are needed if you are to have a stable and prospering economy. A stable and prospering economy are needed if you are to make a lot of money.

Keep in mind the George Washington, and our other founding fathers, were rich men.

Much more could be made in a stable, peaceful, prospering economy/democracy, then what could be made simply providing arms to warring groups.

But, why even support certain groups against others? Why, in order for them to do the things that would otherwise be required to do with Western armies. We did that in Central America. People lambasted Reagan's efforts to fight against communist regimes in Central America.

His policies were a success, and, today, Central America is a popular tourist and retirement destination. That something that most Americans would be able to imagine back in the 1980s.

Yes, in this scenario, your statement about "money to be made" in arms dealing around the world, why aren't we doing that in mass in Central America today as we did in the 1980s? The answer is that more money is being made by their current status today.

Had Odumba follow the right policies with regards to the Middle East, that region would be well on its way to seeing the same future.

CuteOldGuy: The only good thing about the deal is that it reduces the chances that we will go to war with Iran.

No it doesn't. The chances that we would go to war with Iran, versus our not going to war with Iran, remain the same regardless of whether this deal becomes effective or not. The argument that this deal reduces the chance of us going to war with Iran is nothing but propaganda claptrap from the Obama administration.

From reading the test of the agreement, there are holes big enough for the Iranians to drive a truck through.

CuteOldGuy: That's good enough for me.

From the text of the agreement:

"2. Iran will begin phasing out its IR-1 centrifuges in 10 years."

They have 10 years before they could begin phasing those centrifuges out. Yup, that should be good enough for you, right? I downloaded it as a PDF, and I'm going through it. What the others have said against it on this thread is an understatement.

Anybody going through this document, the actual wording, would see that the Iranians made out like bandits at our expense. If the American negotiation team, that ultimately agreed to this agreement, don't feel major shame and embarrassment, I don't know what would make them feel such.

CuteOldGuy: And I don't care if they get a nuke.

Anybody should care, about a regime where the supreme leader keeps screaming "death to America", if Iran gets a nuclear bomb. It would even be a greater concern in the Gulf state area.

What's stopping Iran from deploying one of his terrorists through the US border with a suitcase nuclear bomb? I argued this scenario as a possibility 12 years ago. I still stand by that scenario as a possibility today.

THAT's how Iran mainly attacks its adversaries, by proxy.

Perhaps our awesome "ability" to "prevent" people from coming into the US from Mexico could "stop" said terrorist. If a terrorist blows up a US city, Iranians have plausible deniability.

But hey, CuteOldGuy is fine with the deal, and don't mind if the Iranians get a nuke.

CuteOldGuy: The only country in history to use a nuke other than in testing is the USA.

You're comparing apples to oranges.

The leadership of United States side weighed the options, and found that based on trends observed during World War II, it would be best to demonstrate what we can do in a way to force the Japanese to surrender. On top of that, we saw at a time where the Soviets were going with regards to the closing of World War II, and during the aftermath.

We had to demonstrate our power to them too.

Let's not forget that the United States and Russia are "cultural cousins," with the philosophy that evolved partly from Christian philosophy. Even though the Communists officially were "atheists," many were closet Christians, and embraced a Christian-based philosophy.

This philosophy did not call for forcing Christianity on 100% of the planet's population, or face death. This philosophy did not call for a promised land, and the afterlife, if you die for the cause.

The radicals in charge of Iran live by a different philosophy.

CuteOldGuy: Iran is only a threat because we keep poking at them.

No, they're a threat precisely because the philosophy of the ruling elite, as well as their support for terrorism against Israel and other opposing interests. Iran's ruling elites see us as the "Great Satan" unless we convert, in mass, to their version of Islam. If we were to do that, they will stop being a threat to us.

CuteOldGuy: If we would cultivate trade instead of meddling, they'd be a very strong ally in the ME.

Not when both countries have conflict in interests. The Iranians, or rather their radical Islamic elite, are hell-bent on getting rid of Israel. They fund terrorists fighting against Israel. They will do that regardless of whether we stay out of the Middle East, or we're doing what we've been doing there.

As long as the radical elites in Iran refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist, partly by cutting off funding to terrorism against Israel, they will never be our true allies.

I've listed above what we could do for them to be our true allies. This includes our mass conversion into their version of Islam. This includes our adapting their philosophy in the region, which is not pro-Israel existence.

Since that won't happen, as we will continue to recognize Israel's right to exist, and we will not do mass conversions in the United States to Islam, I don't foresee us being true allies with Iran in the region. That is, as long as their current political set up/arrangement continues to stand.

CuteOldGuy: But wars and rumors of wars is what keeps the cash flowing to the banks and Big Business.

No, what keeps cash flow to the banks are people depositing their money there. Do you have direct deposit? Your paycheck going to the bank represents money/cash flow to the banks. Businesses, and government institutions, depositing the money into the banks contribute to cash flowing to the banks.

Big businesses draw money in through effective customer service, and effective competition. Every time you go to the store, or purchase something, you contribute to money flowing to big businesses.

Both these things happen regardless of whether there is peace or war.

CuteOldGuy: There is no profit in peace.

Not true. There is a lot of money running around the United States. Big businesses, and banks, receive an inflow of money. The vast majority of this cash flow is a result of economic activity not having anything to do with war.

If you take the money flow that takes place as a result of war, and compare that to the money flow that takes place as a result of normal economic activity, the money flow resulting from war is small compared to the money flow from normal economic activity.

There is far more profit in peace then there is in war.

gnadfly: That's why the "snap back" sanctions argument was so laughable as well as you libtard's misplaced trust.

I started to become a news junkie back in 1982, during the Cold War. Back then, libtards/demotards had extreme trust in the Soviets' words that they were sticking to their end of the deals that they had with us. Never-mind the fact that Soviets cheated on every treaty that we had with them.

These libtards/demotards also trusted that the Soviets would reciprocate us if we were to engage in unilateral nuclear disarmament.

Thanks to a Soviet propaganda campaign that began in the 1930s, that called for Soviet sympathizers to infiltrate opinion influencing institutions in the United States, the Democratic Party started on a path that would make it more and more sympathetic, policy-wise, in favor of our adversaries.

They failed to make inroads into the Republican Party, for obvious reasons.

Their trust that the Soviets were not cheating on their treaties, and their trust that the Soviets would also disarm, is proof that this propaganda campaign was successful.

They were useful idiots back then, arguing policies that favored Soviet policy, and they are useful idiots today, arguing for policies that favor the terrorists and our adversaries today.

Reagan's policies assured the disintegration of the Soviet Union that took place in December 26, 1991. However, given the attitudes demonstrated by these libtards/demotards, one must wonder if we truly won the Cold War.

This music goes perfect as a background to liberal/progressive rants:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2YlbiyiuMc

wellendowed1911: A No vote will make ISIS very happy-

Wrong. Republican initiatives do not make our enemies, including the terrorists like ISIS, happy. A "no" vote would not prevent Iran from generating a nuclear weapon. Neither would a "yes" vote. Either way, we will see the same end result.

That would not aid ISIS in any way.

Also, the terrorists celebrated when the Democrats won big in the 2006 elections. They celebrated again when they scored big victories in 2008 and 2012. Democrat/progressive policies aid and abet our enemies and adversaries. ISIS and the others know that. The Democrats/progressives end up taking a side, during our war, that favors the opinion of the terrorists.

Their strategy, while they tried to fight the US in Iraq, entailed eroding the will of the public and getting the Democrats to have their way with getting premature troop withdrawal. They knew that they can't defeat the US military in battle.

wellendowed1911: as it stands right now Iran is the biggest deterrent to ISIS in the middle East.

No, Iran is not their biggest deterrent. They may be in Iraq providing advice, but the combined airstrikes and ground attacks against them are the biggest deterrent to them. Guaranteed, if you were to send US forces back into Iraq, we'd have them on the run in days.

I know that for fact, have seen their propaganda videos, as well as videos of them in action, of them doing stupid shit that will get them slaughtered trying to employ the same thing against our tactics.

wellendowed1911: No they don't sir except defending their land- they are surronded by hostile enemies.

No, they're not surrounded by hostile enemies. Countries that are predominantly Sunni tend to be political competitors to them. However, if they have hostility in the region against them, it's because Iranian agents have been fermenting discontent in those dominantly Sunni countries.

As far as ISIS is concerned, this is more of a Sunni versus Shiite issue that it is one that we would think would be an issue. Had Iraq been predominantly Sunni, and ISIS been predominantly Shiite, there would be no Iranian assistance to the Iraqis. The Iranians would've sat back and watched a Shiite group take over.

wellendowed1911: Shouldn't the number one job of any country be to protect its citizens ?

The radical Islamic elite in Iran does not care about the Iranian citizens. Otherwise, they would've cooperated in a way to get the sanctions lifted years ago. They went full steam ahead with their nuclear program despite the negative impact that the sanctions were having on their people.

The ruling elite is more concerned about protecting its power. With a Sunni group approaching their borders, it's no secret that they would deploy troops to assist Iraqis fight back.

wellendowed1911: Israel never signed the nuclear proliferation act but it's widely known that since the 80's - Israel has nukes- even if they announced today that they were building a nuke - all the republicans would be elated and probably would pressure Obama to give Israel everything they need to build a nuke.

Not only is you're the aim for your entire argument wrong, but your assumptions about how Republicans think is also wrong. You said it right there, they never signed the nuclear nonproliferation Treaty. As such, they are not required to be subjected to the same regime that we impose on other countries who have signed the agreement but don't possess nuclear weapons.

The fact that Israel had nuclear weapons is a fact known by both Republican and Democrat presidential administrations. We would not have to pressure anybody to give Israel everything they needed to build a nuclear weapon. Since they did not sign the treaty, they were not obligated to be bounded by it.

wellendowed1911: Most of you republicans choose to erase or distort history --

Wrong. The cold hard reality is that most of you Democrats tend to ignore, distort, or completely erase history in favor of a completely fabricated one. Or, in favor of a partially fabricated one.

For example, it was the Democratic Party that was the party of slavery, the party of Jim Crow laws, the party of segregation, and so on. The Democratic Party has even replaced the metal chains with the economic ones. Yet, you liberals want to parade around and accuse Republicans of being a racist when history dictates otherwise.

That's one of many democrat distortions of history.

I could keep going on, and provide information on how Democrats have distorted history to suit their agenda.

wellendowed1911: it was the United States who supported a brutal dictator by the name of Shah Reza Palavi. Even when the Shah's regime were violating various human rights law and jailed or killed anyone who spoke a word against the regime

First, not anyone that voiced their opinion against him, or his government, were jailed, tortured, or killed. The numbers of those actually imprisoned, or suffered the above, as compared to those who actually did what you describe, do not match.

Second, the human rights record under the current regime was/is far more atrocious than that of the Shaw. Yet, you Democrats, who consistently harp about human rights, turn a blind eye to that fact and praise this agreement. Previous administrations, both Democrat and Republican, made improvements in human rights treatment one of the conditions on Iran in order to come up with this kind of agreement.

wellendowed1911: - the U.S turned a blind eye- you know why ? Because we were more concerned in using Iran as a spy station on the soviets.

Actually, with Iran westernizing, we were more interested in leveraging their influence in the region to further our own interests. We have maritime, air, and space assets that allow us to collect intelligence on our adversaries.

Heck, the majority of the national capital cities in North America, Europe, and Asia are hotbeds for spying and espionage among adversary nations that have an embassy presence. Many of the embassy staffs are "agents." We had a spying vantage point within the Soviet Union.

wellendowed1911: So don't none of you feed me this feel good story of how we care about human lives because we don't - we only care about what's best in our interest.

A major reason to why your side gets thrown the "human rights" argument is that your side of the argument likes to throw that argument around. If we're doing it to your side of the argument, it's to point a hypocrisy out, like what I did above.

wellendowed1911: Also keep in my the Taliban were in power 5 years before we invaded Afghanistan and in those 5 years they were still as brutal as ever and one of the first words out of George W Bush's mouth were the Taliban has one of the most brutal regimes ever we need to liberate the people of Afghanistan. A total lie and bullshit - where was the U.S the previous 5 years?

Wrong, it wasn't a "total lie" and "bullshit." Anybody that thinks that he was lying and bullshitting is clueless about the asymmetrical warfare realities that we, as a population, woke up to on September 11, 2001.

Herein lies the reason your argument here falls flat on its face.

Human rights abuses, and crimes against humanity, were taking place all over the world both before, during, and after the Bush presidency. He never made "human rights", or even "human freedom" the sole or main argument made as justification for invading a country.

However, he made it a PART of his overall argument, an argument that captured elements of asymmetrical warfare. In order to have stability and prosperity, you need a healthy economy. In order to have a healthy economy, you need a strong, stable government that enforces rule of law, facilitates economic growth, protects property rights, etc.

Do that the right way, and you have a government that guarantees true freedom. True freedom begets economic prosperity, provided that rule of law is implemented.

This was one of the main strategies that he laid out in dealing with this new form of warfare.

wellendowed1911: There you go with blame game - it was Ronald Reagan who invited the Taliban fighters than at the time known as the muhajadeen to the White House and compared them to the founding fathers.

This is more of your distorting history, just like how democrats/liberals love to distort or even erase history. The Taliban didn't exist during Reagan's time. In fact, the Taliban got stood up by the Pakistanis, who needed someone in Afghanistan to protect their economic interests in Afghanistan, during the early 1990s.

The United States was opposed to supporting any fighter that wasn't Afghani, so your side of the argument is wrong when accusing the US of "arming" Bin Laden. We didn't, he received his funding from the Muslim world, who funded the Arab fighters coming in from the Middle East.

Now, here's additional history that inconveniences the liberals arguments.

The Taliban eventually gained in power to overthrow the government that was in Kabul. One of the groups that the Taliban overthrew were the very Afghanis that the US supported, through Pakistan.

The Taliban, and the fighters that you talk about who meet Ronald Reagan, are two different entities, and were actually enemies. Guess who invited Al Qaeda into Afghanistan? The Taliban. Al Qaeda, like the Taliban, are different from the people that we actually supported in Afghanistan.

wellendowed1911: Your president George W Bush had ties with the Bin Laden family you idiot!

You can't expect people to quit picking on you if you call your opposition an idiot, or dick face. Speaking of which... Before you call someone an idiot, you need to quit saying things that gives me the impression that you have your head shoved so far up your azz that you need a glass belly button to see.

Are you going to condemn an entire family for the action of a single family member? This would be like condemning your entire family for the actions of the one family member that decided to blow up a federal building.

The ties that you talk about is an effort, by a level headed member of the Bin Laden family, to join a business venture with Bush. This tie did not extend to personal ties with everybody in the Bin Laden family.

Once again, you're trying to white wash history to make it look like an entire family were terrorists, and that they were in "cahoots" with George Bush. Osama Bin Laden and his family weren't exactly "close" either. He was a reject as far as they were concerned.

wellendowed1911: You and Rey are pushing my buttons

Perhaps if you did not react to their pushing your buttons in a way that made them laugh, they'd stop pushing your buttons.

wellendowed1911: - both of those comments were very unnecessary-

Where, in the rules for this forum, does it state that other posters cannot take cracks at each other? I thought those comments were funny. That's what's expected on this forum. Also, you called someone an idiot here, remember that before you tell other people that their comments were not necessary.

wellendowed1911: I will give you both 24 hours to edit or apologize-

Who the blank made you the administrator for this forum? The only people that can make such demands, regarding the message board discipline, are the administrators. They do not need to apologize for you for that comment anymore then you need to apologize for calling someone an "idiot".

wellendowed1911: I have a political question to ask WW and you guys turn this into an attack and personal agenda against me.

Flaming is allowed in this forum, as indicated by this forum rule:

"IF you choose to play in these discussions, you are on your own. Bring your own thick skin, neosporin and bandaids (or tourniquet, whatever). Don't come running to me, or the other moderators to save you because someone hurt your feelings, or you said something stupid and got your ass handed to you."

So, when you asked about where WW was, you should have expected wisecracks from the opposition.

wellendowed1911: When the hell is this nonsense going to stop?

When you stop reacting the way you do when they throw wisecracks at you.

I've debated in forums like these for over a decade. The cold hard reality is that flaming is a natural part of an ongoing political debate thread. The best way to deal with it is to flame back, or ignore it.

Not only was their wisecracks funny, but your reactions to their wisecrack were funny. I'm not the only one laughing at your reactions. Others are. The more you show that you're bothered by this, the more they're going to push your buttons.

This is indicated on the forum rules for this forum.

wellendowed1911: I have my attorney on speed dial- you have been warned-

I'm going to call you out. Their wisecrack was consistent with the forum rules. The administrator that wrote these rules gave a fair warning to those who jump on this thread. You basically come here at your own risk. There is a reason to why he tells people, who post here, to bring their own thick skin.

By not bringing your own thick skin, you are not in compliance with the rules for this forum.

If I could see that, and your lawyer sees both the comment and the form rules for this form, I don't see how he would turn around and leverage legal action against the "offenders." One of the posters here could take you to court over this, and win.

wellendowed1911: I have zero tolerance for cyber threats and bullying-

I'm sorry, but if you're going to call someone here an "idiot," you lose the moral high ground when it comes to enforcing civility.

I'm sorry, but indicating that the person that you're looking for is with one of your family members, in a not so flattering manner, is not a cyber-threat. It's not bullying. They're simply taunting you.

If you don't do as advised in the form rules, figuratively speaking, they will taunt you again a second time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSGkBWYDmrM

wellendowed1911: I am going to ask you nicely to stop-

Do you hear the bubble laugh noises? That's them giggling at your request. They're bound to do what the form rules allow them to do. What you demand goes against the forum rules for the specific form. They are under no obligation to comply with your demands.

wellendowed1911: if not their will be legal consequences-

If they fight you back, via their own lawyers, in court, I don't see how you could win. The key question that they will entertain, in court, is the written policy for this forum.

If this forum allows people to taunt each other, and people do just that, people are going to taunt each other. On the bright side, you will give a judge and a jury something to laugh about.

wellendowed1911: I am not going to warn either one of you again- is that understood?

You just invited them to taunt you again.

wellendowed1991: This is where you are wrong my friend- and I use the word "friend" very loosely.

He's right. You, threatening legal action on the people on this thread constitutes bullying. You, making the post, would cut your legs off in court. If you take any of these guys to court, their lawyers would use the post against you. That's right after they use the actual forum rules for this forum.

In reality, the court would look at the facts. The forum rules for the politics/religion thread are clear-cut. They specifically tell people to bring their thick skin. If this goes to court, you will have a hard time arguing that what these folks are doing, based on what the forum rules allow them to do, is "illegal." Likewise, they would match the actual stalking and bullying laws to your "stalking" and "bullying" complaints.

Again, the rules for this specific forum are clear cut. You've been warned about what you'd face, you entered, faced what you were warned about, and you complained, in countering the intent of the forum rules.

Just as folks are laughing at you on this thread, it would take every inch of judicial discipline for the judge to restrain his/her own urge to laugh.

wellendowed1991: My attorney has already subpoenaed ECCIE and got a list of forum rules-

Why would he do that if all you had to do was log on to ECCIE, go straight to the forum, and show him the forum rules applicable to the specific form? You had to tell your lawyer about ECCIE, and you had to inform him that it was a forum.

Then, based on that information, he could've gone to the forum and obtain the rules from the website itself. Now, if he subpoenaed ECCIE to provide him with that information, I would encourage anybody, that you take the court, to accept the challenge and report to court with their own lawyer.

Why? If what you said were true, then your "attorney" isn't using his brain.

Also, he "subpoenaed" ECCIE? A subpoena is something that the court does to order somebody to appear in court.

Your stories are starting to look fishy.

wellendowed1991: you are NOT allowed to attack someone viciously and/or have a personal agenda/vendetta against that individual-

Oh, yeah, then we have the reasonable person standard that the courts use. A reasonable person wouldn't agree with your interpretation of their answers of where WW was. A reasonable person wouldn't see those comments as vicious attacks, nor would they see it as them having a vendetta against you.

We all get attacked in forums like this. I had an idiot tell me that my face gets more of a woman's ass than her toilet bowl does. Now, I didn't respond to that by grabbing a lawyer. I actually laughed at that, and continued to hand his arse to him with more brutal flames than what he was throwing at me.

We could either fight back, or ignore them. I choose to fight back. Trying to get a lawyer involved is weak and indicates that you are easily spun. It makes me suspect that you were picked on a lot when you were growing up. I also suspect that you spent a lot of time running to a parent and a teacher whenever your siblings or classmates got under your skin.

With that attitude, expect the posters here to spin you like a top.

wellendowed1991: I know the law and perhaps you need to contact one of the MODS so they can explain how incorrect your ASSumptions are regarding forum rules and regulations.

You'd have a leg to stand on if they did this on the other forms where it's clearly indicated as a violation. Also, if they did this via PM, email, phone, etc., outside of the board, you might have an argument.

However, in the forum where it's clearly indicated that this forum is going to be a forum where flames will be allowed, you're going to have a tough battle to fight if someone takes you up on this in front of a judge and jury.

wellendowed1991: Apparently JCM thought the same way you did and you see he is now gone- if you would like to join him for a 6 month vacation and pay some hefty legal fees keep up your agenda.

Based on what you have stated on this thread so far, there is a reasonable doubt that what you say here doesn't reflect reality. Perhaps he was removed for other reasons, as indicated by the other posters here. Or, he may have voluntarily left.

You better be careful for what you wish for. One of these posters just might hire their own lawyer, and fight you in court. Simply going by the forum rules here, your having issues with some of the responses here, which do not meet the standard for what you accuse the posters for, makes your participation here in violation of the form rules.

One of the picture that one would get from reading the forum rules here is that if a poster cannot handle the heat, said poster must leave the kitchen. If you don't leave the kitchen, said posters will taunt you a second time.

wellendowed1991: If you can't respond to me directly with a political response than do not respond to me at all-

Consistent with the forum rules, they do not even have to respond to you on the topic of the debate. Instead, they could just taunt you a second, third, and so on time. If you cannot handle the taunting, this thread, this forum, is not for you.

wellendowed1991: I am not going to playing these silly games I played with Dirty Dog and COG-

You don't have to. You can simply ignore everybody that says things that offends you, or you can simply just leave this forum and participate in the other ones. You cannot control what the other people here do. However, you can control what you do.

The power is yours. I empower you to take control of your actions, in a way that mitigates the tauntings that you get.

Keep showing the others here that you cannot handle a light humor jabbing, and you will eventually earn a nickname similar to cupcakes1991.

wellendowed1991: I have already spent too much on attorney fees to get the previous MOD removed and I am sick of the bullshit.

Well, you could've saved all that money by simply ignoring the other posters, flaming them back, or simply going away. By you're not going away, you're giving these guys the opportunity to taunt you a second time.

wellendowed1991: I am a Christian man

Matthew 5:39

Don't just say that you are Christian, BE a Christian.

wellendowed1991: and I have permission to be in these forums

Predicated on certain conditions unique to this forum. Included in that is the ability/requirement to withstand the flaming.

wellendowed1991: and I am not going to be a scapegoats for your vicious and vile attacks or your personal agendas/vendettas.

Did you mean "whipping post" instead of "scapegoat"? You do realize that you are bringing this up on yourself, do you?

You come over here, and showed the kind of reaction that you'd show when people get under your skin. Again, your reaction to other people getting under your skin makes others laugh. I laughed at what they said to you, and I laughed at your reactions. They're doing the same thing.

I've seen the flames sent your way so far. They are not vile attacks, they do not represent vendettas. I'm seeing that from a reasonable person standard. By participating on this form, and by doing things by calling people "idiots," you invite yourself to receiving similar treatment.

Again, if you cannot handle the pressure, you need to seriously reconsider your participation on this thread or forum. If not, and you continue to react the way you do to simple jabs, you're going to get taunted over and over again. Your reactions make people laugh.

Perhaps you'd find this as a better venue for your complaints, there's a fillable version if that's more desirable:

http://www.xecutionrs.com/downloadab...laint-form.pdf

Mangina Monologue

Who I do I need to contact to get released from my contract here- anyone know? Thee are just too many individuals with personal agendas/vendettas against me- enough is enough!!!! Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

You need to stop and think about what you say before you run your man pleaser in a way that makes people laugh at you.

Release from your agreement here? You have two options. Have a mod delete your account. Or, you could simply leave before these guys taunt you again.

Good god that long winded space killer is back....